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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments to the claims filed on 05/11/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 15, 21, 23 and 38-43 has /have been amended, claims 4-14, 17, 19-20, 22 and 24-37 were previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 15-16, 18, 21, 23 and 38-43 are pending in the application with claims 1-3 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 15-16, 18, 21, 23 and 38-43 are as follow. The previous Drawings Objection, Specification Objection, 101 Claim Rejections, 112(a) Claim Rejections and 112 (b) Claim Rejections are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claims, the drawing and the specification with no new matter added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: elements 331, 332, 333 and 338 found in figure 3A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitation “a computing device configured to estimate” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “to estimate” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, independent claim 38 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0067], Figure 1A illustrates a block diagram representing a computerised device 101 for estimating one or more characteristics of a food item The computerised device 101 includes at least one processor 102 and at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium 103 such as memory for storing processor-executable instructions (Note: the processor alone cannot perform the functions recited in the claims, i.e. the algorithmic structure found on the processor is not found in the claims and therefore requires the computing device to be reviewed under 112(f). No specifics to any of the algorithmic structure required to complete the claimed functions is found in the disclosure, instead references to the algorithm are generic and undefined.).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15-16, 18, 21, 23 and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 38, the claim recites the limitation “the bag” in various places rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “the bag” and the sous vide bag mentioned in line 10 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
claim 15 recites the limitation “one of the one or more sensors configured to sense the temperature of the fluid” in line 4 rendering the claim indefinite. In line 2 specifically mentioned: one or more sensors to “monitor the food item” already; it is unclear how can the “one of the one or more sensors configured to sense the temperature of the fluid” as claimed? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the sensed temperature” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 21, 23 and 38-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoare et al. (US 2015/0257574 A1) in view of Denker et al. (US 2018/0324908 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 38, Hoare et al. disclose a cooking system including:
a computing device (microprocessor, MCU or other controlled device 14, [0088], Fig 1) configured to estimate thickness of a food item (information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag, [0112]) contained in a sous vide bag (a sous vide appliance for domestic use 10, [0088], Fig 1), the computing device having at least one processor and at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions (microprocessor, MCU or other controlled device 14, [0088], Fig 1);
a sous vide device adaptable to be at least partially submerged in a fluid (a sous vide appliance for domestic use 10, [0088], see Fig 1; clearly, 10 is capable of “adaptable to be at least partially submerged in a fluid” as claimed); and the sous vide bag (see under [0073-0077 & 0108-0113], Figs 19-23)
wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the processor-executable instructions, is configured to:
determine, a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag (to a sous vide appliance 250 by providing the bag with an RFID tag 251, bar code or other means of remote identification. [0112], Fig 22);
Hoare et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from a camera, image data indicative of indicia on the sous vide bag as distorted by containing the food item lying within the bag;
determine, using at least some of the image data or a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag;
determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data stored in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium of the computing device, a planar representation of the indicia;
compare the planar representation of the indicia with the image data of the indicia on the sous vide bag as distorted by the food item lying within the bag to estimate a three-dimensional (3D) shape of the bag; and
determine the thickness of the food item based on the estimated 3D shape of the bag.
Denker et al. teach a cooking system including: a computing device (computing device 206… with a general-purpose processor, [0071]), the computing device having at least one processor (Note: “a computing device configured to estimate thickness of a food item contained in a sous vide bag, the computing device having at least one processor and at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions” taught by Hoare et al. already);
wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the processor-executable instructions, is configured to:
receive, from a camera (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A), image data indicative of indicia on the sous vide bag (an integral label printer for creating a barcode such as a 2D barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, taught by Hoare et al.) as distorted by containing the food item lying within the bag (“as distorted by containing the food item lying within the bag” taught by Hoare et al. already);
determine, using at least some of the image data (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A) or a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag (“processor is configured to determine, using a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag” taught by Hoare et al. already);
determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data (a 2D barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, Hoare et al.) stored in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium (an operational memory 210, [0070], Fig 2) of the computing device (Note: “stored in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium” taught by Hoare et al. already), a planar representation of the indicia (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A);
compare the planar representation of the indicia with the image data of the indicia on the sous vide bag as distorted by the food item lying within the bag (configured by executable instructions stored in the operational memory 210 and/or the persistent memory 214, [0071]. Note: microprocessor, MCU or other controlled device 14, [0088] taught by Hoare et al.) to estimate a three-dimensional (3D) shape of the bag (camera 118A can be adapted to capture an image of content at least partially inside the chamber, [0063]); and
determine the thickness of the food item (information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag, [0112], Hoare et al.) based on the estimated 3D shape of the bag (the computing device captures one or more images in advance of the cook and determines properties of the food, [0115], Fig 9, clearly, the processor is capable of “determine the thickness of the food item based at least in part on the estimated 3D shape of the bag” as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Hoare et al. with Denker et al.’s further teaching of: wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from a camera, image data indicative of indicia on the sous vide bag as distorted by containing the food item lying within the bag; determine, using at least some of the image data or a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag; determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data stored in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium of the computing device, a planar representation of the indicia; compare the planar representation of the indicia with the image data of the indicia on the sous vide bag as distorted by the food item lying within the bag to estimate a three-dimensional (3D) shape of the bag; and determine the thickness of the food item based on the estimated 3D shape of the bag; because Denker et al. teach, in Abstract of providing an excellent computing device is operable to generate an adjusted captured image by adjusting the captured image with respect to the stabilized power and/or peak wavelength, and device comprises feedback components operable to receive the adjusted captured image, extract features, and analyze the one or more features to determine an event, property, measurement and/or status during operation.
Regarding Claims 15, 16, 18, 21, 23 and 39-43, Hoare et al. in view of Denker et al. further disclose:
Claim 15, wherein the sous vide device includes one or more sensors to monitor the food item during cooking (RFID tag 251… information such as a recommended cooking time 253 and they suggested cooking temperature 254. [0112], Hoare et al.), wherein the at least one processor of the computing device is further configured to:
receive feedback data from one of the one or more sensors configured to sense the temperature of the fluid (the camera 118A includes an infrared sensor to provide thermal images to the computing device as feedback to a heat adjustment algorithm, [0067], Denker et al.);
modify the cooking program based at least in part on the feedback data if the sensed temperature is too high (to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm, [0081], Denker et al.); and
transfer, to the at least one processor, data indicative of the cooking program as modified (to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm, [0081], Denker et al.);
wherein the sous vide device (a sous vide appliance for domestic use 10, [0088], Fig 1, Hoare et al.) is controlled by the at least one processor (microprocessor, MCU or other controlled device 14, [0088], Fig 1, Hoare et al.) according to the cooking program as modified (to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm, [0081], Denker et al.).
Claim 16, wherein at least one of the feedback data, the cooking program, and the cooking program as modified is communicated between the computing device and the cooking appliance sous vide device via a user device (a user interface 13, [0088], Fig 1, Hoare et al.).
Claim 18, wherein the image data includes one or more images of the sous vide bag containing the food item, the sous vide bag bearing the indicia (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Denker et al. Note: “the sous vide bag containing the food item” taught by Hoare et al. already).
Claim 21, wherein the at least one processor of the computing device is configured to:
record, in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium of the computing device, a status associated with the bag identifier, the status being indicative of the sous vide bag having been used (meal kit profile database 1918 can store package identifiers of one or more known meal kits/food packages, [0172], Denker et al.);
receive subsequent image data (camera 118A can be adapted to capture an image of content at least partially inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A, Denker et al.);
determine, based on an identifier of the sous vide bag captured in the subsequent image data and the status recorded in at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium of the computing device, if the sous vide bag has previously been used (means for reading the tag 231, [0112], Fig 22, Hoare et al.); and
in response to the sous vide bag having been previously used, prevent the sous vide device being controlled to cook the food item in the sous vide bag (enables the designer to specify a change of tactic/logic based on a cooking appliance's recognition of a package identifier, [0172], Denker et al.).
Claim 23, wherein: the computing device is a server processing system which receives the image data from a user device including a camera to capture the image data; or
the computing device is a user device including the camera to capture the image data (interactive user interface can be implemented on a mobile device (e.g., smart phone or electronic tablet) having a network connection with the cooking appliance, [0149], Fig 16, Denker et al.).
Claim 39, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
process the image data using a computer-vision algorithm (computing device is operable to generate an adjusted captured image by adjusting the captured image with respect to the stabilized power and/or peak wavelength, [0006], Denker et al.) to determine the thickness of the food item (information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag, [0112], Hoare et al.); or
determine the thickness of the food item based on a corresponding user input characteristic of the food item; or
generate a cooking program based on the thickness of the food item, wherein the cooking program includes at least one of a cook time and a cooking temperature.
Claim 40, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive the cooking program from the computing device (programmatically calculate how much heating… will impart to the food matter, [0123], Denker et al.); and
control one or more cooking components according to the cooking program (the computing device 206 can instruct the power source 202 to provide a set amount of DC power to the filament driver, [0075], Denker et al.), wherein the one or more cooking components comprise an impeller (a fan can be installed, [0102], Denker et al.) and a heating element (have a heater or heating elements, [0100], Hoare et al.).
Claim 41, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify air bubbles in the sous vide bag (presence of steam emanating from the food or presence of bubbles… can be used to model the interior temperature for the food and/or the state of the cooking process, [0128], Denker et al.) dependent upon local maxima in the estimated 3D shape of the bag (the computing device captures one or more images in advance of the cook, [0115], Fig 9, Denker et al.); and
present a prompt to a user to reposition the food item if it is determined that there are excessive air bubbles in the sous vide bag (Image capture and processing can also be used to detect events that may impact cooking or that results in problems for the end user, [0241], Denker et al.).
Claim 42, wherein the step of determining the thickness further comprises determining at least one of a weight, a volume, a shape, and a surface heat transfer coefficient of the food item (information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag as input into the scales through a user interface 260, [0112], Hoare et al.).
Claim 43, wherein the sous vide bag indicia (a 2D barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, Hoare et al.) comprises at least one shape selected from the group of a circular shape, a rectilinear shape (see under [0073-0077 & 0108-0113], Figs 19-23, Hoare et al.), an oval shape, and a polygonal shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to Claims 15-16, 18, 21, 23 and 38-43 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Hoare and Denker, whether considered alone or in combination, neither teach nor suggest the claimed comparison of first and second low resolution images of a bag to determine characteristics of the contents of the bag, nor provide any motivation or reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed invention”, “Applicant further submits that the Non-Final Office Action impermissibly treats image resolution as a mere design choice. More specifically, the Non-Final Office Action infers that modifying the high resolution comparison method of Hoare and Denker to use low resolution images would have been an obvious design choice”, and “Applicant accordingly submits that it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hoare and Denker to arrive at the cooking system of claim 38, because Hoare and Denker describe a comparison of high resolution images and teach away from low resolution approaches, the cooking system of claim 38 employs a fundamentally different inference regime, and there is no teaching, suggestion, motivation, or reasonable expectation of success for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art as asserted”.
The examiner’s response: The combination of Hoare et al. (US 2015/0257574 A1) in view of Denker et al. (US 2018/0324908 A1) teach exactly a cooking system as claimed under Independent Claim 38, fully discloses all the recited limitations as set forth in this office action shown above. The primary ref. Hoare et al. already teach a cooking system as claimed already, Denker et al. is cited only to teach: wherein the at least one processor, upon execution of the processor-executable instructions, is configured to: receive, from a camera (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A), image data indicative of indicia on the sous vide bag (an integral label printer for creating a barcode such as a 2D barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, taught by Hoare et al.) as distorted by containing the food item lying within the bag (“as distorted by containing the food item lying within the bag” taught by Hoare et al. already); determine, using at least some of the image data (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A) or a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag (“processor is configured to determine, using a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag” taught by Hoare et al. already); determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data (a 2D barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, Hoare et al.) stored in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium (an operational memory 210, [0070], Fig 2) of the computing device (Note: “stored in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable medium” taught by Hoare et al. already), a planar representation of the indicia (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A); compare the planar representation of the indicia with the image data of the indicia on the sous vide bag as distorted by the food item lying within the bag (configured by executable instructions stored in the operational memory 210 and/or the persistent memory 214, [0071]. Note: microprocessor, MCU or other controlled device 14, [0088] taught by Hoare et al.) to estimate a three-dimensional (3D) shape of the bag (camera 118A can be adapted to capture an image of content at least partially inside the chamber, [0063]); and determine the thickness of the food item (information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag, [0112], Hoare et al.) based on the estimated 3D shape of the bag (the computing device captures one or more images in advance of the cook and determines properties of the food, [0115], Fig 9, clearly, the processor is capable of “determine the thickness of the food item based at least in part on the estimated 3D shape of the bag” as claimed); Denker et al. do not teach away because of providing an excellent computing device is operable to generate an adjusted captured image for operational accuracy during cooking (Abstract). It is noted that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see MPEP 2123 (I). Also, during examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention”; see MPEP 2173.01(I). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. 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://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.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights