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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite a method of generating cost estimates for a vehicle repair and repainting using an image. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 16 is directed to a computer program product comprising CRM, i.e., manufacture and claim 1 is directed to a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1-9 and 16-20 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind therefore, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 and 16 recites:
receiving an area of interest; determining, as a mental process as an abstract idea);
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As such, a person could perform determine feature, compare with stored data and grouping features and build dendrogram of group and label object in image either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by one or more hardware processors (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with a simple tool such as a pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1-9 and 16- 20 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 16 recites:
A computer program product comprising: a computer-readable storage medium; and instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Claims 1 and 16 recite:
by a trained machine learning (ML) model the one or more trained machine learning models represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer OR merely uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The “by a trained machine learning (ML) model” which appears as recited in the claims further stands in to automate a human mental process using a generic machine learning models that has not been improved by the applicant.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
With regard to (2b) the Guidance provided the following examples of limitations that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception:
Improvement to another technology or technical field
Improvement to functioning of computer itself and/or applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Adding a specific limitation other that what is well understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application
Meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The Guidance further set forth limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement abstract ideas on a computer
Simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic
Computer to perform generic computer functions that are well -understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 20 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional computer components, using instructions to apply the judicial exception, are merely generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014).
claims 1 and 16 recite:
by a trained machine learning (ML) model, the one or more trained machine learning models represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer OR merely uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The “by a trained machine learning (ML) model,” which appears as recited in the claims further stands in to automate a human mental process using a generic machine learning models that has not been improved by the applicant.
The “by a trained machine learning (ML) model,” is further routine, well- understood and conventional by the virtue of the factual evidence of the record as follows:
Thus, since claims 1 and 16 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1 and 16 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-9 and 17-20 and the dependent claims are similarly identified as: being directed towards an abstract idea, not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
The USPTO “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (Official Gazette notice of 22 November 2005), Annex IV, reads as follows (see also MPEP 2106):
In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claims that recite nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are nonstatutory natural phenomena. O'Reilly, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 112-14. Moreover, it does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in Sec. 101.
… a signal does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of Sec. 101.
… signal claims are ineligible for patent protection because they do not fall within any of the four
statutory classes of Sec. 101.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 16-20 str drawn to functional descriptive material recorded on a computer-program product comprising computer readable storage medium. The specification does not define what a computer-program product nor computer-readable storage medium is. With broadest reasonable interpretation, computer program product and computer-readable storage medium includes non-statutory subject matter such as a “signal” or “carrier wave".
“A transitory, propagating signal … is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Because the full scope of the claim as properly read in light of the disclosure appears to encompass non-statutory subject matter (i.e., because the specification defines/exemplifies a computer readable medium as a non-statutory signal, carrier waver, etc.) the claim as a whole is non-statutory. The examiner suggests amending the claim to include the disclosed non-transitory tangible computer readable storage media, while at the same time excluding the transitory intangible transitory media such as signals, carrier waves, etc. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 5, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US Patent 11, 507,252) in view of Nushi et al. (US 2020/0349395).
With respect to claim 1, Beck et al. teach receiving an area of interest (col. 4 line 30, received image; col. 5 lines 41-42, Step 304 represents the input images or unlabeled data which are the raw images from the factory line.; col. 6 line 5, received images at step 304);
determining, by a trained machine learning (ML) model, a feature vector associated with an object detected in the area of interest (col. 4 line29-30, extracting (step 102) one or more features of a plurality of received images; col. 6 lines 4-12, FIG. 4 represents an example machine learning feature extractor with respect to the received images at step 304, In an example, a Resnet feature extractor extracts the features from the images and converts them into a feature vector based on standard machine learning principle);
grouping a plurality of feature vectors into a cluster (col. 4 lines 32-34, Based on similarity of features, the received images/items are classified (step 104) by a machine-learning classifier into a plurality of clusters) based on the computed Euclidean distance;
building a dendrogram of clusters depicting a hierarchy of the clusters (col. 4 lines 34-39, clusters are arranged (step 106) hierarchically in accordance with a plurality of levels to display a graphical-tree representation having a plurality of hierarchical levels, for example, as a dendrogram or any other hierarchy based diagrammatic representation of cluster);
labeling the object based on the dendrogram of clusters (Fig. 3, Col. 5 lines 54-55, Step 312 represents labelled data set associated with clusters in accordance with step 108); and
presenting, by a user interface a user with the labeled object ((Fig. 3, Col. 5 lines 56-58, The GUI 302 renders a display the generated image representations with respect to cluster and accordingly renders the display in accordance with method step 110; Fig. 6).
