DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Internet communications were authorized on 2/27/2023.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“signal acquirer” which corresponds to radar or input, and equivalents
“analyzer” which corresponds to processor, and equivalents
“variation calculator” which corresponds to processor, and equivalents
“first determiner” which corresponds to processor, and equivalents
“second determiner” which corresponds to processor, and equivalents
“output unit” corresponds to display, and equivalents
“comparator” which corresponds to processor, and equivalents
in claims 1-2, 4-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 10 each contain contingent limitations, but product and method claims of contingent limitations have separate claim interpretations as discussed in MPEP 2111.04. As such, for the method claim 10, while all limitations have been considered, the limitations which are not required to occur bear no patentable weight. The limitations which are contingent and not required to occur are the second determination procedure and the output procedure as these are each contingent on the first determination procedure results. In situations where the variation is larger than the threshold, no other steps are required to occur after the first determination procedure.
MPEP 2111.04
II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-9, the limitations include a device with structures which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as explained above. However, for many of the structures, the same structures are disclosed for performing the claimed functions which makes the metes and bounds of the claims unclear due to the double inclusion of structures with different names which are the same structures under a broadest reasonable interpretation. For examination purposes, any structures which are disclosed as being performed by a processor are interpreted as being a processor with functional limitations and not separate structures of different processors. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear which renders the claims indefinite. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Regarding claims 1-11 (Claim 1 representative), the limitations:
“a variation calculator that calculates variation of energy in a predetermined frequency band in energy of the frequency component indicated by the spectrogram;
a first determiner that determines whether the variation is larger than a threshold;
a second determiner that, if it is determined by the first determiner that the variation is not larger than the threshold, determines whether a higher harmonic wave with respect to a second peak having energy equal to or more than a predetermined ratio to a first peak where the energy is maximum is present in the predetermined frequency band; and
an output unit that outputs a respiration rate based on a frequency of the first peak if it is determined by the second determiner that the higher harmonic wave is absent and outputs a respiration rate based on a fundamental frequency of the higher harmonic wave if it is determined by the second determiner that the higher harmonic wave is present”
render the claims indefinite in view of the disclosure as filed, MPEP 2173.03. The issue is that while the claims and abstract and portions of the specification present the algorithm in one form, the detailed description of Figures 4-5 and the drawings of Figures 4-5 present the algorithm in the opposite form from that which is claimed. It is not clear which form of the algorithm is correct and which is incorrect. For example Figures 4-5 identify the harmonics analysis when the variation is larger than the threshold, but the claims state this occurs when the variation is not larger than the threshold. This makes the metes and bounds of the claims unclear which renders the claim indefinite. Which form is correct, Figures 4-5 or the claims? Based on the answer to that and honest assertion by applicant, the disclosure must be amended to have a consistent algorithm; the claims, abstract, figures, and specification should all be in common agreement. In terms of prior art, no prior art rejections can be applied to the product claims 1-9 as such would be improper due to the speculation/assumptions required to determine the correct form of the claimed algorithm, In re Steele. However, as the questionable algorithmic part of the claim in question for the method is purely contingent, the method claim is rejected in view of prior art for the required (and non-contingent steps) claimed as presented below. See MPEP 2173.06:
“Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a program per se. MPEP 2106 discusses subject matter eligibility. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are not patent eligible. As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed “device profile” comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a “means plus function” limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. Another example of an intangible product that does not fall within a statutory category is a paradigm or business model for a marketing company. In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1
attenuates a frequency component other than the respiration component included in the signal and generates a post-processing signal (mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper)
analyzes the post-processing signal to generate a spectrogram (mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper)
calculates variation of energy in a predetermined frequency band in energy of the frequency component indicated by the spectrogram (mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper)
determines whether the variation is larger than a threshold (mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper)
if it is determined by the first determiner that the variation is not larger than the threshold, determines whether a higher harmonic wave with respect to a second peak having energy equal to or more than a predetermined ratio to a first peak where the energy is maximum is present in the predetermined frequency band (mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper)
Claim 10
a filter procedure in which the biological detection device attenuates a frequency component other than the respiration component included in the signal and generates a post-processing signal (mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper);
an analysis procedure in which…analyzes the post-processing signal to generate a spectrogram (mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper);
a dispersion calculation procedure in which…calculates variation of energy in a predetermined frequency band in energy of each frequency component indicated by the spectrogram (mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper);
a first determination procedure in which…determines whether the variation is larger than a threshold(mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper);
a second determination procedure in which, if it is determined in the first determination procedure that the variation is not larger than the threshold,…determines whether a higher harmonic wave with respect to a second peak having energy equal to or more than a predetermined ratio to a first peak where the energy is maximum is present in the predetermined frequency band (contingent limitation not required to be performed, mathematical concept, mental process including pen and paper)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
Claim 1
a signal acquirer that acquires a signal including a respiration component (insignificant pre-solution activities of data gathering)
a filter, an analyzer, a variation calculator, a first determiner, a second determiner (insignificant features of generic structures/computer structures to implement the algorithm/exceptions)
an output unit that outputs a respiration rate based on a frequency of the first peak if it is determined by the second determiner that the higher harmonic wave is absent and outputs a respiration rate based on a fundamental frequency of the higher harmonic wave if it is determined by the second determiner that the higher harmonic wave is present (insignificant extra solution activities of a structure to display information)
Claim 10
method performed by a biological detection device (preamble field/intended use of generic structures, insignificant features included in body to be used to perform the claimed exceptions/algorithm)
a signal acquisition procedure in which the biological detection device acquires a signal including a respiration component (insignificant pre-solution activities of data gathering)
an output procedure in which the biological detection device outputs a respiration rate based on a frequency of the first peak if it is determined in the second determination procedure that the higher harmonic wave is absent and outputs a respiration rate based on a fundamental frequency of the higher harmonic wave if it is determined in the second determination procedure that the higher harmonic wave is present (contingent limitation not required to be performed, insignificant extra solution activities of outputting data)
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that is not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified in the step 2A analysis as discussed above. Such limitations related to the acquiring data are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm/mental process, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the product/method as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm/mental process. In addition, these data gathering structures are known from 2010/0130873, US 2021/0199796, US 4958638, US 2008/0275337, US 2009/0278728, US 2012/0245479. The computer structures cited above are claimed as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are directed to further details of computer structures, data acquiring, and further details of the exceptions (A more specific abstraction is still an abstraction). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen et al. (Yuen, US 2010/0130873) in view of Khasnobish et al. ( Khasnobish, US 2021/0199796).
Regarding claim 10, Yuen teaches a biological detection method performed by a biological detection device (see entire document especially Figure 1a, 18, 21-22, 25A), the biological detection method comprising:
a signal acquisition procedure in which the biological detection device acquires a signal including a respiration component (see entire document, especially Figure 1a, 18, 21-22, 25A, [0093]);
a filter procedure in which the biological detection device attenuates a frequency component other than the respiration component included in the signal and generates a post-processing signal (see entire document, especially [0147]);
an analysis procedure in which the biological detection device analyzes the post-processing signal to generate a spectrogram (see entire document, especially [0028]);
However, the limitations of a dispersion calculation procedure in which the biological detection device calculates variation of energy in a predetermined frequency band in energy of each frequency component indicated by the spectrogram; a first determination procedure in which the biological detection device determines whether the variation is larger than a threshold; a second determination procedure in which, if it is determined in the first determination procedure that the variation is not larger than the threshold, the biological detection device determines whether a higher harmonic wave with respect to a second peak having energy equal to or more than a predetermined ratio to a first peak where the energy is maximum is present in the predetermined frequency band; and an output procedure in which the biological detection device outputs a respiration rate based on a frequency of the first peak if it is determined in the second determination procedure that the higher harmonic wave is absent and outputs a respiration rate based on a fundamental frequency of the higher harmonic wave if it is determined in the second determination procedure that the higher harmonic wave is present are not directly taught.
Khasnobish teaches a related system measuring physiological data using radar signals (see entire document, especially abstract), and teaches a process for identifying usable data from noise data, where noise data is determined by comparing a variation of spectral data to a higher threshold, where data over the threshold is noise and the data less than the threshold contains data to be analyzed, which reasonably teaches the features a dispersion calculation procedure in which the biological detection device calculates variation of energy in a predetermined frequency band in energy of each frequency component indicated by the spectrogram; a first determination procedure in which the biological detection device determines whether the variation is larger than a threshold (see entire document, especially [0034] Upon applying the software preprocessing, at step 312 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 204 are configured to analyze each of the second preprocessed plurality of segments associated with the first channel signal and the second channel signal to detect a plurality of presence segments indicative of a presence of subject or one or more absence segments indicative of absence of the subject in the observation space based on a presence detection technique. The presence is determined for the segments for which energy levels of each of the second preprocessed plurality of segments associated with the first channel signal and the second channel signal are above a predefined energy threshold. The presence is detected by calculating the energy present in the signal over a small duration of time (for example, 1 second), when the radar is placed 1.5 meter away from the human (subject's body). If the average signal energy per unit sample crosses a predefined threshold (0.1) for either channel, it implies that a human presence is detected at that distance. If, however the said energy per sample crosses 0.3, it means that the environment has disturbances and is noisy.). Since Khasnobish teaches the method, and also teaches such determination can include both larger and smaller variation to the threshold, the following limitations are taught by the alternative even though they do not bear patentable weight as discussed above as the contingency not being required to be met in the claimed process: a second determination procedure in which, if it is determined in the first determination procedure that the variation is not larger than the threshold, the biological detection device determines whether a higher harmonic wave with respect to a second peak having energy equal to or more than a predetermined ratio to a first peak where the energy is maximum is present in the predetermined frequency band; and an output procedure in which the biological detection device outputs a respiration rate based on a frequency of the first peak if it is determined in the second determination procedure that the higher harmonic wave is absent and outputs a respiration rate based on a fundamental frequency of the higher harmonic wave if it is determined in the second determination procedure that the higher harmonic wave is present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable results of evaluating spectral data averages to determine if the signals captured are noise or whether the signals captured contain desired information to be further processed to identify respiration.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are met by Yuen in view of Khasnobish, where Yuen teaches a program for causing a computer to execute the biological detection method according to claim 10 (see entire document, especially [0155]).
Conclusion
No prior art rejections have been applied to claims 1-9 due to the speculation/assumptions/uncertainty in the interpretations of the claims as discussed in the 112b rejections above. In re Steele.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791