DETAILED ACTION This application is being examined under AIA first-to-file provisions. Status of claims Canceled: none Pending: 1-20 Withdrawn: none Examined: 1-20 Independent: 1 and 11 Allowable: none Rejections applied Abbreviations x 112/b Indefiniteness PHOSITA "a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention" x 112/b "Means for" BRI Broadest Reasonable Interpretation x 112/a Enablement, Written description CRM "Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language 112 Other IDS Information Disclosure Statement x 102, 103 JE Judicial Exception x 101 JE(s) 112/a 35 USC 112(a) and similarly for 112/b, etc. 101 Other N:N page:line x Double Patenting MM/DD/ YYYY date format Priority As detailed on the 11/15/2022 filing receipt, this application claims priority to no earlier than 5/25/2012 . All claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date. Objection to the specification: title The title should be amended to more specifically reflect the claims, particularly referencing steps/elements: setting the context of the invention, particular to all claims, and distinguishing the instant application from any related applications, for example: electroencephalogram , systems plural, machine learning, action prediction, stimulus control . The title should be "descriptive" and "as... specific as possible" (MPEP 606, 1st para. and 37 CFR 1.72; also MPEP 606.01 pertains). Claim objections Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-10, 11, 16-17, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. In each objection the claims are definite with respect to the issues cited here because interpretation would have been sufficiently clear to PHOSITA, but nonetheless the claims are objected to for consistency among the claims or as otherwise indicated. With regard to any suggested amendment below to overcome an objection, in the subsequent examination it is assumed that each amendment is made. However, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. Any amendments in response to the following objections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. The following issues are objected to: Claim Recitation Comment 1, 4, 7, 9-10, 11, 13, 16-17, 19 for each of the set of EEG systems Should read "for each system of the set of EEG systems" The same issue occurs with "for each user of the set of users..." Relatedly, in claim 12, "the set of users [[are]] is ..." Relatedly, in claim 13, "...between the set of users..." should read either "... between within the set of users ..." or "... between the users of the set of users ..." Claim rejections - 112/b The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 112/b, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112/b as indefinite: Claim Recitation Comment (suggestions in bold) 1, 7, 11, 19 receive...; and predict...; and generate...; and modify... Claim 1 is to a 101 machine or manufacture, i.e. a " system " in this instance, interpreted by statute according to its claimed physical structure , but it is not clear what is the structure associated with the recited " receive...," "predict...," "generate...," "modify ..." and similar steps. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claim is limited according to these steps. MPEP 2106.03, 5th-6th paras. pertain. The recited " system " is interpreted as not clearly requiring structure linking the " system " to the recited steps in a structural sense appropriate to a claim to a machine or manufacture. PHOSITA may understand these elements to comprise computer processors, but structure should be recited specifically corresponding to the recited, stored software. While these elements may comprise software storage in some embodiments, it is not clear that all embodiments of these elements must comprise software storage corresponding to the recited process steps . This rejection might be overcome by, for example, reciting a data storage device, comprised by the " system ," and instructions stored therein and configured according to the recited elements and steps. MPEP 2173.05(p).II pertains regarding a claim directed to both product and process. Process steps within claims 11 ( as for claim 1) , 7 and 19 (i.e. "is sampled") similarly render those claims indefinite. 1, 11 processing system Indefinite under 112/b after invoking 112/f. Recites means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here " system ") and function and/or result (here " processing ") without specifying steps or structure to prevent invoking, and it is not clear that the specification discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts rather than just function and results , noting that any disclosure must be clearly linked to the invoking recitation and that the above citation to the specification does not clearly disclose structure sufficient to satisfy 112/b. There appears to be no disclosure of the recited "processing system." While the claim recites some structure, e.g. "receive an optical signal," other recited functions lack adequate recited structure to prevent invoking, e.g. "predict..." and "generate..." While inputs and/or outputs are disclosed, there is not clear disclosure of analysis required to proceed from inputs to outputs. MPEP 2181 pertains, and MPEP 2187, FP 7.34.23 lists options for overcoming the rejection. MPEP 2161.01.I "Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description For A Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation" also pertains. 1 control system Indefinite under 112/b after invoking 112/f. Recites means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here " system ") and function and/or result (here " control ") without specifying steps or structure to prevent invoking, and it is not clear that the specification discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts rather than just function and results , noting that any disclosure must be clearly linked to the invoking recitation and that the above citation to the specification does not clearly disclose structure sufficient to satisfy 112/b. There appears to be no disclosure of the recited " control system." While the claim recites some structure, e.g. "receive an optical signal," other recited functions lack adequate recited structure to prevent invoking, e.g. "predict..." and "generate..." While inputs and/or outputs are disclosed, there is not clear disclosure of analysis required to proceed from inputs to outputs. MPEP 2181 pertains, and MPEP 2187, FP 7.34.23 lists options for overcoming the rejection. MPEP 2161.01.I "Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description For A Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation" also pertains. Claim rejections - 112/a The following is a quotation of 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. Regarding issues of written description support stemming even from the original claims and original disclosure, MPEP 2161.01.I (e.g. 6th para.), 2163.I and 2163.I.A pertain: "[O] riginal claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed" (MPEP 2161.01.I,6th para.). Written description Claims 1-20 are rejected under 112/a as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims read on subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to PHOSITA that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted. With regard to any suggested amendment(s) below to overcome a rejection, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. Claim 1 recites "...predict an action identifier based on the optical signal using machine learning techniques..." The specification discloses only ([26]): In one example, a processor coupled to a camera adjacent the user and implementing machine vision and machine learning techniques can isolate objects within the field of view of the camera to couple an associated action tag (e.g., an action tag related to cooking if the camera detects a pot, spoon, and stovetop adjacent the user) to the bioelectrical signal dataset. The claim reads on any action, any optical signal and any machine learning technique, however the disclosure is limited to cooking and camera image segmentation without any particular disclosure as to the type of machine vision or machine learning. The scope of the claim is not commensurate with the disclosure. MPEP 2161.01.I "Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description For A Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation" also pertains. Claim 11 similarly lacks support. As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, ( i ) by narrowing to clearly supported embodiments and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations. In general, it is requested that any claim amendment in this regard be accompanied by citations to support in the original disclosure. MPEP 2163 generally pertains. Claim 1 recites "... processing system ..." and "...control system..." The specification does not disclose these terms , and the specification does not adequately disclose the recited processes, e.g. the recited "predict...," "generate..." and "modify.. . " Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, examples from the specification are not imported into the claims as limitations absent a clearly limiting definition in the specification. (MPEP 2145.VI pertains.) MPEP 2161.01.I "Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description For A Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation" also pertains. Claim 11 similarly lacks support. As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, ( i ) by narrowing to clearly supported embodiments and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations. In general, it is requested that any claim amendment in this regard be accompanied by citations to support in the original disclosure. MPEP 2163 generally pertains. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohlmeyer ( NPL as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892 ). Regarding claim 1 , the recited electroencephalogram (EEG) systems , electrodes, optical sensors , stimulus and users read on "Computer vision," "human vision," " scalp EEG signals , " "video" ( Pohlmeyer : p. 1, last para.; p. 2, 2nd para.; and entire document ) and " C3Vision focuses on users’ ERP responses when they observe images for which they currently have an interest " ( Pohlmeyer : p. 2 , 2nd para.; and entire document ), " longer or better training regimes should be attempted to explore whether the current detector could become advantageous to more users " ( Pohlmeyer : p. 1 2, 1st col., last para.; and entire document ) and " post-stimulus " ( Pohlmeyer : § 3. 2 ; and entire document). The recited machine learning, optical signal and predicted action identifier read on " semi-supervised computer vision system " ( Pohlmeyer : abstract; also §2.5; and entire document ) and " The interest scores are based on decoding the electroencephalographic (EEG) correlates of target detection, attentional shifts and self-monitoring processes, which result from the user paying attention to target images " ( Pohlmeyer : abstract ; and entire document ). The recited stimulus modification reads on, for example, Pohlmeyer 's "CL-C3Vision system" refinement ( Pohlmeyer : § 4. 2; and entire document ). To the extent that the limitations of the claims throughout this rejection are not explicitly taught with the recited relationships and sequencing among limitations or are taught by different embodiments within the same reference as for example Pohlmeyer's computer vision versus human vision, then in the absence of a secondary consideration to the contrary it would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA to try the recited combination of limitations as those limitations are taught individually as described above. Trying the recited combinations would have been examples of combining prior art elements, in some instances elements taught within the same reference, according to known methods to yield predictable results and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143.I pertains). The art is applied to claims 4 , 9 and 11 as described for claim 1. The claims 2-3 motion signals read on " Five subjects were excluded because they showed a larger probability of blinking or making other eye movements " ( Pohlmeyer : p. 5 , 2nd col., 2n d para.; and entire document ). The claim 5 trend analysis reads on " pattern discovery " ( Pohlmeyer : p. 4, 1st col., last para. ; also §2.5; and entire document ). The claim s 6 and 18 aggregated bioelectrical signals read on Pohlmeyer 's Fig. 4 and related analyses in Pohlmeyer ( Pohlmeyer : Fig. 4; also § 3.2 ; and entire document). The claim s 7 and 19 time window reads on " 100 ms time window " ( Pohlmeyer : §3.2 ; also Fig. 4 ; and entire document). The claim 10 audio signal reads on " auditory stimulus " ( Pohlmeyer : p. 8, 1st para. ; also p. 2, 2nd para.; and entire document). The claim s 12-14 user demographics and subsets of users read on " handicapped users " versus " able-bodied users " ( Pohlmeyer : p. 2, 2nd para. ; and entire document) and " user generated ‘interest’ scores " ( Pohlmeyer : abstract ; and entire document ) . The claim 15 bioelectrical signal comparison reads on Pohlmeyer 's " EEG interest detector " ( Pohlmeyer : §3.2; also Fig. 4; and entire document ) , which compares and learns from EEG activity among users . The claim 16 marketing content reads on Pohlmeyer's " product databases " ( Pohlmeyer : § 1, 1st para. ; and entire document ). The claim 17 timestamp reads on Pohlmeyer 's " real-time " tests and the timing information inherent to that teaching ( Pohlmeyer : p. 4, 1st col., 3rd para. ; and entire document). Relatedly, Pohlmeyer teaches a "time window index" ( Pohlmeyer : p. 3, last para.; and entire document). Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohlmeyer as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-19 above and further in view of Scott ( NPL as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892 ) . The claim s 8 and 20 anonymization reads on " Confidential data may be encrypted or anonymized ... " ( Scott : p. 2, 2nd col., 1st para.; and entire document). Combining Pohlmeyer and Scott In the absence of a secondary consideration to the contrary, it would have been prima facie obvious for PHOSITA to modify the electroencephalogra phy teaching of Pohlmeyer using the related teaching of Scott . As motivation to combine, an advantage taught by Scott of modifying methods such as those of Pohlmeyer would have been the teaching of Scott that " We present COINS, the institutional data repository solution ... and demonstrate its value in large-scale functional NID sharing and analysis ... " ( Scott: p. 2, last para. ). Thus, PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Pohlmeyer using the above techniques of Scott in order to achieve the above advantage. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Pohlmeyer and Scott are generally drawn to related teaching, and PHOSITA would have understood how to and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Scott to the related teaching of Pohlmeyer . Claim rejections - 101 35 USC 101 reads: 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. For each rejection below, dependent claims are rejected similarly as not remedying the rejection, unless otherwise noted. J udicial exceptions (JE) to 101 patentability Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter. After consideration of relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, each claim is directed to one or more JEs (i.e. an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, a law of nature and/or a product of nature), as identified below. Any elements or combination of elements beyond the JE(s) (i.e. "additional elements") are conventional and do not constitute significantly more than the JE(s). Thus, no claim includes additional elements amounting to significantly more than the JE(s), as explained below. In Alice , citing Mayo and Bilski , two Mayo/Alice questions determine eligibility under 101: First, is a claim directed to a JE? And second, if so, does the claim recite significantly more than the JE? MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (1st & 2nd prongs) and 2B as follows below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials . Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.03 [Step 1: claims 1-20 : YES] Step 2A, 1st prong: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? -- abstract idea -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04 Preliminarily, in a 1st prong of Step 2A, elements of independent claim 1 are interpreted as directed to the abstract idea of signal analysis including the JE elements of " predict...," "generate..." and "modify ...," each of which, including all recitation within each listed element, in at least some embodiments within a BRI, involves only manipulation of data. While manipulation of data is not per se directed to an abstract idea, in this instance the above-identified elements are directed to the abstract ideas identified below. The recited "stimulus" and its modification lack specificity as to the required nature of the stimulus and any required result of the modification. Preliminarily, in a 1st prong of Step 2A, elements of independent claim 11 are interpreted as directed to the abstract idea of signal analysis including the JE elements of " determine an action identifier...," "generate..." and "determine a modified stimulus ...," each of which, including all recitation within each listed element, in at least some embodiments within a BRI, involves only manipulation of data. While manipulation of data is not per se directed to an abstract idea, in this instance the above-identified elements are directed to the abstract ideas identified below. The recited "stimulus" and its modification lack specificity as to the required nature of the stimulus and any required result of the modification. BRIs of the claims are analogous to an abstract idea in the form of at least a mental process , at least equivalent to a computer-implemented process, including obtaining and comparing intangible data (e.g. Cybersource , Synopsys and Electric Power Group ). In a BRI, it is not clear that the claim embodiments are limited so as to require complexity precluding analogy to a mental process. As in Alice (at 306, as cited in the MPEP above) and Bilski (as cited in Alice , id ), an abstract idea may comprise multiple abstract elements or steps (i.e. from Alice: "a series of steps" at 306) and need not be a single equation, relationship or principle. It is not clear that the identified elements must represent other than an abstract idea according to any relevant analysis or case law. [Step 2A, 1st prong, abstract idea: claims 1 and 11 : YES] Step 2A, 2nd prong: If the claims recite a judicial exception under the 1st prong, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04(d) MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application: An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e). In Step 2A, 1st prong above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions ( JEs ). In Step 2B below, any remaining steps and/or elements are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s). Any such additional steps and additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B. Here in Step 2A, 2nd prong, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application. At this point in examination it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, 2nd prong considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record. For example, regarding the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) , the record, including for example the specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field. The claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement (e.g. specification: [33, 41-42] ). [Step 2A, 2nd prong: claims 1 and 11 : NO] Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of additional elements in addition to the identified JEs ? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.05 Addressing the second Mayo/Alice question, all elements of claims 1 and 11 are part of one or more identified JEs (as described above), except for elements identified here as conventional elements in addition to the above judicial exceptions: The recited " electroencephalogram (EEG) systems " are conventional elements of a laboratory and/or computing environment and/or conventional data gathering/input elements, as exemplified in MPEP 2106.05(d).II and 2106.05(f-g), and as exemplified by Pohlmeyer (NPL as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892) , and generally it is understood that the examples in the reference are well-known and routine. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering is insufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). It is emphasized that, outside of an improvement argument, analysis of what is conventional generally pertains to the above-identified additional elements and not to elements identified as part of a JE. [Step 2B: claims 1 and 11 : NO] Summary and conclusion regarding claims 1 and 11 Summing up the above analysis of claims 1 and 11 , each viewed as a whole and considering all elements individually and in combination, no claim recites limitations that transform the claim, finally interpreted as directed to the identified JE(s), into patent eligible subject matter, and it is not clear that any claim is sufficiently analogous to controlling case law identifying an example of an eligible claim. Remaining claims Claims 2- 8 and 12-20 add elements which also are part of the identified JEs for the same reasons described above regarding the independent claims and therefore do not provide the something significantly more necessary to satisfy 101. Elements of the following claims are additional elements but nonetheless are conventional elements of a laboratory or computing environment, conventional data gathering elements or conventional post-processing elements, as in the following specific examples which also are understood to be well-known and routine: claim 9 : " provide a stimulus ... ," are conventional elements of a laboratory and/or computing environment and/or conventional data gathering/input elements, as exemplified by Pohlmeyer (NPL as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892) , and generally it is understood that the examples in the reference are well-known and routine. claim 10 : "audio signal... ," are conventional elements of a laboratory and/or computing environment and/or conventional data gathering/input elements, as exemplified by Pohlmeyer (NPL as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892), and generally it is understood that the examples in the reference are well-known and routine. None of the dependent claim elements provides the something significantly more than the identified JE(s) necessary to satisfy 101. Nonstatutory double patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine to prevent the improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of the same invention (MPEP 804.II.B, 1st para.). A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims (instant v. reference) are not identical, but an examined-application claim (instant claim) is not patentably distinct from a reference claim because the instant claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim (MPEP 804.II.B, 2nd para.). In cases of double patenting rejections versus reference claims of pending applications , as opposed to claims of an issued patent, the rejections are provisional because the reference claims have not been patented. Presently, no rejections are provisional. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the application or patent of the reference claim either is shown to be commonly owned with the instant application or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must comply fully with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Applicant may wish to consider electronically filing a terminal disclaimer (MPEP 1490.V pertains, along with https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer ). Electronic filing may lead to faster approval of the disclaimer. Also, if filing electronically, Applicant is encouraged to notify the examiner by telephone so that examination may resume more quickly. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Double patenting rejections of instant claims 1-20 Instant claims 1-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over one or more claims in reference patent 9,867,548 (from application 13 / 903 , 806 ) in view of Pohlmeyer (NPL as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892 ) . Although the reference claims are not identical to the instant claims, in a BRI they also are not patentably distinct from the instant claims: either ( i ) because the instant claims recite obviously equivalent or broader limitations in comparison to the reference claims or (ii) because the instant claims recite limitations which are obvious over the cited art. It is not clear that the instant claims recite limitations which are narrower than limitations in the reference claims. It would have been obvious in view of the cited art to modify reference claims to arrive at the rejected instant claims. Either the instant limitations are interpreted as reading on a reference limitation, or the instant limitations would have been obvious in view of the cited art. That is, to the extent that any instant claims are narrower than reference claims, then any such narrowing would have been obvious over the cited art. Citations to art In the above citations to documents in the art, rejections refer to the portions of each document cited as example portions as well as to the entirety of each document, unless otherwise noted in the situation of lengthy, multi-subject documents. Other passages not specifically cited within a document may apply as well. Conclusion No claim is allowed. A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. Inquiries Information regarding the filing, management and status of patent applications which are published (available to all users) or unpublished (available to registered users) may be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov . Further information is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center , and information about filing in DOCX format is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx . The Electronic Business Center ( EBC ) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) is available for additional questions, and assistance from a Customer Service Representative is available at 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. The examiner for this Office action, G. Steven Vanni, may be contacted at: (571) 272-3855 Tu-F 8-7 (ET). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D. Riggs, II, may be reached at (571) 270-3062. /G. STEVEN VANNI/ Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686