Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Applicants Request for Reconsideration filed 8/27/25 which has been entered. Claims 9 and 15 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 16-18 have been added. Claims 9, 13, and 15-18 are still pending in this application, with Claim 9 being independent.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. “Link means for communication” of claims 9, 13, and 15-18 are interpreted to cover a radio as in Fig. 4
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure does not disclose the establishment that the motion vectors of both hearing aids are synchronous based on a determination of respective x/y/z-components of the motion vector of one hearing aid and respective x/y/z- components of the motion vector of the other hearing aid indicating that the hearing aids are moving in opposite directions with respect to the respective x/y/z directions. Para 0064 states “the hearing aid user turns his or her head, the left and the right hearing aid move in different directions”, “when e.g. turning the head (yaw), one hearing aid will move forward, and the other will move backward”, and “when tilting the head to the side (roll), one hearing aid will move upwards and the other one downwards.” However, these statements are not discussed in relation to establishing that the hearing aids are in a condition of normal usage, as claimed.
Claim 15 further introduces new matter. The original disclosure does not disclose a determination of respective x/y/z-components of the motion vector of one hearing aid and respective x/y/z- components of the motion vector of the other hearing aid indicating that the hearing aids are moving at a same rate in opposite directions with respect to the respective x/y/z directions and further does not disclose that the establishment of whether the hearing aids are in a condition of normal usage is based on such a determination, as claimed.
Claims 17 and 18 further introduce new matter. The original disclosure does not disclose establishing the condition of normal usage based on roll, yaw, and pitch detected from the motion vectors, and further does not disclose establishing normal usage based on roll, yaw, and pitch being less than a predetermined value. Para 0064 discusses determining yaw or roll from motion patterns and para 0084 mentions determining a state of manipulation if yaw, roll, or pitch exceeds a certain rate. However, nowhere discloses that all three of yaw, pitch, and roll are used together nor that all three of yaw, pitch, and roll are used in relation to determining normal usage. Para 0090 does state that normal use is declared after motion has “settled down to a low level”. However, the motion is not related back to roll, pitch, and yaw, as claimed.
It is also important to note that nowhere in the specification and nowhere in the claims are the movement/motion vectors clearly defined in relation to what constitutes normal usage. The concept of motion vectors in the x/y/z coordinate plane is introduced, but nowhere actually compares motion vectors of each hearing aid in relation to normal usage. Para 0064 discusses using a difference in motion patterns from each accelerometer to provide gyroscope capability, but ultimately does not relate the motion patterns to a condition of normal usage. Further on, there are steps for determining use state, but there is no indication that motion vectors from each accelerometer are compared in any way. In fact, the language used seems to indicate that a use state is determined for a singular hearing aid without any consideration of the second hearing (other than a passing mention that “hearing aids of a pair move mutually independently” in a state of manipulation). Though it’s not quite clear what is being referred to in these passages regarding what is being moved. The top of page 12 of the Specification lists trip points for declaring a condition of manipulation, but it is unclear if the attitude, linear acceleration, and rotation at an angular rate are referring to one hearing aid, both hearing aids, the head of the user, or possibly even something else.
Further, movement of hearing aids in a normal use position exist where x/y/z components are not moving in opposite directions, like when a user looks forward and walks forward. Opposite direction movement in regards to the x/y/z coordinate system seems to indicate that there must be head rotation of some sort. However, once again, nowhere in the specification and nowhere in the claims is a point of rotation defined. There exist points of rotation where respective x/y/z components of each hearing aid will not move at the same rate while moving in opposite directions. Ultimately, the disclosure simply does not clearly present what determinations are made regarding the motion vectors in the x/y/z coordinate system in relation to what constitutes the normal use position of the hearing aids. Just because the claims have added ways in which one might obviously determine synchronous motion/normal usage, does not mean that the inventor or joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The establishment of normal usage could have been done in different ways.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kofod-Hansen et al. US Publication No. 20140321682 (from IDS) in view of Ide US Publication No. 20170010674, and Bhandari et al. US Patent No. 10845379.
Referring to claim 9, Kofod-Hansen et al. teaches a hearing aid system, comprising a left hearing aid, a right hearing aid (para 0184: “The binaural hearing aid system comprises first and second hearing instruments (HI-1, HI-2) adapted for being located at or in left and right ears of a user.”), an external device (para 0154: “the system is adapted to establish a communication link between the hearing assistance device and the auxiliary device”), and link means for communication between the hearing aids and the external device (Fig. 3: antenna (ANT) and transceiver circuitry (Rx/Tx) in HI-1 and HI-2; para 0154: “the system is adapted to establish a communication link between the hearing assistance device and the auxiliary device to provide that information (e.g. control and status signals (e.g. a signal from a detector, e.g. a control input signal), possibly audio signals) can be exchanged or forwarded from one to the other.”), each hearing aid having a respective housing (Fig. 6a: HA1 and HA2 housings), a respective processor (Fig. 3: signal processing unit SPU in each of HI-1 and HI-2) and a respective inertial measurement circuit (Fig. 3: control center DET-CTR and detector DET1 in each of HI-1 and HI-2; para 0177: “DET1 may e.g. comprise a movement sensor, e.g. an acceleration sensor for detecting a linear acceleration of the hearing assistance device and/or a gyroscope sensor for detecting a rotational acceleration of the hearing assistance device.”), wherein the link means enables an exchange of data from the respective inertial measurement circuits between the two hearing aids and with the external device (para 0154: “the system is adapted to establish a communication link between the hearing assistance device and the auxiliary device to provide that information (e.g. control and status signals (e.g. a signal from a detector, e.g. a control input signal), possibly audio signals) can be exchanged or forwarded from one to the other.”), wherein at least one of the two hearing aids and the external device comprises software to establish whether motion vectors by the hearing aids (para 0177: “a movement sensor, e.g. an acceleration sensor for detecting a linear acceleration of the hearing assistance device and/or a gyroscope sensor for detecting a rotational acceleration of the hearing assistance device. Such sensors are e.g. available from Bosch (cf. e.g. MEMS sensor BMX055, comprising both).” – Examiner notes that the MEMS sensor BMX055 is a 9 axis sensor comprising a 3-axis accelerometer) indicate movement as if placed in a normal use position at a head, to establish that the hearing aids are in a condition of normal usage; and wherein at least one of the two hearing aids and the external device comprises software to establish that the motion vectors by both of the hearing aids indicate movement (para 0158: “the respective control units of the two hearing assistance devices are adapted to compare their respective corresponding control input signals and to use the result thereof as an input to controlling the activation or deactivation of said low-power mode of operation of the hearing assistance device.”; para 0186: “In an embodiment, the control input signals ID1 of the respective hearing instruments are compared, and if both comprise an audio signal (INw) or a voiced signal (INm), it is a good indication that the hearing instruments are in operational use (and that a low-power mode should not be entered).”; para 0178: “Detector 1 (DET1) providing control input signal ID1 is assumed to comprise a movement detector configured to indicate whether the hearing assistance device is in movement (ID1=MOVE) or not (ID1=STILL)” – Examiner notes that “operational use” means that the hearing aids are each in respective ears to indicate normal usage) based on a determination by the hearing aid system that an x-component of the motion vector of one hearing aid, an x-component of the motion vector of the other hearing aid, a y-component of the motion vector of the one hearing aid, a y-component of the motion vector of the other hearing aid, or a z-component of the motion vector of the one hearing aid, a z-component of the motion vector of the other hearing aid, the motion vectors being with respect to an x-direction, a y-direction, and a z-direction of an orthogonal coordinate system of the hearing aids (para 0177: “DET1 is a sensor providing signals relating to a current physical environment of the hearing assistance device. DET1 may e.g. comprise a movement sensor, e.g. an acceleration sensor for detecting a linear acceleration of the hearing assistance device and/or a gyroscope sensor for detecting a rotational acceleration of the hearing assistance device. Such sensors are e.g. available from Bosch (cf. e.g. MEMS sensor BMX055, comprising both).” – Examiner notes that the MEMS sensor BMX055 is a 9 axis sensor comprising a 3-axis accelerometer).
However, Kofod-Hansen et al. does not teach determining synchronous motion, however, Ide teaches at least one of the two devices comprises software to establish whether motion vectors by the two devices are synchronous (para 0059: “the portable electronic device 200 detects the motion M2, which is generated by the motion indicated by arrow Ma…Also at this time, the wearable device 100 detects the motion M1, which is also generated by the motion indicated by arrow Ma. Data representing the motion M2 that is measured by the motion sensor of the portable electronic device 200 is transmitted…from the portable electronic device 200 to the wearable device 100, where the data is received. The wearable device 100 then compares the received data of motion M2 with data corresponding motion M1 and determines whether the two motions are similar or in alternative implementations whether the motion are synchronized.”; para 0030: “whether the two motions are synchronized (e.g., their accelerations are in synchrony)”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine synchronous motion, as taught in Ide, for the system of Kofod-Hansen et al. because it provides a more detailed assessment of the movement of devices, rather than merely indicating a simple yes or no to whether there is movement, which provides more data to make a more accurate decision on whether the hearing aids of Kofod Hansen are worn and in operational use. For example, two hearing aids may be moving at the same time, but if the motion itself of each is not similar in some way, then the hearing aids likely aren’t both placed in the ears in an operational mode. Therefore, it is beneficial to compare further motion data of each device when determining operational/normal use.
However, Kofod-Hansen et al. and Ide et al. do not teach comparing directions of motion, but Bhandari et al. teaches motion vectors by both of the hearing aids are synchronous based on a determination by the hearing aid system that an x- component of the motion vector of one hearing aid and an x- component of the motion vector of the other hearing aid indicate that the one hearing aid and the other hearing aid are moving in opposite directions with respect to the x-direction, a y-component of the motion vector of the one hearing aid and a y-component of the motion vector of the other hearing aid indicate that the one hearing aid and the other hearing aid are moving in opposite directions with respect to the y-direction and a z-component of the motion vector of the one hearing aid and a z-component of the motion vector of the other hearing aid indicate that the one hearing aid and the other hearing aid are moving in opposite directions with respect to the z-direction (Column 2, Lines 63-67 to Column 3, Lines 1-11: “if the MEMS accelerometer of hearing aid 110 registers a forward acceleration, and the MEMS accelerometer of hearing aid 120 registers a rearward acceleration, these data can be used to determine that user 130 is rotating their head from right to left (panning motion). In another example, if the MEMS accelerometer of hearing aid 110 registers an upward acceleration, and the MEMS accelerometer of hearing aid 120 registers a downward acceleration, these data can be used to determine that user 130 is rolling their head from to right (roll left/right). In still another example, if the MEMS accelerometer of hearing aids 110 and 120 both register a similar acceleration, these data can be used to determine that user 130 is tilting their head forward/backwards (tilt forward/back). Other acceleration data can be used to compute that user 130 is moving their head in various combinations of pan, roll, and tilt.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare motion directions and acceleration, as taught in Bhandari et al. et al., in the system of Kofod-Hansen et al. and Ide et al. because determining opposite directional movement and similar acceleration patterns are another way to more accurately indicate that hearing aids are worn on a user and indicate synchronous movement.
Referring to claim 13, Kofod-Hansen et al. teaches the hearing aids are aligned on a common axis that passes through the hearing aids in the condition of normal usage, and wherein a distance between the hearing aids on said common axis is constant when the motion vectors by both of the hearing aids are synchronous (para 0199: “when they are placed in/on the ears they are separated by the head”; para 0186: “In an embodiment, the control input signals ID1 of the respective hearing instruments are compared, and if both comprise an audio signal (INw) or a voiced signal (INm), it is a good indication that the hearing instruments are in operational use (and that a low-power mode should not be entered).”; para 0178: “Detector 1 (DET1) providing control input signal ID1 is assumed to comprise a movement detector configured to indicate whether the hearing assistance device is in movement (ID1=MOVE) or not (ID1=STILL)” – Examiner notes that claim 9 states that the motion vectors are synchronous when both hearing aids are placed in a normal use position at the head, and Kofod-Hansen teaches hearing aids at respective ears of the user, therefore, Kofod-Hansen teaches the existence of synchronous motion vectors. Therefore, when the hearing aids are at the ears of the user, a distance between the hearing aid is constant when motion vectors of the hearing aids are synchronous.).
Referring to claim 15, Kofod-Hansen teaches the two hearing aids and the external device (paras 0184, 0154), Ide teaches at least one of the two devices comprises software to establish whether motion vectors by the two devices are synchronous (para 0059) and Bhandari et al. teaches motion vectors by both of the hearing aids are synchronous based on a determination by the hearing aid system that the x- component of the motion vector of the one hearing aid and the x- component of the motion vector of the other hearing aid indicate that the one hearing aid and the other hearing aid are moving at the same rate in opposite directions with respect to the x-direction, the y-component of the motion vector of the one hearing aid and the y-component of the motion vector of the other hearing aid indicate that the one hearing aid and the other hearing aid are moving at the same rate in opposite directions with respect to the y-direction and the z-component of the motion vector of the one hearing aid and the z-component of the motion vector of the other hearing aid indicate that the one hearing aid and the other hearing aid are moving at the same rate in opposite directions with respect to the z-direction (Column 2, Lines 63-67 to Column 3, Lines 1-11). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 9.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kofod-Hansen et al., Ide, and Bhandari et al., as shown in claim 9 above, and further in view of Pedersen et al. US Publication No. 20150230036.
Referring to claim 16, Kofod-Hansen et al. teaches each hearing aid has a respective accelerometer configured to detect the motion vector for each hearing aid (para 0177). However, Kofod-Hansen et al., Ide, and Bhandari et al. do not teach using the accelerometers to detect roll, yaw, and pitch, but Pedersen et al. teaches each hearing aid has a respective accelerometer configured to detect the motion vector for each hearing aid, and wherein the at least one of the two hearing aids and the external device comprises software to combine the motion vectors detected by each accelerometer of the one hearing aid and the other hearing aid to detect rotation, the rotation comprising a roll component, a yaw component, and a pitch component (para 0282: “An accelerometer will measure the direction of the gravity field and the pitch can then be determined by calculation of the difference between the actual directions of the gravity and a previous determined `normal` direction i.e. the established z-axis. If two hearing aids both estimate pitch, they can combine their results for better precision.”; para 0283: “With an accelerometer there are two ways to estimate yaw”; para 0287: “Roll can be determined as yaw but using acceleration in the z-plane instead of the x-plane.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use accelerometers to determine rotation, as taught in Pedersen et al., in the system of Kofod-Hansen et al., Ide, and Bhandari et al. because it prevents the need for a gyroscope or more elaborate, expensive, and complicated sensor by utilizing a standard accelerometer to achieve more tasks and also provides further assessment of the movement of devices to make a more accurate decision on whether the hearing aids are worn and in synchronous motion..
Referring to claim 17, Pedersen et al. teaches the at least one of the two hearing aids and the external device comprises software to establish that the hearing aids are in the condition of normal usage based on the roll component, the yaw component, or the pitch component detected from the motion vectors (para 0282: “An accelerometer will measure the direction of the gravity field and the pitch can then be determined by calculation of the difference between the actual directions of the gravity and a previous determined `normal` direction i.e. the established z-axis. If two hearing aids both estimate pitch, they can combine their results for better precision.”; para 0283: “With an accelerometer there are two ways to estimate yaw”; para 0287: “Roll can be determined as yaw but using acceleration in the z-plane instead of the x-plane.”; 0313-0315: “the movement sensor (e.g. an accelerometer) is used to detect that the hearing instrument is placed on the ear and then configured to power up fully with full gain. The following three or four detections could preferably be present: Movement: The hearing instrument is not lying still. Angle: The angle of the hearing instrument is close to the angle it is expected to have when operationally mounted on the ear” – Examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art could use the accelerometer, which is used to determine yaw, roll, and pitch, as in paras 0282, 0283, 0287, to determine normal usage positions of the hearing aids, as in paras 0313-0315.). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 16.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kofod-Hansen et al., Ide, and Bhandari et al., and Pedersen et al., as shown in claims 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Chen US Publication No. 20150312393.
Referring to claim 18, Pedersen et al. teaches the at least one of the two hearing aids and the external device comprises software to establish that the hearing aids are in the condition of normal usage based on the roll component, the yaw component, and the pitch component detected from the motion vectors (paras 0282,0283, 0287,0313-0315). However, Kofod-Hansen et al., Ide, and Bhandari et al., and Pedersen et al. do not teach rotation being less than a value, but Chen teaches rotation being less than a predetermined value (para 0031: “the user performs the removing action… detects whether the angular velocity of the mobile phone is greater than a threshold value – Examiner notes that if angular velocity being above such threshold value indicates removal, being below the value will mean that the device is held steady at the ear or the device is laying still. Especially with other metrics defined earlier that establish motion does exist, the rotation below the threshold will obviously indicate normal usage at the ear.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare rotation to a threshold, as taught in Chen, in the system of Kofod-Hansen et al., Ide, and Bhandari et al., and Pedersen et al. because it provides further assessment of the movement of devices to make a more accurate decision on whether the hearing aids are worn and in synchronous motion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 9, 13, and 15-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571) 272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693