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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 22, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the arguments and amendments entered on August 22, 2025 for the patent application 17/279,313 originally filed on March 24, 2021. Claims 30-32, 34-35 and 62-69 are amended. Claims 1-29, 33, 36-61 are cancelled. Claims 70-73 are new. Claims 30-32, 34-35 and 62-73 are pending. The first office action of July 11, 2023; the second office action of November 3, 2023; the third office action of March 6, 2024; the fourth office action of August 28, 2024; and the fifth office action of January 21, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
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 30-32, 34-35 and 62-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 30 is directed to “a method,” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “dynamically adapt a real-time visual feedback,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 30:
“A) compute dynamically adjustable virtual environment comprising a character of said patient located within said dynamically adjustable virtual environment;
B) compute a virtual task to be performed by said patient using at least one imaginary movement within said dynamically adjustable virtual environment;
C) collect bioelectrical data via electrodes configured to detect current from a body of said patient during said at least one imaginary movement, wherein said bioelectrical data comprises at least one of the following:
i) said patient's electroencephalogram data being a set of actively signals of said patient's nervous system; said set characterized by a signal registration time and a signal amplitude thereof; and
ii) said patient's electromyogram data being a set of activity signals of said patient's nervous system; said set characterized by a signal registration time and a signal amplitude thereof;
D) extract at least one characteristic feature of said bioelectrical data collected during said at least one imaginary movement, wherein the at least one characteristic feature is selected from: a spectral characteristic, a time-series characteristic, a wavelet decomposition characteristic, a spatiotemporal characteristic and any combination thereof;
E) classify said extracted characteristic features into an action pattern, using an action pattern classification model configured to recognized imaginary movements based on patterns of actions configured in advance;
F) compute a control command for said dynamically adjustable virtual environment based on said defined action pattern, by calculating parameters of the control command based on corresponding parameters of the action pattern and operation of a user interface;
G) present on a display and within the user interface, the character performing an action in the dynamically adjustable virtual environment based on the control command;
H) evaluate execution performance of the patient's at least one imaginary movement by calculating correlation values between actions performed by the character based on said control command corresponding to said patient's at least one imaginary movement and an expected state of the character defining accurate performance; and
I) according to said correlation values, dynamically adapt a real- time visual feedback presented within the user interface, for indicating real-time performance of the executed virtual task of said patient within the dynamically adjustable virtual environment according to said patient's at least one imaginary movement.”
These limitations simply describe “a training program” (i.e. Multimedia Plus, Inc. v. PlayerLync LLC, 695 F. App’x 577 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Likewise, the limitations describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and “a mental process of evaluating” (i.e. In re BRCA1 and BRCA2-Based Heredity Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a processor,” “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” and “a user interface,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “dynamically adapt a real-time visual feedback,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a processor,” “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” and “a user interface,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the claimed “a processor,” and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” are described in para. [0032] as follows: “[0032] In another particular embodiment of a computer-implemented method of generating control commands based on operator's bioelectrical data comprises steps of: (a) providing a computer-implemented system for generating control commands; the system comprising a processor and a memory for storing instructions for implementing the method.” These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic processor and memory, which provides no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment.
Finally, the claimed “a user interface,” is described in paras. [0433] and [0437] as follows:
“[0433] The main stages of interaction of the classifier and the game are show in FIG. 7. After the game is launched from the user interface, the main software sets the connection with the game for data exchange. Next, it is necessary to configure the game framework in the game properties window.”
“[0437] When the time is over, the game session is over, the game closes, and the user interface shows the results of the training.”
This element is minimally described in the written description of the specification as originally filed. At best, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic display and provides no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment.
As such, the claimed limitations of “a processor,” “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” and “user interface,” are reasonably understood as not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 31-32, 34-35 and 62-69 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 31-32, 34-35 and 62-69 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 30. Therefore, claims 30-32, 34-35 and 62-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
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.
Claims 30-32, 34-35 and 62-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 recites the following limitations: “A treatment method comprising: administering a treatment to a patient identified as having brain damage, traumatic brain injury, or a condition resulting in decreased and/or disturbed physical activity, including conditions associated with prolonged loss of mobility following surgery, injury, or accident.”
These limitations are not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. Specifically, the written description of the specification as originally filed fails to disclose any details with regard to a “a treatment method” or “administering a treatment” as claimed. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 31-32, 34-35 and 62-73 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claim 30.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on August 22, 2025 related to claims 31-32, 34-35 and 62-73 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “In order to promote the examination, Applicants amended Claim 30 to a treatment method comprising administering a particular treatment to a patient identified as having brain damage, traumatic brain injury, or a condition resulting in decreased and/or disturbed physical activity, including conditions associated with prolonged loss of mobility following surgery, injury, or accident. Basis can be found, inter alia, in, paragraphs [0004], [0094], and [0459] of the published application No. US20220051586.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims fail to disclose any particularities with the alleged “particular treatment.” Likewise, the written description of the specification as originally filled fails to disclose any particularities with the alleged “particular treatment.” Specifically, the limitation of “a particular treatment,” is completely absent within the claims and written description of the specification as originally filled. As such, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§101 and 112(a) are warranted. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant contends that even if the claim allegedly recites certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., real time rehabilitation and training) or mental processes, it is not directed to an abstract idea alone.
Applicant contends that the claim does not recite a judicial exception since the claim recites a step of administering a specific treatment to a patient identified as having brain damage, traumatic brain injury, or a condition resulting in decreased and/or disturbed physical activity, including conditions associated with prolonged loss of mobility following surgery, injury, or accident, which does not set forth or describe any recognized exception.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims do not provide “a step of administering a specific treatment to a patient.” Specifically, the word “specific” is not claimed. Further, “providing a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium with program instructions executed by the processor,” is not reasonably understood or interpreted as any form “specific treatment.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant contends that amended Claim 30 is analogous to Example 43, Claim 5 from the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Treating Kidney Disease. Claim 5 is directed to a treatment method comprising administering a particular treatment to a patient identified as having a particular disease. In that example, Claim 5 was found eligible because under Step 2A Prong One, the recited step of administering the particular treatment to a patient having a particular disease does not set forth or describe any recognized exception. The example explains that, thus, the administration step here is not a judicial exception. Because the claim does not recite a judicial exception, it cannot be directed to one, and the claim is eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “the examples” consist of hypothetical cases that may parallel Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions. The examples are not considered precedential and are not fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. As such, the Applicant's arguments with regard to “Example 43” do not super cede the Examiner’s subject-matter eligibility analysis using precedential Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions.
Second, the Applicant’s claims are not directed to “a treatment method comprising administering a particular treatment to a patient identified as having a particular disease.” In fact, “a particular disease,” is neither identified in the claims or the written description of the specification as originally filed. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submits that, under the analysis set forth in Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), as supplemented by subsequent guidance, the pending claims do not recite a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon), and are therefore directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Nonetheless, without conceding that amended Claim 30 recites a judicial exception, and solely for the purpose of providing a comprehensive response, Applicant addresses Step 2A, Prong Two. The following arguments are made in the alternative and do not constitute an admission that any judicial exception is present in the claim as currently amended.
The 2019 PEG includes a “treatment/prophylaxis” consideration, under which a claim can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. This consideration encompasses the integration of any type of judicial exception into a practical application, including abstract ideas such as the mental comparison of immunization-related information in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, which was practically applied by actually immunizing mammals in accordance with a particular immunization schedule. An October 2019 Update explains that this consideration encompasses both treatment and prophylaxis limitations, including, e.g., acupuncture, administration of medication, dialysis, organ transplants, phototherapy, physiotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, and the like.
Applicant contends if the amended claim is alleged to recite an abstract idea, the amended claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific treatment. The treatment is specifically identified, and therefore it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception(s).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) with regard to Particular Treatment and Prophylaxis in Step 2A Prong Two: Examples of "treatment" and prophylaxis" limitations encompass limitations that treat or prevent a disease or medical condition, including, e.g., acupuncture, administration of medication, dialysis, organ transplants, phototherapy, physiotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, and the like. For example, an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases is considered to be a particular prophylaxis limitation that practically applies the abstract idea. See, e.g., Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066–68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500-01 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.
Here, the Applicant’s claims at best provide an intended use of “administering a treatment to a patient identified as having brain damage, traumatic brain injury, or a condition resulting in decreased and/or disturbed physical activity, including conditions associated with prolonged loss of mobility following surgery, injury, or accident.” Specifically, the limitations are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used. In fact, none of the steps in claim 30 provide any form of “treatment for, to cure.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “This treatment step is particular, and it integrates the mental analysis step into a practical application.
This treatment step is analogous to the eligible claims in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Classen, the court found that claims directed to "immunizing a mammalian subject" according to a particular immunization schedule were patent eligible because they included a specific, tangible application of the abstract mental step of comparing immunization schedules.
Similarly, amended Claim 1 goes beyond merely providing “a training program” and specifically requires treating the patient identified as having brain damage, traumatic brain injury, or a condition resulting in decreased and/or disturbed physical activity, including conditions associated with prolonged loss of mobility following surgery, injury, or accident with a particular treatment. This treatment step applies the alleged mental process or method of organizing human activity of “a treatment program” in a meaningful way that goes beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis at Step 2A prong two for “Practical Application,” and it is not to be considered a "utility test." Instead, and as previously stated above in the office action, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a);
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first four bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Further, the claims are not on point with “Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC,” since, no form of “comparison” takes place in claim 30. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
The Applicant respectfully argues “Even if the claim were considered to be directed to an abstract idea (which Applicants contend it is not), the claim recites significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites an unconventional technique for treatment of a patient identified as having brain damage, traumatic brain injury, or a condition resulting in decreased and/or disturbed physical activity, including conditions associated with prolonged loss of mobility following surgery, injury, or accident. This is not a well- understood, routine, or conventional activity in the medical field. The combination of steps in the treatment, represents an inventive concept.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, caims may include limitations directed to concrete and tangible computer hardware, for example, and still remain directed to abstract ideas. See Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811F.3d1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims reciting generic computer components such as an "interface," "network," and "database" are directed to an abstract idea). Merely identifying certain tangible, concrete physical limitations in the claims does not establish that the claims amount to "significantly more" than an abstract idea or that the claims have been transformed into an inventive concept. See Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324--25 (holding that limitations reciting generic computer components such as an "interface " "network " and "database" "do not satisfy the “inventive concept requirement”; "The bare fact that a computer exists in the physical rather than purely conceptual realm is beside the point" (citations omitted)).
Here, the Applicant’s claim limitations of “a processor,” “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” and “a user interface,” do not satisfy the “inventive concept requirement.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Further evidence that the claim includes elements that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus is patent eligible is provided by a lack of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, a prior art search is not necessary to resolve whether the additional element is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity because lack of novelty (i.e., not finding the element in the prior art) does not necessarily show that an element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by those in the relevant field. Second, as previously stated, Applicant’s claim 30 merely recites a generic computer performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality which do not meaningfully limit the claims to amount to anything “significantly more.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The amended claim is also analogous to Example 49, Claim 2 from the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Fibrosis Treatment. In that example, the claim was found eligible because it included a combination of steps including the administration of a “particular treatment” when considered in the context of the claim as a whole. The patient is identified as belonging to a specific patient population, and the patient is then administered a treatment that is particular to that specific patient population.
Amended Claim 30 similarly includes steps of identifying the patient as belonging to a specific patient population (having brain damage, traumatic brain injury, or a condition resulting in decreased and/or disturbed physical activity, including conditions associated with prolonged loss of mobility following surgery, injury, or accident) and administering a treatment that is particular to that specific patient population (as claimed). Like Example 49, Claim 2, amended Claim | integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, “the examples” consist of hypothetical cases that may parallel Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions. The examples are not considered precedential and are not fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. As such, the Applicant's arguments with regard to “Example 49” do not super cede the Examiner’s subject-matter eligibility analysis using precedential Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions.
Second, the Applicant’s claims are not directed to either a “Fibrosis Treatment” or “administering a treatment that is particular to that specific patient population.” In fact, “a treatment” for “a specific patient population,” is neither identified in the claims or the written description of the specification as originally filed. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant submits that amended Claim 30 is also analogous to Claim | that was found eligible by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Appeal 2018-001446. The PTBA found that the Claim | recites a judicial exception, but that the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The PTBA explains that Claim | recites additional limitations, which focus on treatment of a specific tumor. These limitations when considered individual and in combination, integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, these limitations apply the recited abstract idea to improve the selection of a treatment plan type that is optimal for treatment a particular patient’s tumor. The claim limitations, thus, provide a technical improvement in the evaluation of cancer treatment plans. Similarly, amended Claim 30 recites a treatment for a specific medical condition, where the treatment includes dynamically updating a user interface that is optimal for treatment of the patient’s particular brain damage, traumatic brain injury, or a condition resulting in decreased and/or disturbed physical activity, including conditions associated with prolonged loss of mobility following surgery, injury, or accident. The claim limitations thus provide a technical improvement in medicine, in particular, in the medical field of treatment of brain damage, traumatic brain injury, or a condition resulting in decreased and/or disturbed physical activity, including conditions associated with prolonged loss of mobility following surgery, injury, or accident.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Decisions originating from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board are classified as non-precedential and are not fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. Only Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions are considered precedential and are fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. As such, decisions originating from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board contain non-binding precedent and do not super cede the Examiner’s subject-matter eligibility analysis using precedential Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are reasonably considered and continue to be unpersuasive. Thus, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “However, in order to prompt examination, Applicant amended the aforementioned feature to “user interface”. Support is found, inter alia, in paragraphs [0433] and [0437] of the published application No. US20220051586.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn. However, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715