DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 4/8/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 2 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
This action is made Non-Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.14:
PNG
media_image1.png
268
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) The use of physical processor (computer) does not make an abstract idea (nuclear power station simulator) integrated into practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). This would also be considered as idea of solution as nothing in the models is concretely claimed (input parameters what they represent, how are the modeled and how they are corrected to predict/mimic actual nuclear power station). The output of the model is also abstract (variable set X, nothing specific). The correction process is also abstract and can be applied to any problem, sans co-recitation with “nuclear power station”.
(Argument 2) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.14:
PNG
media_image2.png
144
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Response 2) The operative term here is applies. What is applied and how it is applied to nuclear power plant safety diagnosis is not claimed. Simply stating the nuclear power plant model is applied to diagnosis is idea of solution with no concrete recitation of what are the inputs, what are the outputs, how they are corrected, and what is applied to nuclear power plant. Even the dependent claims like 7-8 only recite this concept at abstract level, correction is shown on the abstract level and and solution is recited as random values.
PNG
media_image3.png
525
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
None of this is concrete and specifically applicable to nuclear power plant.
(Argument 3) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.14-15:
PNG
media_image4.png
257
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Response 3) Use of a processor to execute abstract mathematical concept does not make the computer a special purpose computer.
MPEP 2106 states:
The programmed computer or "special purpose computer" test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the "special purpose" of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions.
The analysis above therefore is flawed. The computer is not a special purpose computer and does not improve functioning of the computer itself (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or the technology of nuclear power plant diagnostics (MPEP 2106.05(a)) because the algorithm (abstract idea) is not integrated it into the field of use here. The output does not clearly state what actions need to be performed to nuclear power plant diagnostics/safety as a result of corrected nuclear power plant simulator output.
(Argument 4) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.15:
PNG
media_image5.png
490
682
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Response 4) First the issue here is that current specification lacks disclosure to create precise model when the precision is generated by random parameter schemes, unrelated to any specific nuclear power plant parameter. See specification [0023] as annotated in response 2 above. Secondly simply stating the model is used for cause diagnostics without any details in the claim or the specification does not integrate the invention into practical application. Further, please see Response 3 for response to special purpose computer.
(Argument 5) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.16:
PNG
media_image6.png
196
658
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
314
662
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Response 5) The corrections made do not disclose other than each abstract parameter is corrected with random set of generated values (see [0023]). Notice there is no nexus here with any specific nuclear power plant parameters or how they are corrected as shown in [0021]:
PNG
media_image3.png
525
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
If the above disclosure is the core of the above invention, the disclosure lacks any details of how any model is corrected, let alone the power station simulation model are corrected.
(Argument 6) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.:
PNG
media_image8.png
306
666
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Response 6) The specification fails to show either of the correcting the input parameters (See Responses 2 & 5), or correcting the function. It’s unclear what is applicant pointing to, to show support for. Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1
Step 1: the claims are drawn to a method, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial expception identification.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
1. (Original) A real-time simulation and behavior prediction method for a physical nuclear power station, wherein the method comprises the following steps executed by a processor:
(1) constructing a nuclear power station simulator and a physical nuclear power station based on the same design parameters;
(2) operating the nuclear power station simulator and the physical nuclear power station in parallel, and obtaining predicted parameters outputted from the nuclear power station simulator and operation parameters of the physical nuclear power station in real time;
(3) comparing the predicted parameters and the operation parameters representing the same physical quantity one by one, and
correcting prediction models in the nuclear power station simulator and input parameters of the prediction models, and
the predicted parameters infinitely approach the operation parameters until their difference reach a specified precision during long-term operation of the physical nuclear power station, thereby completing the correction of the nuclear power station simulator
wherein the prediction models are corrected when a contrast error between corresponding predicted parameter subsets and operation parameter subsets remains unchanged or continuously increases over a plurality of time steps;
(4) applying the corrected nuclear power station simulator to improve operation of the physical nuclear power station by performing at least one of:
(a) predicting a future behavior of the physical nuclear power station by inputting an initial operation condition of the physical nuclear power station into the corrected nuclear power station simulator to obtain predicted parameters representing the future behavior;
(b) diagnosing a cause of a current state of the physical nuclear power station by:
(i) receiving a measurement parameter from the physical nuclear power station as a target operation parameter set R;
(ii) using the corrected nuclear power station simulator to determine a prediction parameter set X that is closest to the target operation parameter set R; and
(iii) identifying an input parameter set EX that produces the prediction parameter set X as a cause diagnosis result of the physical nuclear power station.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) – use of generic computer to implement the method step. Also See Step 2A Prong 2.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept: With limited disclosure how the nuclear power station simulator is implemented the said simulator is best understood as defining the mathematical calculations and rejected as abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). See Step 2B for non-bolded limitation.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept: With limited disclosure how the nuclear power station simulator is implemented the said simulator is best understood as executing the mathematical calculations and rejected as abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). See Step 2B for non-bolded limitation.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Step: Comparing can be mathematical calculation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Further comparing can be a mental step based on observation (predicted parameters and the operation parameters) to come to a judgement (the result of comparing). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Abstract Idea/Mental step/Mathematical Concept: Correcting in general as claimed is understood as mental step and/or mathematical step.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Step: This aspect appears to set & evaluate a limit (“specified precision”) on when the evaluation of the prediction stops (presumably to stop training of the prediction models). This can be considered a mental step based on observation (comparison of difference meeting the specified precision) and then forming an opinion (completing the correction of the nuclear power station simulator). There may be mathematical calculation also involved (not claimed and not specifically disclose) in evaluating the specified precision. The long time operation is considered as data gathering aspect addressed in step 2A Prong 2 and 2B below. Basing mathematical operations (such as correcting) on longer duration of collected data is still mathematical operation.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Step: The evaluation (the prediction models are corrected ) based on observation (a contrast error between corresponding predicted parameter subsets and operation parameter subsets remains unchanged or continuously increases over a plurality of time steps) is considered a mental step. Determination of mathematical concept could involve mathematically determining the change.
See Step 2A Prong 2.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Step: Use of mathematical model (nuclear power station simulator) is considered as mathematical concept/mental step because they are simply providing output of a model (evaluation) based on input (initial operating condition).
See Step 2A Prong 2.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Step: This is considered as mathematical calculation wherein the input entered into the mathematical model (nuclear power station simulator). This may be mental step, where the opinion (completing a behavior prediction of the physical nuclear power station system) is formed based on the observation of the output from the mathematical model (nuclear power station simulator).
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Step: The association of measurement parameter as target operation parameter set R is considered as opinion/judgement based on observation (measured data).
The determination of EX based on proximity of prediction parameter set X with target operation parameter set R, is a mental step of forming this opinion (value of EX or cause) based on observed values of R & X (specifically evaluation of closeness of R & X). This is considered as mental step. This may also be mathematical step (like determining correlation between variables).
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
1. (Original) A high-precision high-fidelity real-time simulation and behavior prediction method for a nuclear power station, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
(1) constructing a nuclear power station simulator and a physical nuclear power station based on the same design parameters;
(2) operating the nuclear power station simulator and the physical nuclear power station in parallel, and obtaining predicted parameters outputted from the nuclear power station simulator and operation parameters of the physical nuclear power station in real time;
(3) comparing the predicted parameters and the operation parameters representing the same physical quantity one by one, and
correcting prediction models in the nuclear power station simulator and input parameters of the prediction models, and
the predicted parameters infinitely approach the operation parameters until their difference reach a specified precision during long-term operation of the physical nuclear power station, thereby completing the correction of the nuclear power station simulator
wherein the prediction models are corrected when a contrast error between corresponding predicted parameter subsets and operation parameter subsets remains unchanged or continuously increases over a plurality of time steps;
(4) applying the corrected nuclear power station simulator to improve operation of the physical nuclear power station by performing at least one of:
(a) predicting a future behavior of the physical nuclear power station by inputting an initial operation condition of the physical nuclear power station into the corrected nuclear power station simulator to obtain predicted parameters representing the future behavior;
(b) diagnosing a cause of a current state of the physical nuclear power station by:
(i) receiving a measurement parameter from the physical nuclear power station as a target operation parameter set R;
(ii) using the corrected nuclear power station simulator to determine a prediction parameter set X that is closest to the target operation parameter set R; and
(iii) identifying an input parameter set EX that produces the prediction parameter set X as a cause diagnosis result of the physical nuclear power station.
See Step 2B for WRC.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". In this case, constructing a nuclear power station simulator can be considered an idea of solution because the neither the claim nor the disclosure details any restriction on how the nuclear power station simulator is constructed, and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the construction of the nuclear power station simulator. The disclosure merely alleged use and correction of the nuclear power station simulator using a prediction model. See Step 2A Prong 1 and Step 2B for WRC for non-bolded parts of the limitation.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case the this is mere data gathering. In this case the obtaining is mere data gathering from model and actual power station and would be considered extra-solution activity. See Step 2A Prong 1 and Step 2B for WRC.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
The long term operation is understood as long-term data gathering and is considered as extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case inputting the this is mere data gathering.
Under MPEP 2106.05(h): Further the claim is considered a field of use of the judicial exception in the field of nuclear power station (operation?).
Under MPEP 2106.05(a): The judicial exception also does not improve on the function of the nuclear power station (thereby not improving the technology as per MPEP 2106.05(a)). Simply predicting the behavior does not improve or mitigate unlikely scenarios.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. This is also Under MPEP 2106.05(h) field of use (improve operation of the physical nuclear power station) limitation.
This is idea of solution, as the model is abstract representation of the nuclear power plant. Even if the model is accurate representation inputting the initial operating conditions to predict the future behavior of physical power plant does not improve the functioning of the power plant itself. This is not a solution to the problem as nothing here would tell what initial operating condition to pick so that actual power plant operation would be safe/efficient etc.
If the model is used to diagnostic purposes…
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) this is merely data gathering step of the output of the nuclear power plant.
This is an idea of solution because prediction parameter set X is understood as output of the simulator, which the claim intends to match to target operation parameter set R (output of the physical nuclear power plant) and then work backwards without any additional information to identify what the inputs EX were. E.g.
X = f(EX)1, and EX can be function made of input variables x1, x2,..xn with possible constants a1, a2,..an. To determine input variables (x) and constants (a) just from output X is not mathematically possible. This is therefore an idea of solution. There is no solution repository (actual or synthetic) or lookup table or response surface model claimed for such a reverse lookup.
These identified additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed above the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and simply predicting does not add significantly more to the practical application of the judicial exception.
Further additional limitation regarding constructing the model and actual power plant and real time data gathering are addressed under MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-known routine and conventional. As per Berkheimer Memo, such teachings can be found at least in
US 20210358647 A1
Reese; Steven R. et al.
US 20040059696 A1
Kropaczek, David Joseph et al.
US 20170091791 A1
SRINIVASAN; Jayanthi et al.
US 20200027585 A1
RUSSELL, II; William E. et al.
US 20200285788 A1
Brebner; David
US 20200103842 A1
Kobayashi; Toshiko
US 7231333 B2
Russell, II; William Earl et al.
US 7224761 B2
Popa; Frank D.
US 7685079 B2
Watford; Glen Alan et al.
US 7266481 B2
Kropaczek; David Joseph et al.
US 6748348 B1
Russell, II; William E.
US 7480599 B2
Russell, II; William Earl
US 7472045 B2
Jackson; Roland Otto et al.
E.g. US 20200103842 A1 by Kobayashi; Toshiko Shows control device 201/205 as nuclear power plant, gathering real time data and uploading it to its digital twin 212:
PNG
media_image9.png
704
896
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The claims 1 is are therefore considered to be patent ineligible.
Claims 2 & 3 (Now cancelled) are directed to abstract idea, specifically mental steps of executing the algorithm to keeping some unchanged and mathematical calculation of executing the prediction models. The newly amended limitations (31)-(33) performing two correction cycles and/or two modes still are mathematical concepts in the broadest sense – See specification [0046]-[0064]. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). These are not integrated to practical application as they do not improve on the functioning of the nuclear reactor. See MPEP 2106.05(a),(f) & (h).
The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application and do not add significantly more to improvement of nuclear power station.
Claim 3 (Cancelled).
Claims 4-9 also merely add to the judicial exception/algorithm to determine various parameters in most generic manner and are at best considered as mental step/mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) and 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The end result does not improve on the functioning of the nuclear power plant as it simply predicts the parameters and corrections in the most generic manner (so much they might as well be applicable to any multi-parameter problem), thereby failing to improve the technology under MPEP 2106.05(a). The preamble is the only aspect that connects the technology to nuclear power station, thereby making these claims field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application and do not add significantly more to improvement of nuclear power station.
Additionally, to address applicants’ remarks in view of using claiming artificial intelligence and Desjardin Memo: Claims 7 & 8 recite:
PNG
media_image10.png
790
690
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Here the reference to artificial intelligence based mode recognition/model is cursory reference and no details of the models how they are trained to replace or substitute conventional prediction model is claimed or disclosed2. At best they are understood to be mathematical constructs therefore considered mathematical concepts.
Claim 10 recites " A high-precision high-fidelity real-time simulation and behavior prediction device for a nuclear power station, wherein the device comprises a memory and a processor, the memory is used to store a computer program, and the processor is used to, when the computer program is executed, realize the method according to claim 1...". The claim 10 rejected with similar rationale as claim 1. The additional elements of processor and memory are generic processing elements representing the device, which is at best used as a tool and does not integrate the judicial exception (as detailed in claim1). See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)/(f)(3).
Claim 12 (Cancelled).
Claims 11, 13-18 are rejected in the similar manner as claims 2, 4-9 above. The additional elements of processor and memory are generic processing elements representing the device, which is at best used as a tool and does not integrate the judicial exception (as detailed in claim1). See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)/(f)(3).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) Written Description Requirement
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 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2161.01 states:
For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement").
Claim 1 & 10 recites "(3) comparing... and correcting prediction models in the nuclear power station simulator and input parameters of the prediction models and "... .
The specification ¶ Specification: [0020] [0021][0027] invoke correcting prediction models but details of how correcting prediction modelsis performed is missing the disclosure. The language in the claim can be found near verbatim in disclosure.
Applicant has pointed to specification [0035] [0045] [0063]-[0064] as providing support for prediction model are corrected (Remarks Pg.13-14 and 16):
PNG
media_image11.png
399
438
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Notice as indicated before there are no details presented in the specification regarding parameter search and prediction and artificial intelligence based mode recognition and correction algorithm. The terms are used many times in the specification but nothing in the specification shows how these two are implemented.
PNG
media_image12.png
716
442
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The above correction modes only differ in what they correct (all in first) and some (in second) model. The disclosure does not show how they are corrected.
PNG
media_image13.png
466
438
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The language presented here does not correct anything, let alone how or what is corrected and nearly identically recited in the exemplary claim 1.
On the contrary examiner points to specification [0021]-[0023]:
PNG
media_image14.png
525
443
media_image14.png
Greyscale
How the correction schemes for any variable is generated it not disclosed as can be seen above. Other than stating they are randomly generated there is no clear disclosure.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is additionally recites and is rejected for:
2. (Original) The high-precision high-fidelity real-time simulation and behavior prediction method for a nuclear power station according to claim 1, wherein the step (3) comprises two types of correction modes:
a first type of correction mode: keeping each of the prediction models used to predict all the predicted parameters in the nuclear power station simulator unchanged, and correcting the input parameters of the prediction models; [B]
a second type of correction mode: correcting some of the prediction models in the nuclear power station simulator, and not correcting the remaining prediction models themselves, but correcting the input parameters of the remaining prediction models. [A]
As per [A], first, the correcting some of the prediction models is indefinite as it lacks metes and bounds what is corrected and what is not corrected. Secondly, even if addressed, its unclear how the is correcting the input parameters of remaining prediction models any different than correcting some of the prediction model. It seems all of them are corrected?
As per [B] same concern how correcting the input parameters not correcting the prediction model. No form/detail of the prediction models is disclosed in the specification.
The amendment to further elaborate correction schemes under correction modes, but does not detail which models are corrected, which are not corrected, and what/how they are corrected. The issue is here of lack of clarity and scope of what is corrected in each of the modes. This issue was not addressed by the amendment.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Thursday, August 6, 2026
1 Specification [0054][0059] , Remarks 4/8/26 Pg.16 ¶2
2 See limited disclosure in summary section of specification ¶ [0030]-[0031].
Prosecution Insights