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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 20 March 2026:
Claims 1, 11, 13, 15 and 18-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 application regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “integrity attributes” in line 9, as to whether these integrity attributes are the same integrity attributes recited earlier in the claimed limitation. It is also unclear due to the lack of indicating which “integrity level” the claim is referring to in line 12. The Examiner is unsure whether this integrity level is referring to the integrity level for the communication from the first component to the second component, or if it’s referring to the integrity level of the first component or second component specifically. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “integrity attributes” in line 4, as to whether these integrity attributes are the same integrity attributes recited in independent claim 1. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “integrity attributes” in line 5, as to whether these integrity attributes are the same integrity attributes recited in independent claim 1. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “integrity attributes” in line 5, as to whether these integrity attributes are the same integrity attributes recited in independent claim 1. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “integrity attributes” in line 2, as to whether these integrity attributes are the same integrity attributes recited in independent claim 1. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “integrity attributes” in line 16, as to whether these integrity attributes are the same integrity attributes recited earlier in the claimed limitation. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “integrity attributes” in line 7, as to whether these integrity attributes are the same integrity attributes recited in independent claim 15. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “integrity attributes” in line 6, as to whether these integrity attributes are the same integrity attributes recited in independent claim 15. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “integrity attributes” in line 6, as to whether these integrity attributes are the same integrity attributes recited in independent claim 15. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-7, 12-14 and 16-17, the claims are rejected because they are dependent to a previous rejected claim.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. 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.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights