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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 3 filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the applicant states, that the claim depends upon claim 6, but it instead depends on claim 1. The Examiner interprets this as a simple typographical error. Watts does indeed teach the limitation of a user interface which allows for syntax checking of data, support can be further found in the specification (Abstract - At least one user interface is provided for editing each of the one or more active scripts and/or device information represented in the virtual gateway.; Paragraph 119- the script editor may comprise diagnostic and/or debugging tools. Thus, a script can automatically or manually (e.g., by the user) be evaluated and debugged (e.g., verified) prior to activation (e.g., by checking whether or not the script is semantically and/or syntactically correct)) It would have been obvious to apply the syntax checking of Watts to the patterns of Scholer in order to ensure increased accuracy of the state data by providing a method to check the syntax of the pattern and there is no evidence in the record that the syntax checking has any unexpected results.
In response to applicant's argument that Watts is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Watts is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of syntax checking of data which is known and there is no evidence in the record that the syntax checking has any unexpected results (i.e., besides finding errors in syntax).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, and 20, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please kindly see the rejection below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Scholer (US 20110029824 A1; February 3, 2011).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media embodying instructions executable by machine to perform operations for troubleshooting a medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1), the operations comprising:
triggering one or more diagnostic tasks to be performed by one or more components of the medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1);
receiving state data of the one or more components of the medical imaging equipment, wherein the state data is acquired from one of more sensors (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1);
identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing analysis of the state data (Paragraph 56, 58, 88);
generating one or more representations of the one or more components of the medical imaging equipment based on the processed data, the state data, the log event data, or a combination thereof (Paragraphs 115, 90, Figure 1, 3, 4, Claim 1).
Sullivan does not disclose identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing pattern analysis using one or more predefined patterns based on the state data and log event data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of log events and state data values.
Sullivan does not teach receiving, in parallel, state data and log event data of the one or more components of the medical imaging equipment, wherein the state data is acquired from one or more sensors and the log event data describe one or more occurrences monitored by the medical imaging equipment;
identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre-defined patterns based on the state data and the log event data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of log events and state data values.
Scholer teaches receiving, in parallel, state data and log event data of the one or more components of the equipment (Paragraph 8 - In order to monitor or inspect the respective machine with respect to failures and failure prediction, the method includes detecting service data on the machine, where the service data includes sensor data and nominal/time-based event data, and the service data refer to all relevant or selected sub-modules of the machine.; Paragraph 14 - The service data are time-based, so that any detected event or sensor value is associated with a respective point of time. The point of time refers to the occurrence of the event or the detection of the sensor data.)
wherein the state data is acquired from one or more sensors and the log event data describe one or more occurrences monitored by the equipment (Paragraph 8- where the service data includes sensor data and nominal/time-based event data, and the service data refer to all relevant or selected sub-modules of the machine.; Paragraph 14 - The service data are time-based, so that any detected event or sensor value is associated with a respective point of time. The point of time refers to the occurrence of the event or the detection of the sensor data.);
identifying a root cause of error in the equipment by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre-defined patterns based on the state data and the log event data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of log events and state data values (Paragraph 8 - The method also includes accessing a reference database, in which reference service data relating to previously detected failures and maintenance related events are stored. The method further includes providing at least one failure pattern, analyzing the detected service data in view of the at least one failure pattern by applying a correlation mechanism).
Therefore, from the teaching of Scholer, it would have been obvious at the time filing to specify the abovementioned limitations in order to provide a modality to monitor and inspect machines with respect to failure to further reduce downtime of the equipment. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the log event data in parallel with the state data along with the pattern analysis of Scholer to the system of Sullivan would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for reduced downtime of equipment.
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more representations comprise a graphical panel that includes one or more graphical representations of the one or more components that are dynamically updated based on the state data (Paragraph 106-107, Figure 3A).
Regarding claim 5, Sullivan i in view of Scholer discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more diagnostic tasks comprise moving to a predetermined position, testing, calibrating, displaying, or a combination thereof (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan discloses a troubleshooting system, comprising:
one or more sensors that acquire state data of one or more components of a medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1); and
a computer system in communication with the one or more sensors, wherein the computer system includes
a non-transitory memory device for storing computer readable program code (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1), and
a processor in communication with the non-transitory memory device, the processor being operative with the computer readable program code to perform operations including
receiving state data of the one or more components of the of the medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 55-57)
identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing analysis on the state data (Paragraph 56, 58, 88);
generating one or more representations of the one or more components of the medical imaging equipment based on the processed data, the log event data, the state data, or a combination thereof (Paragraphs 115, 90, Figure 1, 3, 4, Claim 1).
Sullivan does not disclose receiving, in parallel, log event data and the state data of the one of more components of the medical imaging equipment, wherein the log event data describe one or more occurrences monitored by the medical imaging equipment;
identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre-defined patterns based on the state data and the log event data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of log events and state data values.
Scholer teaches receiving, in parallel, log event data and the state data of the one of more components of the medical imaging equipment (Paragraph 8 - In order to monitor or inspect the respective machine with respect to failures and failure prediction, the method includes detecting service data on the machine, where the service data includes sensor data and nominal/time-based event data, and the service data refer to all relevant or selected sub-modules of the machine; Paragraph 14 - The service data are time-based, so that any detected event or sensor value is associated with a respective point of time. The point of time refers to the occurrence of the event or the detection of the sensor data.), wherein the log event data describe one or more occurrences monitored by the medical imaging equipment (Paragraph 8 - where the service data includes sensor data and nominal/time-based event data, and the service data refer to all relevant or selected sub-modules of the machine.; Paragraph 14 - The service data are time-based, so that any detected event or sensor value is associated with a respective point of time. The point of time refers to the occurrence of the event or the detection of the sensor data.);
identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre-defined patterns based on the state data and the log event data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of log events and state data values (Paragraph 8 - The method also includes accessing a reference database, in which reference service data relating to previously detected failures and maintenance related events are stored. The method further includes providing at least one failure pattern, analyzing the detected service data in view of the at least one failure pattern by applying a correlation mechanism).
Therefore, from the teaching of Scholer, it would have been obvious at the time filing to specify the abovementioned limitations in order to provide a modality to monitor and inspect machines with respect to failure to further reduce downtime of the equipment. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the log event data in parallel with the state data along with the pattern analysis of Scholer to the system of Sullivan would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for reduced downtime of equipment.
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the trouble shooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise a position sensor, a voltage sensor, a temperature sensor, a camera, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a time-of-flight sensor, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more components comprise a gantry, a slip ring, a cooling system, a generator, a computing device, a scanner head, a front patient handling system (PHS), a rear PHS, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 41-48).
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the state data comprises positional sensor values, voltage values, temperature values, configuration data, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 41-48)
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more sensors continuously acquire the state data at predetermined regular intervals (Paragraph 41-48)
Regarding claim 13, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more representations comprise a user interface with an information panel and a graphical panel that includes one or more graphical representations of the one or more components, wherein the information panel and the graphical panel are dynamically updated by the state data (Paragraph 41-48, 65-71 198).
Regarding claim 14, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 13. Sullivan further discloses wherein the user interface further comprises a navigation panel that is dynamically updated by the state data (Paragraph 41-51, 65-71 198).
Regarding claim 17, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the processor is further operative with the computer readable program code to trigger one or more diagnostic tasks to be performed by the medical imaging equipment (Paragraph 109-119).
Regarding claim 20, Sullivan discloses a method for troubleshooting a medical imaging equipment, comprising:
receiving state data of one or more components of the medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1) wherein the state data is acquired from one or more sensors (Paragraph 55-57);
identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing analysis on the state data (Paragraph 56, 58, 88);
generating one or more representations of the one or more components of the medical imaging equipment based on the processed data, the log event data, the state data, or a combination thereof (Paragraphs 115, 90, Figure 1, 3, 4, Claim 1).
Sullivan does not teach receiving, in parallel, log event data and state data of one or more components of the medical imaging equipment, wherein the state data is acquired from one of more sensors and the log event data describe one or more occurrences monitored by the medical imaging equipment;
identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre- defined patterns based on the log event data and the state data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of log events and state data values.
Sullivan does not teach receiving, in parallel, log event data and state data of one or more components of the medical imaging equipment, wherein the state data is acquired from one of more sensors and the log event data describe one or more occurrences monitored by the medical imaging equipment;
identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre- defined patterns based on the log event data and the state data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of log events and state data values.
Scholer teaches receiving, in parallel, log event data and state data of one or more components of the medical imaging equipment, (Paragraph 8 - In order to monitor or inspect the respective machine with respect to failures and failure prediction, the method includes detecting service data on the machine, where the service data includes sensor data and nominal/time-based event data, and the service data refer to all relevant or selected sub-modules of the machine.; Paragraph 14 - The service data are time-based, so that any detected event or sensor value is associated with a respective point of time. The point of time refers to the occurrence of the event or the detection of the sensor data.), wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of log events and state data values (Paragraph 8 - where the service data includes sensor data and nominal/time-based event data, and the service data refer to all relevant or selected sub-modules of the machine.; Paragraph 14 - The service data are time-based, so that any detected event or sensor value is associated with a respective point of time. The point of time refers to the occurrence of the event or the detection of the sensor data.);
identifying a root cause of error in the medical imaging equipment by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre- defined patterns based on the log event data and the state data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of log events and state data values. (Paragraph 8 - The method also includes accessing a reference database, in which reference service data relating to previously detected failures and maintenance related events are stored. The method further includes providing at least one failure pattern, analyzing the detected service data in view of the at least one failure pattern by applying a correlation mechanism).
Therefore, from the teaching of Scholer, it would have been obvious at the time filing to specify the abovementioned limitations in order to provide a modality to monitor and inspect machines with respect to failure to further reduce downtime of the equipment. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the log event data in parallel with the state data along with the pattern analysis of Scholer to the system of Sullivan would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for reduced downtime of equipment.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Scholer (US 20110029824 A1; February 3, 2011) in view of Etzion (US 2012/0095986 A1; April 19, 2012).
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan in view of Scholer teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, but fail to further disclose wherein the operations further comprise generating user interface that enables creating, editing or management of the one or more pre-defined patterns
Etzion further discloses wherein the operations further comprise generating user interface that enables creating, editing or management of the one or more pre-defined patterns (Paragraph 31 - Specifically, pattern management tool 130 is shown here in detail. In spatial patterns module 132, temporal patterns module 133, and semantic context patterns module 134, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal and semantic patterns may be created by a user.; Paragraph 26 - System 100 is in communication with at least one computer 10)
Therefore from the teaching of Etzion, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitations in order to allow for optimization of pattern database which allows for efficient identification of errors thereby reducing down time of the equipment.
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6, but fail to disclose wherein the processor is operative with the computer readable program code to generate a user interface that enables creating, editing or management of the one or more pre-defined state data patterns.
Etzion further discloses wherein the processor is operative with the computer readable program code to generate a user interface that enables creating, editing or management of the one or more pre-defined state data patterns. (Paragraph 31 - Specifically, pattern management tool 130 is shown here in detail. In spatial patterns module 132, temporal patterns module 133, and semantic context patterns module 134, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal and semantic patterns may be created by a user.; Paragraph 26 - System 100 is in communication with at least one computer 10)
Therefore from the teaching of Etzion, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitations in order to allow for optimization of pattern database which allows for efficient identification of errors thereby reducing down time of the equipment.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Scholer (US 20110029824 A1; February 3, 2011) in view of Watts, JR (US 2015/0264138 A1; September 17, 2015).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan in view of Scholer teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1. Scholer teaches the user interface includes at least one interactive user interface element that displays failure patterns. (Paragraph 8 - In order to monitor or inspect the respective machine with respect to failures and failure prediction, the method includes detecting service data on the machine, where the service data includes sensor data and nominal/time-based event data, and the service data refer to all relevant or selected sub-modules of the machine.; Paragraph 67- the result with the failure pattern and the generated prediction is displayed on a display device that is associated with the machine 10 or the central service unit. The amount of displaying may be configured, for example, to select specific time frames and data to be displayed.)
Sullivan in view of Scholer fails to explicitly teach wherein the user interface include at least one interactive user interface element that enables syntax checking of the one or more pre-defined state data patterns.
Watts, JR teaches wherein the user interface include at least one interactive user interface element that enables syntax checking of data (Abstract- At least one user interface is provided for editing each of the one or more active scripts and/or device information represented in the virtual gateway.; Paragraph 116 - The script editor may comprise an interactive interface that enables the user to graphically, semantically and syntactically, place and connect these components in a logical manner. The script editor may check for correct semantics and syntax during and/or after editing).
Therefore, from the teaching of Watt, JR., it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to ensure increased accuracy of the state data by providing a method to check the syntax of the pattern of Scholer, as the checking of syntax is known.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Scholer (US 20110029824 A1; February 3, 2011) in view of Boskamp ( US 2016/0187434 A1; June 30, 2016).
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan in view of Scholer does not disclose wherein the medical imaging equipment comprises a modality that acquires medical image data using high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, computed tomography (CT), helical CT, X-ray, angiography, positron emission tomography (PET), fluoroscopy, ultrasound, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), photoacoustics, microwaves, optical coherence tomography, or a combination thereof.
Boskamp discloses wherein the medical imaging equipment comprises a modality that acquires medical image data using high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, computed tomography (CT), helical CT, X-ray, angiography, positron emission tomography (PET), fluoroscopy, ultrasound, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), photoacoustics, microwaves, optical coherence tomography, or a combination thereof. (Paragraph 41-48, Abstract)
Therefore, from the teaching of Boskamp, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify that the medical imaging equipment was an MRI machine as it is a known machine which would need troubleshooting.
Claim 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) Scholer (US 20110029824 A1; February 3, 2011) in view of Molander (US 2005/0177790 A1;
Regarding claim 15, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 13. Scholer further teaches an interactive user interface further comprises highlighting specific time frames and data of interest of failure patterns. (Paragraph 67)
Sullivan in view of Scholer do not further disclose wherein the user interface further comprises a log events table that highlights log events of interest.
Molander teaches wherein the user interface further comprises a log events table that highlights log events of interest. (Paragraph 25 - One suitable computer system 20 is illustrated in FIG. 1 having a display such as a CRT or plasma screen that simultaneously displays a log chart 22A and a log table 22B, which are different representations of the same underlying data.; Paragraph 27 - As events are detected, they are simultaneously added to the event log chart and to the event log table. For example, assume the box 202 outlined in the chart of FIG. 2A corresponds to the selected entry 212 that is highlighted in the event log table of FIG. 2B. )
Therefore, from the teaching of Molander, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitations in order to decrease time in tracking events of interest in which an error occurred thereby reducing downtime of the equipment.
Regarding claim 16, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 13. Scholer further teaches an interactive user interface further comprises highlighting specific time frames and data of interest of failure patterns. (Paragraph 67)
Sullivan in view of Scholer do not further discloses wherein the user interface further comprises an interactive timeline that highlights log events of interest.
Molander teaches wherein the user interface further comprises an interactive timeline that highlights log events of interest (Paragraph 14 - FIG. 2A is a graphical representation of events and alerts shown along a time line.; Paragraph 25...screen that simultaneously displays a log chart 22A and a log table 22B; Paragraph 26- FIG. 2A shows in particular a graphical representation in chart format of events and alerts along a time line. Paragraph 18 - FIG. 5A is a log chart operated on by a user).
Therefore, from the teaching of Molander, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitations in order to decrease time in tracking exact time of events of interest in which an error occurred thereby reducing downtime of the equipment.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) Scholer (US 20110029824 A1; February 3, 2011) in view of Kucek (US6832199B1; December 14, 2004).
Regarding claim 18, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 17. Sullivan in view of Scholer fail to discloses wherein the one or more diagnostic tasks comprise moving the medical imaging equipment to home, exercise or cycle positions.
Kucek teaches the present invention relates to medical diagnostic equipment which provides the equipment user with a facility for creating an electronic list of tasks (hereinafter "task list") to be performed by a field engineer which do not require an emergency service call. In accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention, this electronic task list resides in the medical diagnostic equipment (e.g., a scanner) and is created by the end-user interacting with a graphical user interface.
Therefore from the teaching of Kucek, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the tasks such as home, exercise, or cycle positions as these are just a design choice as needed by the current program.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Scholer (US 20110029824 A1; February 3, 2011) in view of Zimmerman (US 2021/0092116 A1; March 25, 2021).
Regarding claim 19, Sullivan in view of Scholer discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the state data is communicated between the one or more sensors and the computer system (Paragraph 74).
Sullivan in view of Scholer fail to disclose wherein the state data is communicated between the one or more sensors and the computer system using WebSocket via a full-duplex communication channel.
Zimmerman teaches wherein the data is communicated using WebSocket via a full-duplex communication channel. (Paragraph 39)
Therefore, from the teaching of Zimmerman, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitations since this is a known data transfer connection method that ensures efficiency in the cost of the external link (Paragraph 39)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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://patentc\enter.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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights