DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on June 8, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. 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) because the claim limitations use 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. Such claim limitations are:
a. In claim 1, the claim limitation “a control component configured to exchange electric signals with at least one field device” [lines 2-3 of claim 1] because it uses a non-structural term “control component” coupled with functional language “exchange electric signals with at least one field device” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
b. In claim 1, the claim limitation “a processing component configured to process electric signals exchanged between the at least one field device and the control component” [lines 4-5 of claim 1] because it uses a non-structural term “processing component” coupled with functional language “process electric signals exchanged between the at least one field device and the control component” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
c. In claim 6, the claim limitation “a field control system interface configured to electro-conductively connect the control component and the processing component to one another in the connected state” [lines 7-9 of claim 6] because it uses a non-structural term “field control system interface” coupled with functional language “electro-conductively connect the control component and the processing component to one another in the connected state” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
d. In claim 7, the claim limitation “a supply component configured to supply the control component and/or the processing component and/or the field control system with electric energy” [lines 3-5 of claim 7] because it uses a non-structural term “supply component” coupled with functional language “supply the control component and/or the processing component and/or the field control system with electric energy” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The correction to claim 14 has been approved, and the rejection to claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
7. Claim 19 has been canceled and thus, the rejection to the claim is withdrawn.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
9-1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the electric signals” in [lines 8, 15, and 17] of the claim. It is unclear whether “the electric signals” in [lines 8 and 17] refer to the electric signals exchanged by the control component with at least one field device in [lines 2-3], the electric signals exchanged between the at least one field device and the control component that are processed by the processing component in [lines 4-5], or both of the electric signals.
9-2. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the electric signals” in [line 7 and 10] of the claim. It is unclear whether “the electric signals” in [lines 7 and 10] refer to the electric signals exchanged by the control component with at least one field device in [claim 1, lines 2-3], the electric signals exchanged between the at least one field device and the control component that are processed by the processing component in [claim 1, lines 4-5], the electric signals exchanged with at least one field device by the control module [claim 14, lines 3-4], or all of the electric signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burr et al (Pub. No. US 2008/0126665) in view of Govindarajulu et al (U.S. Patent No. 12,189,372).
11-1 Regarding claim 1, Burr teaches the claim comprising: a control component configured to exchange electric signals with at least one field device, by disclosing I/O bus transceiver 206 that communicatively couples termination modules 124a-c to a universal I/O bus 136a [paragraphs 53; figure 2] and is designed to exchange electrical signals with at least one field device 114 via the termination modules 124a-c [paragraph 34; figures 1A, 2].
Burr teaches a processing component configured to process electric signals exchanged between the at least one field device and the control component, by disclosing termination area 140 comprising a marshalling cabinet 122 with termination modules 124a-c configured to marshal information associated with the field devices 112a-c in the first process area 114 [paragraphs 24, 34, 36; figures 1A, 2].
Burr teaches wherein the processing component and the control component are electro-conductively and mechanically connected or connectable, by disclosing that the I/O bus transceiver 206 and the termination modules 124a-c are provided within a marshalling cabinet 122 and coupled together via a wired communication medium [paragraph 53; figures 1A, 2].
Burr teaches wherein, in a connected state, the electric signals are exchangeable between the at least one field device and a control system connected to the field control system by the processing component and the control component, by disclosing that signals from field devices 112a-c are routed to the marshalling cabinet 122, which in turn, marshals information received from the field devices 112a-c using termination modules 124a-c and I/O bus transceiver 206, and routes the field device information to respective I/O cards of a controller 104 [paragraph 30]. The I/O cards communicates the information to the controller 104, and the controller 104 communicates the information to the workstation 102 [paragraph 138].
Burr teaches wherein, in the connected state, the processing component and the control component are configured to transmit status information of the processing component to the control component, and wherein the status information of the processing component comprises at least a function detection of a functional range of the processing of the electric signals performed by the processing component, the functional range comprising sampling and/or amplification of the electric signals and/or evaluation of the electric signals, by disclosing receiving field device information from the field devices and communicating the field device information to the I/O cards via the I/O bus transceiver 206 and universal I/O bus [paragraphs 26, 53]. The termination module is provided with an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert analog values (e.g., measurement values) received from a field device to digitally represented values that can be communicated to the I/O card [paragraph 71]. To control communications with the field device, the termination module is provided with a field device communication processor that ensures that information transmitted between the field device and the I/O card is in the correct format and voltage type, which includes extracting information received from the field device and communicating the information to the analog-to-digital converter and/or to the I/O bus communication processor for subsequent communication to the I/O card [paragraph 72]. This would involve sampling of electrical signals. Further, a field device communication controller is configured to communicate pass-through messages to workstation 102 by wrapping the messages from the field device into a payload of one or more communication packets and the I/O bus communication processor communicates the one or more packets containing the wrapped message to the I/O card [paragraph 75]. Wrapping the messages involve packetizing the messages within header information in accordance with a communication protocol used for communication [paragraph 74].
Burr teaches wherein the control component comprises a processing component connection, by disclosing Universal I/O bus 208 that connects the termination modules 124a-c to the I/O bus transceiver 206 [paragraph 53; figure 2].
Burr teaches wherein the control component comprises… at least one system connection, by disclosing universal I/O bus 136a that enables communications between the terminal modules 124a-c and the I/O cards 132a-b [paragraph 40; figure 1A].
Burr does not expressly teach wherein the control component comprises a control module, a configurable connecting module,… wherein the control module is configured to acquire status information of the processing component as acquired status information of the processing component, and wherein the control module is configured to change a configuration of the configurable connecting module in response to the acquired status information. Govindarajulu discloses a self-configurable device that enables achieving a connection between one or more field devices and one or more automation devices without the need for multiple input/output (IO) modules [column 2, lines 43-47]. The self-configurable device includes at least one first port configured to connect to the one or more field devices and at least one second port that may be configured to connect to the one or more automation devices [column 2, lines 50-58]. A self-configuration module 110 within the self-configurable device 101 connects the one or more field devices 102A-N with the one or more automation devices 103 by identifying the one or more field devices 102A-N and identifying one or more automation devices based on one or more signals from the one or more field devices and the one or more automation system [column 2, line 63 to column 3, line 8; column 10, lines 26-50; figure 1A]. When establishing a connection between field devices 102A-N and automation devices 103 [column 10, lines 45-50], the self-configuration module identifies at least one attribute associated with the one or more field devices 102A-N [column 3, lines 31-33, column 10, line 66 to column 11, line 2], identifies at least one attribute associated with the one or more automation devices 103 [column 3, lines 39-41, column 11, lines 5-7], and determines an association between the one or more field devices 102A-N and the one or more automation devices 103 based on the identified one or more attributes associable with the one or more field devices 102A-N and the one or more automation devices 103 [column 3, lines 47-56, column 11, lines 9-14]. The at least one attribute associated with the one or more field devices 102A-N may be data associated with type of field device, description of the field device, field device technology (FDT) configuration, etc., where such identification of the at least one attribute enables derivation of type of signal(s) originating from the one or more field devices [column 3, lines 33-39; column 11, lines 2-5]. The self-configuration module then receives a set of configuration settings that include one or more parameters for configuring the self-configuration device to enable the self-configuration device to establish a communication channel between the one or more field devices and the one or more automation devices [column 3, line 59 to column 4, line 5; column 11, lines 33-50]. The self-configurable device is also configured to generate an alarm if an error in communication between the one or more field devices 102A-N and the one or more automation devices 103 or between self-configurable device 101 and one or more field devices 102A-N or one or more automation devices 103 is identified, such as if signal levels from the one or more field devices 102A-N fall below NAMUR signal levels [column 11, lines 51-62]. This eliminates having to depend on different compatible Input/output (IO) modules for devices employing different communication protocols [column 2, lines 47-49]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide as part of the I/O bus transceiver and for establishing a connection between the at least one field device and the workstation of Burr, a self-configuration module that acquires status information of signals from the at least one field device to change a configuration of an IO module, as taught by Govindarajulu. This would eliminate having to depend on different compatible Input/output (IO) modules for devices employing different communication protocols. Thus, rather than have the I/O bus transceiver 206 couple the termination modules 124a-c to the universal I/O bus 136a for the exchange of signals with the I/O cards 132a-b in Burr, the I/O bus transceiver 206 would have the self-configuration module of Govindarajulu that would acquire signals from the termination modules 124a-c and self-configure to enable the exchange of signals directly with one or more automation devices, such as the workstation 102 of Burr.
11-2. Regarding claim 2, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the processing component and the control component are connected by a common housing and/or irreversibly mechanically, by disclosing that the I/O bus transceiver 206 and the termination modules 124a-c are provided within a marshalling cabinet 122 and coupled together via a wired communication medium [Burr, paragraph 53; figures 1A, 2].
11-3. Regarding claim 3, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the control component is configured to control or regulate the at least one field device, by disclosing that the I/O bus transceiver 206 having the self-configuration module in marshalling cabinet 122 enables data exchange with at least one field device via the termination modules 124a-c [Burr, paragraphs 34, 53; figures 1A, 2], wherein the signals are used to control the field devices [Burr, paragraph 24, lines 1-20; Govindarajulu, column 15, lines 21-28].
11-4. Regarding claim 5, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the processing component and the control component comprise a control component connection and a processing component connection, respectively, which are configured to electro-conductively, connect the processing component and the control component to one another in the connected state, by disclosing that the I/O bus transceiver 206 having the self-configuration module is coupled to the termination modules 124a-c via a wired communication medium [Burr, paragraph 53; figures 1A, 2; Govindarajulu, column 2, lines 50-55].
11-5. Regarding claim 6, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising: a housing configured to mechanically connect the control component and the processing component by a control component bay, which is configured to receive the control component, and a processing component bay, which is configured to receive the processing component; and a field control system interface, by disclosing that the I/O bus transceiver 206 having the self-configuration module, and the termination modules 124a-c are provided within a marshalling cabinet 122 and coupled together via a wired communication medium [Burr, paragraph 53; figures 1A, 2].
11-6. Regarding claim 7, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising: a supply component configured to supply the control component and/or the processing component and/or the field control system with electric energy, wherein the supply component comprises at least one supply connection configured to receive electric energy for supplying a slot of the processing component and/or for supplying the control component, by disclosing power supply 216 [Burr, paragraph 57; figure 2].
11-7. Regarding claim 10, Burr-Govindarajulu teach the processing component for forming the field control system of claim 1 and for processing electric signals exchanged between the at least one field device and the control component, the processing component comprising: at least one field device connection configured for electro-conductive connection to the at least one field device outside of the field control system, by disclosing a marshalling cabinet 122 with termination modules 124a-c configured to marshal information associated with the field devices 112a-c in the first process area 114 [Burr, paragraphs 24, 34, 36; figures 1A, 2]. Multi-conductor cables 128a connect termination modules 124a-c to the field devices [Burr, paragraph 34; figure 1A].
Burr-Govindarajulu teach a control component connection configured for electro-conductive connection to the control component within the field control system, by disclosing Universal I/O bus 208 that connects the termination modules 124a-c to the I/O bus transceiver 206 having the self-configuration module [Burr, paragraph 53; figure 2].
Burr-Govindarajulu teach wherein the processing component is configured to process the electric signals exchanged between the at least one field device connection and the control component connection, by disclosing that termination modules 124a-c are configured to marshal information associated with the field devices 112a-c in the first process area 114 [Burr, paragraphs 24, 34, 36; figures 1A, 2].
11-8. Regarding claim 11, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 10, further comprising: an external control component connection, configured for electro-conductive connection to an external control module outside of the field control system, by disclosing that the self-configurable device may be connected to one or more automation devices, as well as an operator station via a communication link [Govindarajulu, column 7, lines 60-63; column 8, lines 2-12].
Burr teaches wherein the processing component is configured to process electric signals exchanged between the at least one field device connection and the external control component connection, by disclosing that termination modules 124a-c are configured to marshal information associated with the field devices 112a-c in the first process area 114 [Burr, paragraphs 24, 34, 36; figures 1A, 2].
11-9. Regarding claim 12, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 10, further comprising: at least one slot, which is in each case configured to electro-conductively and mechanically connect a signal processing module to the processing component; and at least one signal processing module insertable into the at least one slot, the at least one signal processing module being configured to process electric signals exchanged between the at least one field device connection and the control component connection and/or the external control component connection, by disclosing that the marshalling cabinet is provided with socket rails 202a and 202b to receive the termination modules [Burr, paragraph 53]. Termination modules can be communicatively coupled to the I/O bus 208 at various locations (e.g., various termination module sockets of the socket rails 202a-b) within the marshalling cabinet 122 [Burr, paragraph 54]. To communicatively couple a termination module to a universal I/O bus 208, a base 402 is provided with a universal I/O bus connector 408 such that when a user plugs the base 402 into the socket rail 202a or the socket rail 202b, the universal I/O bus connector 408 engages the universal I/O bus 208 [Burr, paragraph 61]. An address identifier 604 of a termination module is configured to query an I/O card for a termination module address when the termination module is plugged into the marshalling cabinet 122 [Burr, paragraphs 64].
11-10. Regarding claim 13, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 10, wherein the processing component is configured to provide status information of the processing component at the control component connection and/or at the external control component connection, by disclosing receiving field device information from the field devices and communicating the field device information to the one or more automation devices, wherein the field device information includes field device status information [Burr, paragraphs 26, 53; Govindarajulu, column 3, lines 5-8; column 11, lines 51-62].
11-11. Regarding claim 14, Burr-Govindarajulu teach the control component for forming the field control system of claim 1, the control component comprising: the control module configured to exchange electric signals with the at least one field device, by disclosing the self-configurable module that establishes a connection between the one or more field devices and the one or more automation devices [Govindarajulu, column 3, lines 5-8].
Burr-Govindarajulu teach the at least one configurable connecting module and the processing component connection, which are configured to electro-conductively connect the control module to the processing component for exchanging the electric signals via the configurable connecting module, by disclosing the at least one first port that is configured to connect to one or more field devices [Govindarajulu, column 2, lines 50-52] via the universal I/O bus 208 and termination modules 124a-c [Burr, paragraph 35, paragraph 53, lines 12-14; figure 2].
Burr-Govindarajulu teach the at least one system connection, via which the control module is electro-conductively connected or connectable to a control system, wherein, in the connected state, the electric signals are exchangeable with the control system, by disclosing that the self-configurable device may be connected to one or more automation devices, as well as an operator station via a communication link [Govindarajulu, column 7, lines 60-63; column 8, lines 2-12].
11-12. Regarding claim 15, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 14, wherein the processing component connection is configured to mechanically connect the control component to the processing component, by disclosing that the I/O bus transceiver 206 having the self-configurable module and the termination modules 124a-c are provided within a marshalling cabinet 122 and coupled together via a wired communication medium [Burr, paragraph 53; figures 1A, 2].
11-13. Regarding claim 16, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 1wherein the control module is configured to control the at least one field device, by disclosing that the I/O bus transceiver 206 having the self-configuration module in marshalling cabinet 122 enables data exchange with at least one field device via the termination modules 124a-c [Burr, paragraphs 34, 53; figures 1A, 2], wherein the signals are used to control the field devices [Burr, paragraph 24, lines 1-20; Govindarajulu, column 15, lines 21-28].
11-14. Regarding claim 17, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 14, wherein the at least one configurable connecting module in accordance with a configuration of the configurable connecting module is configured to, on at least one connecting line of the processing component connection, selectively acquire or output the electric signals and/or process selectively analog or digital electric signals, by disclosing the at least one first port that is configured to connect to one or more field devices [Govindarajulu, column 2, lines 50-52] via the universal I/O bus 208 and termination modules 124a-c [Burr, paragraph 35, paragraph 53, lines 12-14; figure 2].
11-15. Regarding claim 18, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 14, wherein the control module is configured to transmit status information of the processing component to the control system by the system connection, by disclosing that the self-configurable module is configured to establish a connection between the one or more field devices and the one or more automation devices for enabling data exchange [Govindarajulu, column 2, lines 55-58; column 3, lines 5-8], wherein field device information transmitted may include field device status information [Burr, paragraph 26, lines 14-29].
11-16. Regarding claim 20, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 3, wherein the control component is configured to control or regulate the at least one field device in accordance with the control system, by disclosing that the signals are used to control the field devices [Burr, paragraph 24, lines 1-20; Govindarajulu, column 15, lines 21-28].
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burr et al (Pub. No. US 2008/0126665), in view of Govindarajulu et al (U.S. Patent No. 12,189,372), and further in view of Rooyakkers et al (Pub. No. US 2015/0296619).
12-1. Regarding claim 8, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 7. Burr-Govindarajulu do not expressly teach wherein the supply component has two or more supply connections, and wherein the supply component is configured to receive electric energy selectively from a first supply connection of the two or more supply connections and from a second supply connection of the two or more supply connections. Rooyakkkers discloses that it was well known to provide electrical power from multiples sources [paragraph 40]. This would ensure operation of the components during a power outage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple power sources, as taught by Rooyakkers. This would ensure operation of the components during a power outage.
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burr et al (Pub. No. US 2008/0126665), in view of Govindarajulu et al (U.S. Patent No. 12,189,372), and further in view of Tan et al (Pub. No. US 2012/0166821)
13-1. Regarding claim 9, Burr-Govindarajulu teach all the limitations of claim 7. Burr-Govindarajulu do not expressly teach the claim wherein the supply component is configured to transmit status information of the supply component to the field control system. Tan discloses that it was well known for a power supply to send status information to a monitoring module to control powering on or off a computer system [paragraph 11]. This would create a short time between the first falling-edge and the second or third rising-edge, in which the computer system can avoid being powered on and then powered off [paragraph 21]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide status information of the power supply of Burr-Govindarajulu to the field control system, as taught by Tan. This would create a short time between the first falling-edge and the second or third rising-edge, in which the computer system can avoid being powered on and then powered off.
Response to Arguments
14. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 14, and 18.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant alleges that Burr et al (Pub. No. US 2008/0126665) fails to teach "wherein the control component comprises a processing component connection, a control module, a configurable connecting module, and at least one system connection, wherein the control module is configured to acquire status information of the processing component as acquired status information of the processing component, and wherein the control module is configured to change a configuration of the configurable connecting module in response to the acquired status information,” as has been amended to the claim. Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burr et al (Pub. No. US 2008/0126665) in view of Govindarajulu et al (U.S. Patent No. 12,189,372). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant states that dependent claims 2-3, 5-18, and 20 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claim 1. However, as discussed above, Burr in view of Govindarajulu are considered to teach claim 1, and consequently, claims 2-3 and 5-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights