DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on May 3, 2023.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 11-13 are new and original.
Claims 3-4, 6, and 8-10 are preliminarily amended.
Claims 1-11 are construed under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f).
Claims 1, 3, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pettersson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0209156 A1; hereinafter “Pettersson”).
Claims 2-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0209156 A1) in view of Kurimoto (JP2012041180A; hereinafter “Kurimoto”). Note claim 3 in the alternative.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0209156 A1) in view of Kurimoto (JP2012041180A) in further view of Kato (JP2012056753A; hereinafter “Kato”).
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
This action is made Non-Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement of References Cited By Applicant
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2023 and 11/22/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 limitation “an architectural information acquiring unit that acquires architectural information”, “a plan information generation unit that generates… first plan information”, and “a first transmission unit that transmits the first plan information” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “an architectural information acquiring unit”, “a plan information generation unit ““a first transmission unit”, and coupled with functional language “acquires”, “generates”, and “transmits” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 limitations “an architectural information acquiring unit that acquires architectural information”, “a plan information generation unit that generates… first plan information”, and “a first transmission unit that transmits the first plan information” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “[0084] Fig. 6 is a flowchart for illustrating the flow of processing according to a construction information integration method M100 executed by the construction information integration system 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention. In Fig. 6, the construction information integration method M100 includes steps S110 to S150 executed by a processor included in the construction information integration system 100. Here the unit is construed to be a processor.”
Claim 3 limitation “a second transmission unit that transmits the second plan information” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “a second transmission unit”, and coupled with functional language “transmits” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 3 limitations “a second transmission unit that transmits the second plan information” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “[0084] Fig. 6 is a flowchart for illustrating the flow of processing according to a construction information integration method M100 executed by the construction information integration system 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention. In Fig. 6, the construction information integration method M100 includes steps S110 to S150 executed by a processor included in the construction information integration system 100. Here the unit is construed to be a processor.”
Claim 4 limitation “a first receiving unit that receives, from the machine body control system, an operation log” and “a progress management unit that manages progress” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “a first receiving unit” and “a progress management unit” and coupled with functional language “receives” and “manages” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 4 limitations limitation “a first receiving unit that receives, from the machine body control system, an operation log” and “a progress management unit that manages progress” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “[0084] Fig. 6 is a flowchart for illustrating the flow of processing according to a construction information integration method M100 executed by the construction information integration system 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention. In Fig. 6, the construction information integration method M100 includes steps S110 to S150 executed by a processor included in the construction information integration system 100. Here the unit is construed to be a processor.”
Claim 6 limitation “a second receiving unit that receives an operation log” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “a second receiving unit” and coupled with functional language “receives” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 6 limitations limitation “a second receiving unit that receives an operation log” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “[0084] Fig. 6 is a flowchart for illustrating the flow of processing according to a construction information integration method M100 executed by the construction information integration system 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention. In Fig. 6, the construction information integration method M100 includes steps S110 to S150 executed by a processor included in the construction information integration system 100. Here the unit is construed to be a processor.”
Claim 9 limitation “a construction member information acquiring unit that acquires construction member information” and “a third transmission unit that transmits the construction member information” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “a second receiving unit” and coupled with functional language “acquires” and “transmits” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 9 limitations limitation “a construction member information acquiring unit that acquires construction member information” and “a third transmission unit that transmits the construction member information” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “[0084] Fig. 6 is a flowchart for illustrating the flow of processing according to a construction information integration method M100 executed by the construction information integration system 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention. In Fig. 6, the construction information integration method M100 includes steps S110 to S150 executed by a processor included in the construction information integration system 100. Here the unit is construed to be a processor.”
Claim 10 limitation “a third receiving unit that receives preparation completion information” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “a third receiving unit” and coupled with functional language “receives” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 10 limitations limitation “a third receiving unit that receives preparation completion information” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “[0084] Fig. 6 is a flowchart for illustrating the flow of processing according to a construction information integration method M100 executed by the construction information integration system 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention. In Fig. 6, the construction information integration method M100 includes steps S110 to S150 executed by a processor included in the construction information integration system 100. Here the unit is construed to be a processor.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
The remaining claims 2, 5, 7-8, and 11 are interpreted under 112(f) based on their dependency on the interpretation of base claims.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claims so they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pettersson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0209156 A1; hereinafter “Pettersson”).
