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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/25/2026 has been entered.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction – i.e. advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. Some of the relevant claimed limitations include: receiving an in-vehicle promotion/determines the in-vehicle promotion based on a time of day, a user’s location, the user’s route, nearby vendors, the user’s favorite items, and the user’s favorite vendors, based on the first destination/accepting the received in-vehicle promotion/selecting at least one item for purchase from a vendor/making a payment for the at least one item using an e-wallet/picking up , by the user, the at least one purchased item at the location of the vendor/receiving a routing update to a second destination based on the user’s selection, wherein the second destination is the location of the vendor / establishing an eligibility of the user / the Sirius SXM CV portal includes subscriptions, discounts, and promotions. Applicant’s Specification further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “methods and a system for in-vehicle contextual promotions are described” , “the driver may then make a payment for the product selection using an e-wallet and picks up the selected product”, “may receive loyalty rewards for their in-vehicle purchase”, “may receive an in-vehicle promotion, wherein the promotion includes a “remind me later” link”, “may then be redirected to a vendor’s website”, “may receive an in-vehicle promotion for businesses along a driving route”, “the driver may then be taken directly to the vendor's order screen. The default view may be the driver's favorite items or the most recently ordered items from that vendor. Alternatively, if the driver is interested in a different item than their favorites or most recently ordered, the vendor's full menu may also be easily accessible”, “As the car approaches the vendor, a message, for example, "you've arrived," may be displayed with instructions on how to pick up the user's order. The message may appear once a geo-fence of the vendor is broken by the driver's car. This may also serve as an indication to the vendor that the driver has arrived to retrieve their order.” Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which represents a method of organizing human activity, and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: picking up, by the user, the at least one purchased item at the location of the vendor. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment: establishing an eligibility of the user. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The offer engine/rules and eligibility engine represent generic computing elements. Connecting to a Sirius XM Connected (SXM CV) portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element of data gathering (breaking a geofence at the location of the vendor) represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. data gathering. The additional element of data gathering (inputting a first destination into a navigation system by a user) represents insignificant extra-solution activity -i.e. data gathering. The additional element of using voice activation to input/select data does no more than apply or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element of “driving to the second destination in response to the routing update” does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed engines represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. Connecting to a Sirius XM Connected (SXM CV) portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element of using voice activation to input/select data does no more than apply or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 is directed to a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; claim 8 does recite the same abstract idea of a commercial interaction as Claim 1; some of the relevant claimed limitations include: receiving at least one in-vehicle promotion with a “remind me later” link from a vendor, wherein the promotion is based on a time of day, a user’s favorite items, the user’s favorite vendors, the user’s radio listening behavior, the user’s past purchases, the user’s current radio station, based on the first destination/accepting the at least one in-vehicle promotion and opting to be “reminded later”/transmitting the at least one in-vehicle promotion to a companion application in response to the user opting to be “reminded” later/accessing, by the user, the at least one in-vehicle promotion /making a purchase for a product at a vendor’s website based on the at least one received in-vehicle promotion / establishing an eligibility of the user. The claim also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment: establishing an eligibility of the user. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Connecting to a Sirius XM Connected (SXM CV) portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The mobile phone app represents a generic computing element. The rules and eligibility engine represents a generic computing element. The additional element of “inputting a first destination into a navigation system” represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. data gathering. The additional element of using voice activation to input/select data does no more than apply or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the mobile phone app / rules and eligibility engine represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of using voice activation to input/select data does no more than apply or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Connecting to a Sirius XM Connected (SXM CV) portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 8 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-11 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims do not include any other additional elements. There are no additional elements that, alone or in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself – i.e. there are no additional elements that improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Nallu et al. (9581463) in further view of Baren (20190205854) in further view of Phillips (20060270421) in even further view of Patsiokas (WO 2015160859 A1).
As per Claim 1, Nallu teaches:
Inputting a first destination into a navigation system by a user; (at least: col15- last para overlapping col16 , fig13 and associated text – receiving a desired route or receiving a “desired destination” [user inputs a first destination] occurs prior to receiving merchant and available inventory data to the mobile device [receiving the promotion]; fig14A and associated text, col16, lines 50-65– user downloads and installs the application prior to using it [user activates a navigation system])
receiving an in-vehicle promotion from an offer engine ( the engine represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. at least fig13 and associated text – icon 1305)
wherein offer engine determines the in-vehicle promotion based on the user’s favorite vendors, the user’s favorite items , based on the first destination (at least col11, lines 35-45, col21, lines 55-67)
based on a user’s location, the user’s route (at least: abstract; col10 , lines 1-30: personalizing the offer based on current location, time of day)
based on a time of day, nearby vendors (at least: abstract, fig17 and associated text – listings meeting the criteria of a user may be emphasized to alert a user that an item desired by the user is located nearby to the user; col10 , lines 1-30: personalizing the offer based on current location, time of day)
Baren further teaches utilizing voice activation to accept user commands: Utilizing voice activation of the user to: (at least: para 41, 44: Additionally, I/O system 634 may include an audio device configured to provide audio outputs (such as alerts, instructions, or other information) to users and/or receive audio inputs, such as audio commands, which may be interpreted by a voice recognition system or any other command interface.)
Baren also teaches:
Establishing an eligibility of the user utilizing a rules and eligibility engine; (the engine represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. at least: para 31 – “Similarly, requestors' identities may be authenticated to determine whether they are authorized to receive the requested services [establishing an eligibility of the user] through the transportation management system 402. “ fig 4 and associated/related text and para 31 – computing element that performs the claimed limitation [rules and eligibility engine])
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Nallu’s existing features, with Baren’s feature of utilizing voice activation / establishing an eligibility of the user utilizing a rules and eligibility engine, to allow for audio inputs and to authorize system users – Baren, para 31, 41, 44.
Nallu in view of Baren further teach:
selecting at least one item for purchase from a vendor; (Nallu, at least: abstract- selecting an item and purchasing the selected item. Baren teaches voice activation inputs, as noted above.)
making a payment for the at least one item using an e-wallet; (Nallu, at least: abstract – purchasing the selected item, fig12 and associated text – icons 1230, 1235; the payment is made via a payment account, i.e. an e-wallet- at least: col10, lines 1-20. Baren teaches voice activation inputs, as noted above.)
receiving a routing update to a second destination based on the user’s selection, wherein the second destination is the location of the vendor; (Nallu: at least col10, lines 30-45; claim 1 – update the route to include the retail location based on a user selection)
driving to the second destination in response to the routing update; (at least: col 15, lines 5-30, claim 7 – the user has arrived at the purchased selected item at the updated destination)
picking up, by the user, the at least one purchased item at the location of the vendor. (Nallu: at least: col15, lines 5-30: purchase options can include merchant pickup), claim 7 – pickup instructions for the purchased selected item)
accepting the received in-vehicle promotion; (Nallu: at least: abstract, receiving selection of a selected item. Baren teaches voice activation inputs, as noted above.)
Philips further teaches:
breaking a geofence at the location of the vendor; (Phillips, at least para 17, 18, 21, abstract).
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Nallu’s existing features, combined with Baren’s existing feature, with Phillips’s feature of breaking a geofence at the location of the vendor, to provide location based services based on the vehicle location and proximity to a store/merchant – Phillips, abstract, para 13-14.
Patsiokas further teaches:
Connecting to a Sirius XM Connected Vehicle (SXM CV) portal, wherein the SXM CV portal includes subscriptions, discounts, and promotions; (at least: abstract, page 7 – discounts/promotions, “In exemplary embodiments of the present invention, a wide area satellite broadcast system, such as, for example, the SDARS system operated by Applicant hereof, Sirius XM Satellite Radio Inc., may also be used to feed content to RSEs for regular repetitive transmissions to vehicles equipped with V2V transceivers.”, abstract – subscription data)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Nallu’s existing features, combined with Baren’s existing feature, combined with Phillips’s existing feature, with Patsiokas’s feature of connecting to a Sirius XM Connected Vehicle (SXM CV) portal, wherein the SXM CV portal includes subscriptions, discounts, and promotions, to allow V2V enabled vehicles to receive adds or offers from RSEs – Patsiokas, abstract.
As per Claim 2, Nallu in view of Baren in further view of Phillips in further view of Patsiokas teach:
the offer engine is a food offer engine. (Phillips teaches a system that selects and sends food-related promotional content [food offer engine] – at least para 138)
As per Claim 3, Nallu in view of Baren in further view of Phillips in further view of Patsiokas teach:
the offer engine is a fuel offer engine. (Phillips teaches a system that selects and sends gas-related promotional content [fuel offer engine] – at least para 186: presentation of points of interest, such as gas stations)
As per Claim 4, Nallu in view of Baren in further view of Phillips in further view of Patsiokas teach:
the at least one item for purchase is selected from a list of favorite items. (Nallu, at least col11, lines 35-45: promotion is based on user preferences, shopping lists, among other things.)
As per Claim 5, Nallu in view of Baren in further view of Phillips in further view of Patsiokas teach:
access to the e-wallet requires at least one of a personal identification number (PIN), touch, and biometrics. (Nallu, at least: abstract – purchasing the selected item, fig12 and associated text – icons 1230, 1235; the payment is made via a payment account, i.e. an e-wallet- at least: col10, lines 1-20. Using biometrics to access the payment account- at least: col15, lines 20-30: mobile device can include biometric authentication and authorization systems that can be used in conjunction with a navigated shopping service.)
As per Claim 6, Nallu in view of Baren in further view of Phillips in further view of Patsiokas teach:
receiving an arrival message as the vehicle approaches the location of the vendor. (Phillips, at least: abstract – providing location based alerts, and taking a geofence into account (proximity to a store/merchant)- para 17, 18, 21)
As per Claim 7, Nallu in view of Baren in further view of Phillips in further view of Patsiokas teach:
the vendor is a user-defined favorite vendor. (Nallu, at least col11, lines 35-45: promotion is based on user preferences, ‘shopping lists…among other things’. col21, lines 55-67: ‘various modifications and changes may be made to these embodiments without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the inventive subject matter. Nallu inherently teaches user-preferred merchants.)
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of Claims 8-11. The most relevant prior art identified, Nallu et al. (9581463) in further view of Baren (20190205854) in further view of Phillips (20060270421), do not teach the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claim 8, and thus the cited prior art does not teach the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 8-11. When taken as a whole, pending independent claim 8 and thus its respective dependent claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to a judicial exception. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended and include unique elements including an SXM CV portal that make claims 1 and 8 not merely abstract ideas. In view of the amended claims, Applicant requests the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not , alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction – i.e. advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. Some of the relevant claimed limitations include: receiving an in-vehicle promotion/determines the in-vehicle promotion based on a time of day, a user’s location, the user’s route, nearby vendors, the user’s favorite items, and the user’s favorite vendors, based on the first destination/accepting the received in-vehicle promotion/selecting at least one item for purchase from a vendor/making a payment for the at least one item using an e-wallet/picking up , by the user, the at least one purchased item at the location of the vendor/receiving a routing update to a second destination based on the user’s selection, wherein the second destination is the location of the vendor / establishing an eligibility of the user / the Sirius SXM CV portal includes subscriptions, discounts, and promotions. Applicant’s Specification further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “methods and a system for in-vehicle contextual promotions are described” , “the driver may then make a payment for the product selection using an e-wallet and picks up the selected product”, “may receive loyalty rewards for their in-vehicle purchase”, “may receive an in-vehicle promotion, wherein the promotion includes a “remind me later” link”, “may then be redirected to a vendor’s website”, “may receive an in-vehicle promotion for businesses along a driving route”, “the driver may then be taken directly to the vendor's order screen. The default view may be the driver's favorite items or the most recently ordered items from that vendor. Alternatively, if the driver is interested in a different item than their favorites or most recently ordered, the vendor's full menu may also be easily accessible”, “As the car approaches the vendor, a message, for example, "you've arrived," may be displayed with instructions on how to pick up the user's order. The message may appear once a geo-fence of the vendor is broken by the driver's car. This may also serve as an indication to the vendor that the driver has arrived to retrieve their order.” Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which represents a method of organizing human activity, and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: picking up, by the user, the at least one purchased item at the location of the vendor. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment: establishing an eligibility of the user. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The offer engine/rules and eligibility engine represent generic computing elements. Connecting to a Sirius XM Connected (SXM CV) portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element of data gathering (breaking a geofence at the location of the vendor) represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. data gathering. The additional element of data gathering (inputting a first destination into a navigation system by a user) represents insignificant extra-solution activity -i.e. data gathering. The additional element of using voice activation to input/select data does no more than apply or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element of “driving to the second destination in response to the routing update” does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed engines represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality; data gathering represents insignificant extra solution activity. Connecting to a Sirius XM Connected (SXM CV) portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element of using voice activation to input/select data does no more than apply or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 is directed to a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; claim 8 does recite the same abstract idea of a commercial interaction as Claim 1; some of the relevant claimed limitations include: receiving at least one in-vehicle promotion with a “remind me later” link from a vendor, wherein the promotion is based on a time of day, a user’s favorite items, the user’s favorite vendors, the user’s radio listening behavior, the user’s past purchases, the user’s current radio station, based on the first destination/accepting the at least one in-vehicle promotion and opting to be “reminded later”/transmitting the at least one in-vehicle promotion to a companion application in response to the user opting to be “reminded” later/accessing, by the user, the at least one in-vehicle promotion /making a purchase for a product at a vendor’s website based on the at least one received in-vehicle promotion / establishing an eligibility of the user. The claim also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment: establishing an eligibility of the user. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Connecting to a Sirius XM Connected (SXM CV) portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The mobile phone app represents a generic computing element. The rules and eligibility engine represents a generic computing element. The additional element of “inputting a first destination into a navigation system” represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. data gathering. The additional element of using voice activation to input/select data does no more than apply or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the mobile phone app / rules and eligibility engine represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of using voice activation to input/select data does no more than apply or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Connecting to a Sirius XM Connected (SXM CV) portal does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 8 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-11 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims do not include any other additional elements. There are no additional elements that, alone or in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself – i.e. there are no additional elements that improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
As previously argued, Nallu teaches a system and method to provide a navigated-shopping service. The method may include receiving a destination location, accessing a route to the destination, displaying the route with indications of a plurality of purchase items, receiving selection of a selected item, and purchasing the selected item. Phillips teaches a method and system relating to location-based services and is merely used for the geo-fencing claim limitation. Baren teaches a method for receiving a request from a user computing device associated with a user for one or more items from an in-vehicle vending apparatus during a ride. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought to combine the teachings of Nallu in view of Baren if not for the claimed method. Baren merely teaches a user being able to make a purchase from an in-vehicle vending machine. The teachings of Nallu and Baren can only be equated as they both utilize a vehicle. Baren does not require the vehicle itself to provide any information to the user or for the user to provide information to the vehicle. As such, the combination would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Claims 1-7 are taught by Nallu et al. (9581463) in further view of Baren (20190205854) in further view of Phillips (20060270421 ) in even further view of Patsiokas (WO 2015160859 A1), as noted above. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned prior art analysis.
Remaining arguments: Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
3/13/2026