DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a response filed 18 November 2025, on an application filed 13 January 2023, which is a national stage entry of an application with an international filing date of 8 July 2021, which claims priority from a provisional application filed 16 July 2020.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 11-13 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the step of wherein the medical imaging device service logs includes information on the history of usage, system environmental data, and alerts and/or error data determined from one or more patterns or troubleshooting tasks. The patent application does not provide an adequate support detailing wherein the service logs include this information. Therefore, one skilled in the art of healthcare intervention, upon reading the specification, would not conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed inventions on the day the application was filed.
Claim 1 recites the step of wherein the display of the service plan is formatted based on the set service tasks provided in the service plan. The patent application does not provide an adequate support detailing how the service plan is formatted based on the provided tasks. For example, the published specification, in paragraph [0037] states that the system provides formatting components, but then does not detail how the service plan is formatted based on the set service tasks provided in the service plan. Therefore, one skilled in the art of healthcare intervention, upon reading the specification, would not conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed inventions on the day the application was filed.
Claim 4 recites the step of identifying a group of two or more of the service tasks to be performed during the upcoming field service which can be performed in parallel based on a model of interconnectivity of parts or systems of the medical imaging device to be serviced. The patent application does not provide an adequate support detailing how the group is identified based on a model of interconnectivity. For example, the published specification, in paragraph [0051] states that this element can be performed by the parallizer module, but then does not detail how the module identifies the group based on the model. Therefore, one skilled in the art of healthcare intervention, upon reading the specification, would not conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed inventions on the day the application was filed.
To the extent that other claims rely on claims that are rejected under 35 USC 112 and fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims they rely on, those other claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims they rely on. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 8-14 are drawn to an apparatus for scheduling field service for a fleet of medical imaging devices, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: An apparatus for scheduling field service for a fleet of medical imaging devices, the apparatus comprising:
at least one electronic processor programmed to:
maintain a service records database storing information on instances of service tasks performed on the fleet including identifiers of service completion times for the instances of service tasks;
identify one or more service tasks to be performed during upcoming field service on a medical imaging device to be serviced of the fleet based on content of one or more machine and/or medical imaging device service logs of the medical imaging device to be serviced;
wherein the medical imaging device service logs includes information on the history of usage, system environmental data, and alerts and/or error data determined from one or more patterns or troubleshooting tasks;
optimize a service plan for the upcoming field service based at least on the one or more service tasks to be performed during the upcoming field service and service completion times for instances of the one or more service tasks to be performed in the service records database; and
display the service plan on a display device, wherein the display of the service plan is formatted based on the set service tasks provided in the service plan.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the steps of reviewing logs to identify needed service tasks and optimizing a service plan accordingly), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claims 2-10 include other limitations, for example claims 2 and 4-10 optimizing the service plan based on ranking the service tasks or FSEs or a time constraint or parts required or tasks status, claim 3 is directed to updating the service plan, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-10 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-10 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the structural components of the computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see page 6 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language directed to maintaining a service records database, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application, such as displaying data (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-10 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 1 and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the dispensing device and the one or more processors), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Page 6 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the structural components of the computer) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data ) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare).
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-10 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Peters et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2021/0217517 A1), hereinafter Peters, further in view of Telatar et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2014/0350989 A1), hereinafter Telatar.
As per claims 1 and 4, Peters discloses an apparatus for scheduling field service for a fleet of medical imaging devices, the apparatus (See Peters, Fig. 1.) comprising:
at least one electronic processor programmed (Peters, Fig. 1.) to:
maintain a service records database storing information on instances of service tasks performed on the fleet … for the instances of service tasks (Peters, service call reporting app #108 collects data related to service calls and stores it in the service log and stored in the co-replacements database #114, see paragraphs 25 and 26.);
identify one or more service tasks to be performed during upcoming field service on a medical imaging device to be serviced of the fleet based on content of one or more machine and/or medical imaging device service logs of the medical imaging device to be serviced (Log stores the identified service tasks to be performed, see paragraph 25.);
wherein the medical imaging device service logs includes information on the history of usage (Paragraph 25.) … and alerts and/or error data determined from one or more patterns or troubleshooting tasks (Peters discloses storing information related to alerts and/or errors determining from troubleshooting, such as the determination of positive or negative relationships between parts and co-replacement parts, see paragraph 29.);
optimize a service plan for the upcoming field service based at least on the one or more service tasks to be performed during the upcoming field service and service completion times for instances of the one or more service tasks to be performed in the service records database (System optimizes the service plan based on plural items to be replaced and the total time to replace both versus just one, see paragraphs 33, 37-40 and 43.); and
display the service plan on a display device, wherein the display of the service plan is formatted based on the set service tasks provided in the service plan (System provides service advise to laptop display #105, see paragraph 33. Paragraph 44 discloses formatting based on task displayed, e.g.: “In this case, the co-replacement information that is generated and sent includes an identification of an escalation condition indicative of a large order, and the resulting displayed co-replacement information may include, for example, display of a user interface dialog with the specialist.” See also claims 2, 4, 7 and 9.).
Peters fails to explicitly disclose:
recording service completion times;
and wherein data includes system environmental data.
Telatar teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to record service completion times of service calls and maintenance calls (See paragraphs 24 and 37 of Telatar.) and wherein data includes system environmental data (Telatar, paragraph 67.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field servicing system of Peters to include recording service completion times of service calls and maintenance calls and wherein data includes system environmental data, because to do so would result in a field servicing system that provided “cost savings by improved diagnostics, reducing the amount of unused parts, and reducing the number of service trips by a service engineer” (Peters, paragraph 9.).
Both Peters and Telatar are directed to the determination and provision of maintenance resources. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 2-5 and 7-10, Peters/Telatar disclose claim 1, discussed above. Peters also discloses:
1. ranking the one or more service tasks to be performed during the upcoming field service based on priority levels assigned to the respective service tasks; wherein the optimization of the service plan is based at least in part on the ranking (Peters discloses a system that provides ranking of co-replacement parts and optimization based thereon, see paragraphs 34 and 35.);
3. iteratively update the service plan based on one or more of: updates to the priority levels of the one or more service tasks; and a completion of one or more of the identified service tasks (System is updated as new information comes in, see paragraphs 25 and 26, which is then propagated to new and reopened service calls.);
4. identify a group of two or more of the service tasks to be performed during the upcoming field service which can be performed in parallel based on a model of interconnectivity of parts or systems of the medical imaging device to be serviced; wherein the optimization of the service plan is based at least in part on the identified group (Peters discloses a system that identifies multiple potential service tasks based on parts being co-replacement parts, see paragraph 31.);
5. identifying one or more available FSEs to perform the upcoming field service on the medical imaging device to be serviced based on the one or more service tasks to be performed during the upcoming field service and the information stored in the service records database wherein the optimization of the service plan is based at least in part on the identified available FSEs (FSE availability is considered, including their distance from equipment, and schedule, see paragraph 33.);
7. optimize the service plan for the imaging device further based on the identified one or more available FSEs and the service completion times for instances of the one or more service tasks indicated as performed by the identified one or more FSEs in the service records database (FSE availability is considered, including their distance from equipment, and schedule, see paragraph 33.);
8. receive a time constraint on the upcoming field service; wherein the optimization of the service plan is further based on the time constraint (Peters paragraph 31: “Thus, the co-replacement optimizer 116 may retrieve additional information regarding the frequency that the requested part “X” is replaced with each other co-replacement part in the past (or, in some embodiments, in a specified past time frame, e.g. in the last year. Such a time constraint may be useful to avoid retrieving information on co-replacements that are now obsolete due to new imaging device configurations or so forth).”;
9. optimizing the service plan for the imaging device further based on an indication of a request for one or more service tasks as being mandatory (The initial ordered part, X, is the mandatory part, see paragraph 31.);
10. wherein the information on instances of service tasks stored in the service records database further includes information on parts replaced during the instances of the service tasks (All parts ordered and replaced are logged, see paragraphs 25 and 26.), and the method further includes:
determining parts required for the one or more service tasks to be performed during the upcoming field service based on the information on parts replaced during instances of the one or more service tasks stored in the service records database (Peters discloses a system that identifies multiple potential service tasks based on parts being co-replacement parts, see paragraph 31.);
wherein the optimization of the service plan for the upcoming field service is further based on the determined parts required for the one or more service tasks (System optimizes the service plan based on plural items to be replaced and the total time to replace both versus just one, see paragraphs 33, 37-40 and 43.).
As per claim 6, Peters/Telatar disclose claim 5, discussed above. Peters fails to explicitly disclose an apparatus to rank the identified available FSEs based at least on an experience level of the FSEs for the medical imaging device to be serviced and/or the identified one or more service tasks.
Telatar teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rank the identified available FSEs based at least on an experience level of the FSEs for the medical imaging device to be serviced and/or the identified one or more service tasks (See paragraphs 27, 80 and 90 of Telatar.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field servicing system of Peters/Telatar to rank the identified available FSEs based at least on an experience level of the FSEs for the medical imaging device to be serviced and/or the identified one or more service tasks, because to do so would result in a field servicing system that utilized and considered all prior data related to servicing requests in order to provide a more reliable service prediction.
Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 November 2025 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112, Applicant argues on pages 7-12 that:
A. The specification provides support for the contested limitation of claim 1 directed to wherein the medical imaging device service logs includes information on the history of usage, system environmental data, and alerts and/or error data determined from one or more patterns or troubleshooting tasks;
B. The specification provides support for the contested limitation of claim 1 directed to wherein the display of the service plan is formatted based on the set service tasks provided in the service plan; and
C. The specification provides support for the contested limitations of claim 4 directed to identifying a group of two or more of the service tasks to be performed during the upcoming field service which can be performed in parallel based on a model of interconnectivity of parts or systems of the medical imaging device to be serviced.
In support, the Applicant cites various sections of the specification.
The Office respectfully disagrees. None of the cited portions actually support the above limitations. Therefore, one skilled in the art of healthcare intervention, upon reading the specification, would not conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed inventions on the day the application was filed.
Accordingly, the rejection is upheld.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 12-20 that the claims comprise statutory material because:
A. The claims are integrated into a practical application that improves a technical field, e.g. “the apparatus uses the service logs of a medical imaging device and historical service completion times to generate a service plan tailored to the device's maintenance workflow, thereby improving the technical field of servicing medical imaging devices by reducing service time and device downtime through data-driven planning.”
B. The claim elements reflect a technical solution to a technical problem, e.g., “The problem solved in this application is technical, namely, efficiently servicing complex medical imaging devices … . The solution provided in this application is also technical, namely, automatically optimizing the plan using objective machine-related data … and presenting the plan formatted based on the task set, so the FSE executes a technically efficient sequence.
C. The claims are not merely "apply it on a computer," nor mere data gathering or display as it maintains a database, identifies tasks and optimizes a service plan. McRO.
D. Even if "directed to" an abstract idea, the claims recite "significantly more" and the Office has not met its evidentiary burden under Berkheimer as the “ordered combination of additional elements is not shown to be well-understood, routine, conventional” as the specific ordered combination of claimed elements amount to more than generic computing.
E. The claims recite a specific technical improvement to a technical field: “Here, the data-driven optimization using device logs and measured service times improves the technical field of medical imaging device maintenance planning-akin to DDR Holdings, where modifying conventional Internet operation provided significantly more than an abstract idea.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the statutory rejection of the claims, issued above, where the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding A, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Applicant’s claim is confined to a general-purpose computer (see Spec. page 6) and does not recite “another technology.” Because no other technology is recited in the claim, the claim cannot improve another technology (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i) describing an example of an improvement to another technology where the abstract idea implemented on a computer improved the claimed additional element of a rubber molding machine).
Regarding B and E, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the computing environment. The problem of service scheduling was not a problem cause by the computer, is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a business problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Further, even if scheduling service comprised a technical problem there is no nexus between the argued problem and the argued solution because there is no indication that the claimed invention actually solves this problem. The Applicant has identified that there is a technical problem relating to scheduling service; however, there is no indication that the claim actually solves this problem. The claim merely indicates that service is optimized based on past data but nothing in the claim actually supports the idea that the schedule would be improved. Because the claim does not explicitly solve this technical problem, a practical application is not present.
Regarding C, McRO indicates that an “improvement in computer-related technology is not limited to improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of rules (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing a computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. This is distinct from the present invention, where the Appellant claims that the generic computing functions performed by generic computing structure (such as database maintenance) was not previously known (not that it was previously unperformable).
Regarding D, the Berkheimer elements are met above in the statutory rejection.
Accordingly, the rejection is upheld.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues on pages 20-24 that:
A. Peters fails to disclose
1. maintaining "identifiers of service completion times for instances of the service tasks" in a "service records database" across a fleet, nor linking such times to discrete "instances of service tasks";
2. using "content of one or more machine and/or medical imaging device service logs" to identify a set of "service tasks to be performed". Equating parts ordering or co-replacement advice with "service tasks" is an overgeneralization;
3. a device-specific "service plan" for upcoming field service using per-task completion times from a fleet-level database;
B. Telatar fails to disclose:
1. recording service completion times;
2. parsing content of logs to identify service tasks to be performed;
3. optimizing a multi- task "service plan" for a particular upcoming device service using stored per-task "service completion times";
C. Neither reference discloses “formatting the displayed service plan based on the set of service tasks”;
D. The Office’s rationale for combining the references is inadequate because:
1. the rationale results in a wholesale change of system operation; and
2. The combination requires impermissible hindsight.
Regarding A1 and B1, the Office points above to the prior art rejection wherein the elements are disclosed in view of Peters and Telatar.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here the combination of the cited references disclose the contested limitation.
Regarding A2, the Office disagrees that ordering parts or advice are not equivalent to a “service task.” There is nothing in the claims, specification or general state of the art that would indicate otherwise. Applicant is welcome to amend the claims to overcome the prior art.
Regarding A3 and B2, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “device-specific”, “per-task completion times, “fleet-level database”, “parsing content”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding B3, Telatar is not used to reject this element, Peters is.
Regarding C, Peters clearly discloses the contested limitation, as shown above: (System provides service advise to laptop display #105, see paragraph 33. Paragraph 44 discloses formatting based on task displayed, e.g.: “In this case, the co-replacement information that is generated and sent includes an identification of an escalation condition indicative of a large order, and the resulting displayed co-replacement information may include, for example, display of a user interface dialog with the specialist.” See also claims 2, 4, 7 and 9.).
Regarding D., the Office respectfully disagrees, but has provided a new combination statement in order to expediate examination.
Accordingly, the rejection is upheld.
To the extent that arguments concerning the rejection of claims are repeated in response to the rejection of other claims, the Office accordingly incorporates the responses to arguments detailed above.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Peters and Telatar, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Actions (18 August 2025, 19 March 2025, 23 May 2025 and 2 December 2024), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
6 March 2025