Regarding claim 1, Pettersson discloses:
A construction information integration system managing automated operation of a crane, the system comprising: (Pettersson: paragraphs [0059]-[0068] and [0086]-[0090], and fig. 1-9)
an architectural information acquiring unit (Pettersson: calculation unit 11) that acquires architectural information (Pettersson: building information model 70) including information related to a design, (Pettersson: 3D as-built model) a construction member, (Pettersson: parts) and a construction plan of a building to be constructed; (Pettersson: plan)
a plan information generation unit (Pettersson: calculation unit 11) that generates, on the basis of the architectural information, first plan information including at least installation coordinates (Pettersson: mounting position) and order of installation for the construction member; and (Pettersson: determining a sequence in which the parts are to be mounted)
a first transmission unit that transmits the first plan information to a machine body control system provided as a separate system from the construction information integration system to control operation of the crane. (Pettersson: crane controlling unit 3).
Regarding claim 3, Pettersson discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above and Pettersson further discloses:
“wherein the plan information generation unit generates second plan information including at least an installation direction for the construction member on the basis of the architectural information, the construction information integration system further comprising a second transmission unit that transmits the second plan information to a jig control system that controls operation of a jig associated with the crane.” (Pettersson: paragraphs [0059]-[0068] and [0086]-[0090], and fig. 1-9; orientation of the part)
Regarding claims 12 and 13, incorporating the rejections of claim 1, claims 12 and 13 are rejected as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
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.
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 2-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0209156 A1) in view of Kurimoto (JP2012041180A; hereinafter “Kurimoto”).
Regarding claim 2, Pettersson discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above however Pettersson does not appear to express disclose:
“wherein the first plan information comprises restriction range information that indicates an area where entry has to be avoided and which is used by the machine body control system to calculate a path along which the construction member is transported by the crane to the installation coordinates.”
Kurimoto teaches that “wherein the first plan information comprises restriction range information that indicates an area where entry has to be avoided and which is used by the machine body control system to calculate a path along which the construction member is transported by the crane to the installation coordinates.” (Kurimoto: paragraphs [0088], [0101], and [0119]-[0120], and fig. 6(b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention of the claimed invention to use known simulation and modeling techniques. A person of ordinary skill in the crane control simulation and modeling field would be motivated to combine Pettersson in view of Kurimoto because “suppresses the swinging (loading) of a suspended load when the length of the rope of the suspended load is varied” (Kurimoto).
Alternatively, regarding claim 3, Pettersson discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above and Pettersson further discloses:
“wherein the plan information generation unit generates second plan information including at least an installation direction for the construction member on the basis of the architectural information, the construction information integration system further comprising a second transmission unit that transmits the second plan information to a jig control system that controls operation of a jig associated with the crane.” (Pettersson: paragraphs [0059]-[0068] and [0086]-[0090], and fig. 1-9; orientation of the part)
Kurimoto teaches that “wherein the plan information generation unit generates second plan information including at least an installation direction for the construction member on the basis of the architectural information, the construction information integration system further comprising a second transmission unit that transmits the second plan information to a jig control system that controls operation of a jig associated with the crane.” (Kurimoto: paragraphs [0088], [0101], and [0119]-[0120], and fig. 6(b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention of the claimed invention to use known simulation and modeling techniques. A person of ordinary skill in the crane control simulation and modeling field would be motivated to combine Pettersson in view of Kurimoto because “suppresses the swinging (loading) of a suspended load when the length of the rope of the suspended load is varied” (Kurimoto).
Regarding claim 11, Pettersson discloses all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 3 as outlined above and however Pettersson does not appear to expressly disclose:
“wherein the first plan information and the second plan information include the same information.”
Kurimoto teaches that “wherein the first plan information and the second plan information include the same information.” (Kurimoto: paragraphs [0088], [0101], and [0119]-[0120], and fig. 6(b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention of the claimed invention to use known simulation and modeling techniques such as utilizing a single plan to design and execute a construction set of instructions and parts list. A person of ordinary skill in the crane control simulation and modeling field would be motivated to combine Pettersson in view of Kurimoto because “suppresses the swinging (loading) of a suspended load when the length of the rope of the suspended load is varied” (Kurimoto).
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0209156 A1) in view of Kato (JP2012056753A; hereinafter “Kato”).
Regarding claim 4, Pettersson discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above however Pettersson does not appear to express disclose:
“a first receiving unit that receives, from the machine body control system, an operation log of the crane related to an installation status of the construction member; and a progress management unit that manages progress with respect to the construction plan on the basis of the operation log of the crane.”
Kato teaches that “a first receiving unit that receives, from the machine body control system, an operation log of the crane related to an installation status of the construction member; and a progress management unit that manages progress with respect to the construction plan on the basis of the operation log of the crane.” (Kato: paragraphs [0001] and [0031]-[0054], and fig. 1-8; control means 22 for receiving information of a crane detected by a detection means 21; information processing device 20; schedule of conveyance work and attachment work).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention of the claimed invention to use known simulation and modeling techniques. A person of ordinary skill in the crane control simulation and modeling field would be motivated to combine Pettersson in view of Kato because “provides a construction monitoring system capable of more accurately confirming the progress of a process at a construction site using a tower crane” (Kato: Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Pettersson in view of Kato discloses all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 4 as outlined above and further discloses:
“wherein the operation log of the crane includes information related to identification information that can be used to identify the construction member, starting time and ending time for the operation of the crane, and the installation coordinates of the construction member.” (Kato: paragraphs [0001] and [0031]-[0054], and fig. 1-8; material ID; load suspension start time; load suspension end time; conveyance destination position).
Regarding claim 6, Pettersson in view of Kato discloses all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 4 as outlined above and further discloses:
“a second receiving unit that receives an operation log of the jig related to an installation status of the construction member from a jig control system that controls the operation of the jig associated with the crane, wherein the progress management unit manages progress with respect to the construction plan on the basis of the operation log of the jig.” (Kato: paragraphs [0001] and [0031]-[0054], and fig. 1-8; control means 22 for receiving information of a crane detected by a detection means 21; information processing device 20; schedule of conveyance work and attachment work).
Regarding claim 7, Pettersson in view of Kato discloses all of the features with respect to claims 1, 4, and 6 as outlined above and further discloses:
“wherein the operation log of the jig includes information related to identification information that can be used to identify the construction member, starting time and ending time for the operation of the jig, and an installation direction for the construction member.” (Kato: paragraphs [0001] and [0031]-[0054], and fig. 1-8; material ID; load suspension start time; load suspension end time; conveyance destination position).
Regarding claim 8, Pettersson in view of Kato discloses all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 4 as outlined above and further discloses:
“wherein the progress management unit indicates progress including at least one of overall progress about a project, daily progress, and progress in units of floors” (Kato: paragraph [0054] and fig. 8; discloses displaying the progress of construction; Progress on a project overall, daily progress, and floor units could have been used as the units of progress, as appropriate, in accordance with the required information.).
Regarding claim 9, Pettersson discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above however Pettersson does not appear to express disclose:
“a construction member information acquiring unit that acquires construction member information related to the construction member provided with the identification information that can be used for identification; and a third transmission unit that transmits the construction member information to a terminal device.”
Kato teaches that “a construction member information acquiring unit that acquires construction member information related to the construction member provided with the identification information that can be used for identification; and a third transmission unit that transmits the construction member information to a terminal device.” (Kato: paragraphs [0042] and [0044]-[0045], and fig. 3 and 6; material data; material ID; : paragraphs [0001] and [0031]-[0054], and fig. 1-8; control means 22 for receiving information of a crane detected by a detection means 21; information processing device 20; schedule of conveyance work and attachment work).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention of the claimed invention to use known simulation and modeling techniques. A person of ordinary skill in the crane control simulation and modeling field would be motivated to combine Pettersson in view of Kato because “provides a construction monitoring system capable of more accurately confirming the progress of a process at a construction site using a tower crane” (Kato: Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 10 is considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims, specifically “further comprising a third receiving unit that receives preparation completion information that indicates that the identification information that is provided to the construction member and that can be used for identification has been confirmed by the terminal device, wherein the first transmission unit transmits, to the machine body control system, a starting instruction indicating the start of operation of the crane on the basis of the preparation completion information and the first plan information.” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8525. The examiner can normally be reached generally Monday through Thursday 8 am to 4:30 pm, EST.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at (571) 272-8105. 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.
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights