NON-FINAL ACTION
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
I. Acknowledgements
The instant application has an actual filing date of Aug. 18, 2022.
Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory
provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue application of U.S. Pat. 10,097,822. The ’822 patent issued from App. 14/116,382, Nov. 8, 2013, under 35 U.S.C. § 371 as a national stage entry of
PCT/IB2012/052102, filed Apr. 27, 2012. The ’822 patent claims foreign priority to European App. 11165491, filed May 10, 2011.
Claims 20-45 are pending. Claims 20-45 are newly proposed in this proceeding.
II. Prosecution History
The ’382 application was filed with 19 claims, numbered 1-11, 14, 15, and 17-221.
In the first Office action, claims 1-11, 14, 15, and 17-22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. ’382 App., Non-Final Rej., 6/6/2016, p. 5. Claims 1-3, 7-11, 17-20, and 22 were rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0235072 (Longhurst). Id. at 6. Claim 4 was rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Longhurst in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2010/0220796 (Yin). Id. at 11. Claim 5 was rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Longhurst in view of Yin and U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0224640 (Sole Rojals). Id. at 12. Claim 6 was rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Longhurst in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0314965 (Kashiwagi). Id. at 14. Claims 14, 15, and 21 were rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Longhurst in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0278984 (Suzuki). Id. at 15.
The applicant amended the claims, and, regarding the prior art rejections, argued:
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for generating an image signal in which pixels are encoded in N-bit words. The apparatus includes at least the following:
a memory;
at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to:
obtain high dynamic range pixel values in accordance with a first color representation in M-bit words;
include the high dynamic range pixel values in the image signal of N-bit words according to a second color representation; and
include in the image signal an indicator of a type of high dynamic range encoding that specifies which high dynamic range pixel values are encoded.
(emphasis added).
Applicants respectfully submit that Longhurst does not disclose each and every element recited in claim 1 as amended. In paragraph [0026], Longhurst provides that “image data 10 having a bit depth of at least n-bits (n+-bits) is converted to a lower bit depth of m-bits and encoded for distribution by an image processor 14.” In paragraph [0013], Longhurst further provides that “a mapping unit configured to map the image from the first format to the second format according to the mapping and an encoding unit configured to encode the second format image data and metadata representing the mapping into a distribution format.” As such, Longhurst provides that the data is converted from a lower bit depth to a higher bit depth based on a mapping; however, claim 1 recites “include the high dynamic range pixel values in the image signal of N-bit words according to a second color representation.” Longhurst does not include the first format into the second format; rather, Longhurst converts the first format to the second format.
In addition, paragraph [0043] of Longhurst teaches that “[w]here an image or part of an image has been encoded into a lower bit-depth representation using a special mapping then information specifying what mapping was used may be preserved and used subsequently to convert the image data back into a higher bit-depth representation for display. The information characterizing the mapping may, for example, be associated with the lower bit-depth image data as metadata.” (emphasis added). However, this information characterizing the mapping of high bit-depth to low-bit depth is not the same as “an indicator of a type of high dynamic range encoding that specifies which high dynamic range pixel values are encoded” as recited in claim 1.
’382 App., Remarks, 9/6/2016, pp. 7-8.
The examiner withdrew the previous rejections and rejected claims 1-4, 8, 10, 11, 17-19, and 22 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0269115 (Wang) in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2005/0094726 (Park). ’382 App., Final Rej., 12/16/2016, p. 4. Clam 5 was rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Park and Sole Rojals. Id. at 9. Clam 6 was rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Park and Kashiwagi. Id. at 11. Clams 7, 9, and 20 were rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Park and Longhurst. Id. at 12. Clams 14, 15, and 21 were rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Park and Suzuki. Id. at 15.
The applicant amended the claims and argued that neither Wang nor Park, nor their combination teach or suggest the newly added feature of “an indicator . . . how to transform the high dynamic range pixel values for display.” ’382 App., Remarks 3/16/2017, p. 8.
The examiner withdrew the previous rejections and rejected claims 1-4, 8, 10, 11, 17-19, and 22 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0067506 (Doser). ’382 App., Non-Final Rej., 7/27/2017, p. 4. Claim 5 was rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Doser and Sole Rojals. Id. at 8. Claim 6 was rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Doser and Kashiwagi. Id. at 10. Claims 7, 9, and 20 were rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Doser and Longhurst. Id. at 11. Claims 14, 15, and 21 were rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Doser and Suzuki. Id. at 13. Claims 1-11, 14, 15, and 17-22 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 3.
The patent owner amended the claims and argued:
Doser does not teach an indicator, as the recited claim feature does, but rather describes a way of encoding the pixel information of a high dynamic range video signal to result in a low dynamic range video signal by using weighted information (gains).
Applicant's claim specifically provides: wherein the indicator is included for specifying which high dynamic range pixel values are encoded. Doser does not suggest Applicant's specifying as claimed. Doser only mentions encoding the pixel information of the high dynamic range.
. . . .
Paragraph [0006] of Doser says nothing about a display and “how to transform the high dynamic range pixel values for display” as in Applicant’s claim 1. That is, Doser discusses encoding using a weighting and determining the transformation function; however, there is nothing that suggests Applicant’s claimed indicator included for specifying how to transform the high dynamic range pixel values for display.
