DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to previous applications 17/092,576, 16/189,252 and 15/353,049 as well as provisional applications 62/421,507 and 62/256,355. However, the instant application comprises limitations in independent claims 1, 13 and 17 to “identify at least one rule based on an action, the action comprising at least one of a customer preference, a condition, a load type,…” These rule based actions of a customer preference, a condition and a load type are not supported by any of the prior parent applications. Therefore, for the purpose of examination herein with regards to prior art, the priority date recognized is the filing date of the instant application, which is February 26th, 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Whether a Claim is to a Statutory Category
In the instant case, claims 1-12 recite system/machine claims; claims 13-16 recite method/process claims; and claims 17-20 recite non-transitory computer-readable media/machine claims that are performing a series of functions. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention of a machine and a process. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step2A – Prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 17) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include an enumerated “abstract idea”:
A system comprising:
a memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereon; and
a processor that executes the computer-readable instructions to:
identify, by a processor executing computer-readable instructions stored on a memory, at least one rule based on an action associated with a current trip of the user, the action comprising at least one of a customer preference, a condition, a load type, data associated with a mobile unit, or alert;
determine at least one first task associated with the at least one rule required to be performed by a user of the mobile unit during a work period to comply with work regulations;
create a dynamic task list for the user comprising the at least one first task;
dynamically inject the dynamic task list into an existing workflow of the user of the mobile unit, the existing workflow comprising one or more second tasks unrelated to the at least one first task to be completed by the user within the work period, wherein the dynamic task list is dynamically injected into the existing workflow by:
identifying a point within the existing workflow to inject the dynamic task list, wherein injection of the dynamic task list at the identified point optimizes completion of at least one of: the at least one first task or the one or more second tasks;
receive input from the mobile unit indicating completion of the at least one first task associated with the at least one rule by the user; and
monitor for compliance with the at least one rule based upon the input.
[Emphasis added to show the abstract idea being executed by additional elements that do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea]
The functions of this system claim are grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity” enumerated grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve a series of steps for following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule which is a process that is encompassed by the abstract ideas of managing personal behavior. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Accordingly, claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 17) are found to recite abstract idea(s).
Step2A – Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
The abstract idea of claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 17) is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of the claims such as a memory, processor and mobile unit merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the memory, processor and mobile unit perform the steps or functions of following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer (or technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a memory, processor and mobile unit) performing functions of identifying, determining, creating, dynamically injecting, optimizing completion, receiving and monitoring that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). Accordingly, the additional elements of claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 17) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step2B: Does the Claim Amount to Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of memory, processor and mobile unit are being used to perform the steps of identifying, determining, creating, dynamically injecting, optimizing completion, receiving and monitoring amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, memory, processor and mobile unit perform the steps or functions of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule because said combination of elements remains disclosed at a high level of generality. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(l)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13 describes a method performing functions of identifying, determining, creating, dynamically injecting, optimizing completion, receiving and monitoring relating to identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one task associated with at least one rule without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a memory, processor and mobile unit that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule as noted above regarding claim 1.
Independent claim 17 describes a non-transitory computer readable media performing functions of identifying, determining, creating, dynamically injecting, optimizing completion, receiving and monitoring relating to identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a non-transitory computer readable media, processor and mobile unit that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule as noted above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 14 and 18 further describes the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. Dependent claims 2, 14 and 18 do not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of removing or determining beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality, such as a processor and as disclosed in independent claims 1, 13 and 17 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 14 and 18 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claims 2, 14 and 18 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 15 and 19 further describes the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. Dependent claims 3, 15 and 19 do not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of sorting or displaying beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality, such as a processor and as disclosed in independent claims 1, 13 and 17 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 3, 15 and 19 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claims 3, 15 and 19 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. Dependent claim 4 does not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of determining or identifying beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality, such as the processor and as disclosed in independent claim 1 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claim 4 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 5 further describes the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. Dependent claim 5 does not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of determining or identifying beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality, such as the processor and as disclosed in independent claim 1 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claim 5 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 further describes the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. Dependent claim 6 does not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of receiving or identifying beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality, such as the processor and as disclosed in independent claim 1 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claim 6 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7, 8, 10 and 11 further describes the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. Dependent claims 7, 8, 10 and 11 merely add descriptive material relating to data associated with a mobile unit without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality as disclosed in independent claim 1 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 7, 8, 10 and 11 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claim 7, 8, 10 and 11 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9 further describes the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. Dependent claim 9 does not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of receiving, identifying and interpreting beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality, such as the processor and as disclosed in independent claim 1 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claim 9 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12, 16 and 20 further describes the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules through identifying at least one rule based on an action and determining at least one first task associated with at least one rule. Dependent claims 12, 16 and 20 do not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of sending and determining beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality, such as a processor and as disclosed in independent claims 1, 13 and 17 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 12, 16 and 20 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claims 12, 16 and 20 as not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella (US 2020/0103244 A1) in view of Grabovski et al. (US 2017/0364852 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 13 and 17, Cella teaches:
A system/ method/ non-transitory computer-readable media comprising:
a memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereon; and
a processor that executes the computer-readable instructions to/ computer-readable instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processor causes the processor to (See Cella ¶ [0809-0812] – the system operating based on various forms of processors executing instructions that are stored in memory):
identify, by a processor executing computer-readable instructions stored on a memory, at least one rule based on an action associated with a current trip of the user (See Cella ¶ [0665-0668] – contemporaneously capturing multiple examples of vehicle telemetry data and human vehicle operator responses to said vehicle telemetry examples to control said vehicle with an optimized safety margin, thereby showing association with a current trip of a user by example, [0678] – identifying rules based on desired outcomes), the action comprising at least one of a customer preference (See Cella ¶ [0678] – identifying rules based on desired outcomes from user preferences), a condition (See Cella ¶ [0386-0387] – action based on the condition of higher priority), a load type (As the specification of the instant application uses temperature adjusting as an example of actions based on rules for load type, see Cella ¶ [0653] – adjusting temperature in a controlled environment of a vehicle), data associated with a mobile unit (See Cella ¶ [0699] – ranking data displayed to a user on an interface based on data from a user’s mobile device), or alert (See Cella ¶ [0405 – rules for providing forward-sensing alerts based on vehicle operating conditions);
determine at least one first task associated with the at least one rule required to be performed by a user of the mobile unit during a work period to comply with work regulations (See Cella ¶ [0372] – an AI system used to accomplish tasks based on rules, [0375] – a range of parameters taken as inputs, including satisfaction and routing parameters, such as a required time of arrival [rule required to be performed by example], type of trip and goals for a trip [work period by example] and satisfaction of operating parameters for fleet managers, owners, operators, insurers, regulators [complying with work regulations by example] and [0384] – a user indicating on an interface [mobile unit] various tasks to be completed, such as completing a shopping list, delivery schedule, meetings, goals; wherein said interface is in-vehicle or a mobile device [of a user]);
create a dynamic task list for the user comprising the at least one first task (See Cella ¶ [0372] & [0375] as noted above and [0392] – labeling activities in a visual pattern by category [e.g., what work process is being done], thereby creating a list by example, to automate workflows that involve decision-making [such as selecting an optimal configuration for a system or sub-system, selecting an optimal path or sequence of actions in a workflow, process or other activity that involves dynamic decision-making], thereby showing dynamic task list creation by example);
dynamically inject the dynamic task list into an existing workflow of the user of the mobile unit (See Cella ¶ [0372] – system interacting with users on their mobile device, [0392] – selecting an optimal sequence of actions in a workflow based on dynamic decision making, wherein said sequence of actions is a list by example and activities are labeled based on a work process being done; thereby showing an existing workflow by example and [0432] – displaying actions to a user involving vehicle routing), …,
…;
receive input from the mobile unit indicating completion of the at least one first task associated with the at least one rule by the user (See Cella ¶ [0372] – system interacting with users on their mobile device to accomplish tasks based on rules, [0384] – inputs including completion of a task, including completing a delivery schedule and [0391] – the system reinforcing learning [input by example] based on verification of successful outcomes [completion of the at least one first task associated with the at least one rule by example]); and
monitor for compliance with the at least one rule based upon the input (See Cella ¶ [0391] – the system reinforcing learning [monitoring] based on verification of successful outcomes [rule based task completion]).
While Cella teaches a system for dynamically managing tasks in a workflow of a user of a mobile device (Cella ¶ [0372], [0392] and [0432] – displaying actions to a user involving vehicle routing), Cella does not explicitly teach the existing workflow comprising one or more second tasks unrelated to the at least one first task to be completed by the user within the work period. This is taught by Grabovski (See Grabovski ¶ [0058] – the instructions of a first and a second workflow of a first and a second fulfillment program may be provided to the portable device based on other relevant information… if the user is currently located in one of the aisles of the retail store and is retrieving an item per a “Pick” business process of the first workflow, the next instruction sent to the portable device by the order fulfillment management engine may be a “Pick” business process of the second workflow, rather than the next subsequent instruction in the first workflow). Grabovski further teaches wherein the dynamic task list is dynamically injected into the existing workflow (See Grabovski ¶ [0090] – The task execution component automatically requests assignment of a new task to the associate by sending a request to the task management system. Upon receiving a request signal, the task management system determines which task in the catalog to assign to the associate and what business process should be executed based on the business rules defined in the prioritization agent and the sequencing agent [dynamic task list is dynamically injected into the existing workflow by example]).
Grabovski further teaches identifying a point within the existing workflow to inject the dynamic task list, wherein injection of the dynamic task list at the identified point optimizes completion of at least one of: the at least one first task or the one or more second tasks (See Grabovski ¶ [0058] – the instructions of a first and a second workflow of a first and a second fulfillment program may be provided to the portable device based on other relevant information… if the user is currently located in one of the aisles of the retail store and is retrieving an item per a “Pick” business process of the first workflow, the next instruction sent to the portable device by the order fulfillment management engine may be a “Pick” business process of the second workflow, rather than the next subsequent instruction in the first workflow and [0076] - the scheduling is based, at least in part, on task prioritization information received from the prioritization agent and sequencing optimization agent. For example, the scheduling agent may schedule tasks with shorter deadlines prior to the tasks that have later deadlines [optimizes completion of at least one of: the at least one first task or the one or more second tasks by example]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the task management system of Cella the use of task injection between two previously assigned tasks as taught by Grabovski to allow a user to easily create or modify a fulfillment workflow by selecting desired predefined common business processes and creating any additional custom business processes which may be required (Grabovski ¶ [0006]), thereby increasing the efficiency of the task management system of Cella.
Regarding Claim 2, 14 and 18 modified Cella teaches:
The system/ method/ non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1/ 13 and 17, wherein the processor further executes the computer-readable instructions to remove the at least one first task from the workflow upon determining the compliance with the at least one rule (See Cella ¶ [0392] – editing [removing] and sequencing content in a workflow based on dynamic decision making [rule compliance by example]).
Regarding Claim 3, 15 and 19, modified Cella teaches:
The system/ method/ non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1/ 13 and 17, wherein the processor further executes the computer-readable instructions to sort/ sorting by the processor, the at least one first task along with additional tasks in the workflow based on a priority, wherein higher priority tasks are displayed before lower priority tasks (See Cella ¶ [0392] – sequencing content [sorting tasks by example] in a workflow based on dynamic decision making [rule compliance by example], [0416] – adjusting a route of a vehicle based on prioritizing parameters used in a vehicle routing system and [0699] – ranking algorithms promoting more useful items higher in lists).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Cella teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the action comprises the condition, and wherein the processor further executes the computer-readable instructions to:
determine a satisfaction of the condition based upon a location of the mobile unit; and
identify the at least one rule based upon the satisfaction of the condition (See Cella ¶ [0375] – routing parameters [condition] based at least on current vehicle location and [0425] – configuring routing parameters [condition] based on the satisfaction of an objective [rule], such as avoiding high-crime areas or traffic).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Cella teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the action comprises the load type, and wherein the processor further executes the computer-readable instructions to:
determine the load type (See Cella ¶ [0654] – recognizing a load as a particular occupant of a vehicle); and
identify the at least one rule based upon the determined load type (See Cella ¶ [0654] – adjusting the interior environment of the vehicle to said occupant’s preferences [rule] or varying said environment to improve the health of said occupant [rule]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Cella teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the action comprises the data associated with the mobile unit, and wherein the processor further executes the computer-readable instructions to:
receive the data from the mobile unit; and
identify the at least one rule based upon an interpretation of the data (See Cella ¶ [0649-0650] – collecting data from a vehicle [mobile unit] and using said data to train an AI system [rules] to mimic driver behavior).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Cella teaches:
The system of claim 6, wherein the data comprises sensor data received from sensors mounted on the mobile unit (See Cella ¶ [0647] – sensor data from vehicle mounted sensors).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Cella teaches:
The system of claim 6, wherein the data comprises data related to at least one of an operation of the mobile unit or environment conditions in, or surrounding, the mobile unit (See Cella ¶ [0405] – data relating to a vehicle operating in high traffic areas [other vehicles surrounding the monitored vehicle]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Cella teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the action comprises the alert, and wherein the processor further executes the computer-readable instructions to:
receive the alert from an alert source; and
identify the at least one rule based upon an interpretation of the alert (See Cella ¶ [0405] – providing alerts for to increase following distances [rule] when adverse conditions are detected, such as weather related conditions or traffic).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Cella teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein the alert source is a third party vendor (See Cella ¶ [0377] – in-vehicle interfaces may be from third parties).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Cella teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein the alert comprises at least one of a weather alert, a traffic alert, or indication of social unrest (See Cella ¶ [0372] – AI system gathering data from multiple vehicles [inputs/ alerts] in a peer-to-peer manner to make informed decisions relating to at least routing parameters, [0405] – providing alerts for to increase following distances [rule] when adverse conditions are detected, such as weather related conditions or traffic and [0425] – configuring routing parameters [condition] based on the satisfaction of an objective [rule], such as avoiding high-crime areas or traffic).
Regarding Claim 12, 16 and 20, modified Cella teaches:
The system/ method/ non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1/ 13 and 17, wherein the action comprises the customer preference, wherein the compliance with the at least one rule corresponds to compliance with the customer preference, and wherein the processor further executes the computer-readable instructions to send a notification to at least one of a user of mobile unit or a customer associated with the customer preference indicating the compliance with the customer preference upon determining the compliance with the at least one rule (See Cella ¶ [0048-0050] – determining a routing preference based on a response from a user [rule] and notifying a user with a reward based on said preference [compliance with said rule]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
The amendments to independent claims 1, 13 and 17 do not show the claim limitations as a whole as integrated into a practical application nor as significantly more than an abstract idea, therefore the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Contrary to the applicant’s submission that claims 1, 13 and 17 are not directed to any examples of “managing personal behavior”, but rather said claims are directed to a system that operates to “create a dynamic task list,” “inject the dynamic task list into an existing workflow,” and “monitor for compliance with the at least one rule based upon the input.”, independent claims 1,13 and 17 do in fact recite an example of “following rules or instructions”, wherein a series of instructions of how to hedge risk was established by Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (2010) (See MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)II.C). The claims of the instant application as they are currently limited explicitly show “following rules or instructions” by comprising the limitations: “identifying at least one rule based on an action…” and “determining at least one task associated with the at least one rule…” Therefore, independent claims 1, 13 and 17 do in fact recite an enumerated abstract idea.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that claim 1 (and 13 and 17) shows integration into a practical application with features that allow for updates to be made to a user's workflow without manual intervention, allow for real-time monitoring of any problems or failure to complete a task with rule compliance and result in a determination of an optimal location at which to insert the dynamic task list into the existing workflow, the limitations of said claims do not clearly, positively show any improvement to the underlying technology and remain disclosed as a series of functions executed by technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality in a manner that is not more than merely applying a computer or a processor such that the additional elements of said claims, alone and in combination, do not show integration into a practical application or amount to more than mere computer implementation of the abstract idea of managing personal behavior by following rules as discussed above in the current rejection. The dynamically inject step that has been amended to include identifying a point within the existing workflow to inject the dynamic task list, as well as the other steps of said claims executed by the processor remain as not limited beyond merely “applying” a processor to perform said steps, which is not more than computer implementation of the abstract idea and does not show integration into a practical application or amount to significantly more than said abstract idea. Therefore, any improvement shown by the claims is to the abstract idea itself, not to the functioning of a computer or a particular technology and one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize said claims as comprising a technical improvement. The applicant is reminded that the specification of an instant application is not read into the claims during examination.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that the claims of the instant application are analogous to McRO, the claimed rules of the instant application are not related defining morph weight sets as a function of the timing of phoneme sub-sequences as they are currently limited and are therefore not analogous to McRO.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-20 remain as not patent eligible for their dependency on their respective independent claims and for the reasons noted above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
The amendments to independent claims 1, 13 and 17 are sufficient to overcome the Cella prior art reference, therefore the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is withdrawn. However, as detailed above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 1-20 of the instant application, as they are currently limited, remain unpatentable over Cella in view of Grabovski. Any arguments solely against Cella are herein rendered moot.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW S WERONSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A. Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW S WERONSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627