’382 App., Remarks, 10/27/2017, p. 10.
The arguments regarding the prior art were found persuasive, and the examiner withdrew the § 103 rejections. ’382 App., Final Rej., 2/7/2018, p. 2. The § 101 rejection was maintained, but the claims were indicated as being otherwise allowable over the prior art. Id. at 4-5.
The applicant amended the claims to overcome the § 101 rejection, and the examiner subsequently allowed claims 1-11, 14, 15, and 17-22, providing the following statement of reasons for allowance:
The instant invention is related to generating and processing high dynamic range pixels.
Prior art was found for the claims as follows:
Wang (US 2007/0269115)
Doser (US 2009/0067506)
The closest prior art, Wang, paragraph 10, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 discloses an HDR (high dynamic range) input is converted from RGB color space into YCbCr color space; where M-bits represent the initial or input HDR image . . . in addition Wang, paragraphs 36-37 Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 discloses a single color channel comprising an HDR image represented with M-bits and the HDR image is then compressed to an HDR texture | with a different color representation and with fewer bits i.e. N-bits).
Applicant uniquely claimed distinct features in the instant invention, which are not found in the prior art, either singularly or in combination, the features are:- compute an indicator in the image signal of a type of high dynamic range encoding, wherein the indicator is transmitted for specifying which high dynamic range pixel values are encoded and how the high dynamic range pixel values are transformed for display.
’382 App., Notice of Allowability, 6/7/2018, pp. 2-3.
III. Reissue Declaration
The reissue declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because the declaration that does not identify an error being corrected by this continuation reissue application. A new declaration that identifies a new error or a statement explaining compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2), if appropriate, is required. If the same error corrected in the parent is also being corrected in the continuation reissue application, but the error is being corrected in a different way, a statement is needed to explain compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2). See MPEP § 1414(II)(D)(1).
IV. Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
A. Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception, albeit optional, to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard occurs when there is lexicographic definition in the specification.
The specification provides the following definitions:
1. “apparatus”
“The word ‘apparatus’ in this application is used in its broadest sense, namely a group of means allowing the realization of a particular objective, and can hence e.g. be (a small part of) an IC, or a dedicated appliance (such as an appliance with a display), or part of a networked system, etc.” ’822 patent, 21:56-61.
2. “arrangement”
“’Arrangement’ is also intended to be used in the broadest sense, so it may comprise inter alia a single apparatus, a part of an apparatus, a collection of (parts of) cooperating apparatuses, etc.” ’822 patent, 21:61-65.
B. 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Applicant, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how he is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
1. “processor”
"The part of a computer system that operates on data – called also a central processing unit." Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.
2. “configured”
"to set up for operation esp. in a particular way." Merriam - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1994.
3. “circuit”
“The physical connection (or path) of channels, conductors and equipment between two given points through which an electric current may be established. Includes both sending and receiving capabilities. A circuit can also be a network of circuit elements, such as resistors, inductors, capacitors, semiconductors, etc., that performs a specific function. A circuit can also be a closed path through which current can flow.” See Newton’s Telecom Dictionary. 14th Expanded Edition, Telecom Books, October 1998, describing a transmitter as a device that converts signals into electrical impulses.
C. 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Although words like “processor” and “circuit” are typically understood as connoting some structure (see the cited sources above), such a basic and broad recitation does not recite a structure that, by itself, is capable of performing the entire claimed functions. Such claim limitations are:
In claims 28-34
a receiver circuit,
(Function 1) wherein the receiver circuit is configured to receive an image signal,
wherein the image signal is a high dynamic range image signal,
wherein the image signal comprises an image,
wherein the image comprises first pixel values,
wherein the first pixel values are defined according to a first color
representation,
(Function 2) wherein the receiver circuit is configured to receive a first indicator,
wherein the first indicator indicates that the first pixel values are high
dynamic range pixel values,
(Function 3) wherein the receiver circuit is configured to receive a second indicator,
wherein the second indicator indicates that the first pixel values are low dynamic range pixel values,
wherein the first pixel values encode high dynamic range pixel luminances; and
a processor circuit,
(Function 4) wherein the processor circuit is configured to process the first pixel values, wherein the processing is in accordance with the first indicator and not in accordance with the second indicator.
Dependent claims 29-34 contain various additional modifiers to the functions identified above.
In claim 37
a receiver circuit,
(Function 5) wherein the receiver circuit is configured to receive an image signal,
wherein the image signal is a high dynamic range image signal,
wherein the image signal comprises an image,
wherein the image comprises first pixel values,
wherein the first pixel values are defined according to a first color
representation,
(Function 6) wherein the receiver circuit is configured to receive a first indicator,
wherein the first indicator indicates that the first pixel values are high dynamic range pixel values,
(Function 7) wherein the receiver circuit is configured to receive a second indicator,
wherein the second indicator indicates that the first pixel values are low
dynamic range pixel values,
wherein the first pixel values encode high dynamic range pixel luminances; and
a processor circuit,
(Function 8) wherein the processor circuit is configured to process the first pixel values, wherein the processing is in accordance the second indicator and not in accordance with the first indicator.
In claims 38-40
at least one processor circuit, wherein the at least one processor circuit is coupled to the memory circuit,
(Function 9) wherein the at least one processor circuit is configured to receive input high dynamic range pixel values,
(Function 10) wherein the at least one processor circuit is configured to encode an encoded image,
wherein the encoded image comprises output pixel values,
wherein the output pixel values are based on the input high dynamic range pixel values,
(Function 11) wherein the at least one processor circuit is configured to generate a first indicator,
wherein the first indicator specifies that the output pixel values are high dynamic range pixel values;
(Function 12) wherein the at least one processor circuit is configured to generate a second indicator,
wherein the second indicator indicates that the output pixel values are low dynamic range pixel values,
(Function 13) wherein the at least one processor circuit is configured to generate an image signal,
wherein the image signal comprises the encoded image, the first indicator, and the second indicator.
Dependent claims 39 and 40 contain various additional modifiers to the functions identified above.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Corresponding structure for the receiver circuit elements
In claims 28-34, 37
The patent owner asserts that support for the claimed “receiver circuit” can be found in the specification at col. 2, lines 34-39; col. 6, lines 28-29; col. 15, lines 37-45; col. 16, lines 28-37; col. 17, lines 2-5. See, e.g., Remarks (Aug. 18, 2022), pp. 12-13, 15-16. The examiner has reviewed the cited portions of the specification and concludes that they do not adequately support the structures recited in claims 28-34 and 37.
The specification describes a receiver 401:
The display 107 comprises a receiver 401 which receives the image signal. The image signal comprises a data segment which may contain high dynamic range pixel values in N-bit words according to one color representation or may contain low dynamic range pixel values (according another color representation). The image signal further comprises an indicator which is indicative of whether the data segment comprises the high dynamic range pixel values or the low dynamic range pixel values.
’822 patent, 15:37-45.
The cited portions of the specification, however, do not disclose any specific circuit elements corresponding to receiver 401.
Corresponding structure for the processor circuit elements
In claims 28-34, 37
The patent owner asserts that support for the claimed “processor circuit” can be found in the specification at col. 6, lines 26-30; col. 15, line 58 through col. 16, line 4; col. 16, lines 47-52. See, e.g., Remarks at 13, 16. The examiner has reviewed the cited portions of the specification and concludes that they do not adequately support the structures recited in claims 28-34 and 37.
The specification describes a display driver 405:
The extractor 403 is coupled to a processor for processing the pixel sample data. In the example, the processor is a display driver 405 which is further coupled to a display panel 407 and the receiver 401.
The display driver 405 receives the pixel sample data from the extractor 403 and the indicator from the receiver 401 and proceeds to generate a display drive signal for the display panel 407.
’822 patent, 15:50-57.
The cited portions of the specification, however, do not disclose any specific circuit elements corresponding to display driver 405.
In claims 38-40
The patent owner asserts that support for the claimed “processor circuit” can be found in the specification at col. 2, lines 31-41; col. 6, lines 11-17; col. 8, lines 34-35, 48-56; col. 10, lines 31-33, 45-46, 58-60; col. 11, lines 21-27, 39-42; col. 12, lines 16-21. See, e.g., Remarks at 16-17. The examiner has reviewed the cited portions of the specification and concludes that they do not adequately show support for the structures recited in claims 38-40.
The specification describes a content process device 103:
The audio visual content signal is then distributed to a content processing device 103 via a distribution path 105.
….
[T]he content processing device 103 may be any suitable device such as a Blue-ray™ Player, a satellite or terrestrial television receiver, etc.
’822 patent, col. 8, lines 34-35, 53-56.
The cited portions of the specification, however, do not disclose any specific circuit elements of such prior art devices or specific modifications thereto as corresponding to a “processing circuit” consistent with these claims. The specification fails to directly link these structures, or any circuit elements within them, to the claimed functions.
V. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 251
Claims 20-45 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claims 20-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
Claims 20-45 are broader in scope than the original patent claims at least in that they do not require an indicator specifying which high dynamic range pixel values are encoded and how the high dynamic range pixel values are transformed for display.
This broader aspect of the reissue claims relates to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution because it was argued as the basis for patentability over the prior art Longhurst, Wang, Park, and Doser references, as discussed above in section II.
Claims 20-45 do not appear to be materially narrowed in other respects related to the surrendered subject matter. Instead, the surrender generating limitation appears to have been entirely eliminated in these claims.
Accordingly, claims 20-45 present an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based.
VI. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 28-34 and 37-40 are 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 limitation “receiver circuit” in claims 28-34 and 37, and “processor circuit” in claims 28-34 and 37-40 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. See the discussion above regarding claim interpretation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
VII. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC B KISS whose telephone number is (571)272-3699. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Andrew Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. 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.
/Eric B. Kiss/Patent Reexam Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Cameron Saadat/Patent Reexam Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 Claims 1-23 were presented, but claims 12, 13, 16, and 23 were canceled in a preliminary amendment.
Prosecution Insights