Beck et al. do not teach expressly that labeling the feature vector based on a characteristic associated with the object
computing a Euclidean distance between the labeled feature vector and one or more stored feature vectors and
grouping a plurality of feature vectors into a cluster based on the computed Euclidean distance.
Nushi et al. teach expressly that labeling the feature vector based on a characteristic associated with the object (para [0052], determine that merging these labels into a single feature category);
computing a Euclidean distance between the labeled feature vector and one or more stored feature vectors (para [0052], Euclidean distance (e.g., feature vectors) as a similarity measure between different features); and
grouping a plurality of feature vectors into a cluster based on the computed Euclidean distance (para [0052], cluster manager 306 may implement agglomerative hierarchical clustering technique and Euclidean distance (e.g., feature vectors) as a similarity measure between different features and the cluster manager 306 may determine that merging these labels into a single feature category).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to label feature of the object and group feature into cluster based on Euclidean distance in the method of Beck et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that use well known method to accurately extract and classify feature into group.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nushi et al. with Beck et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With respect to claim 3, Beck et al. teach that the area of interest is associated with an event (col. 5 lines 41-42, Step 304 represents the input images or unlabeled data which are the raw images from the factory line).
With respect to claim 5, Beck et al. teach that the feature vector is determined based on feature extraction (col. 6 lines 4-12, FIG. 4 represents an example machine learning feature extractor with respect to the received images at step 304)
With respect to claim 9, Beck et al. teach that presenting, by a user interface, a user with the dendrogram of clusters (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected same reason as claim 1 above.
With respect to computer-readable storage medium and a processor, Beck et al. teach computer system (Fig. 2, and 16; col. 10 lines 47-65).
Claim 2 and 4 , 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US Patent 11, 507,252) in view of Nushi et al. (US 2020/0349395) and in further view of Bian et al. (US 2021/0049353).
With respect to claim 2, Beck et al. and Nushi et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 2 respectively depend.
Beck et al. and Nushi et al. do not teach expressly that the area of interest is bounded by a polygon on a map.
Bian et al. teach expressly that the area of interest is bounded by a polygon on a map (para [0151], the device 130 may crop each input image frame from the video stream to a square dimension).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use area of interest is bounded by a polygon on a map in the method of Beck et al. and Nushi et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that analyze targeted so that efficiently analize the image .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bian et al. with Beck et al. and Nushi et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
With respect to claim 4, Beck et al. and Nushi et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 2 respectively depend.
Beck et al. and Nushi et al. do not teach expressly that the feature vector comprises a bounding box associated with the object.
Bian et al. teach expressly that the feature vector comprises a bounding box associated with the object (para [0022], extracting features from the one of the video frames based on outputs from the feedforward neural network; generating a feature map by applying a convolutional neural network to the extracted features; determining the target object with associated confidence scores from the feature map; and outputting the bounding box).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a bounding box associated with the object as the feature vector in the method of Beck et al. and Nushi et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that us well known method to accurately identify feature of object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bian et al. with Beck et al. and Nushi et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
With respect to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected same reason as claim 4 above.
Claims 6-8, 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US Patent 11, 507,252) in view of Nushi et al. (US 2020/0349395) and in further view of Zadeh et al. (US 2022/0121884).
With respect to claim 6, Beck et al. and Nushi et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 2 respectively depend.
Beck et al. and Nushi et al. do not teach expressly the feature vector summarizes a visual appearance of the object.
Zadeh et al. teach expressly that the feature vector summarizes a visual appearance of the object (para [2935], interface summarizing the coded/descriptive features of an object with value of each feature provided).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to summarizes a visual appearance of the object by feature vector in the method of Beck et al. and Nushi et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to accurately identify the object .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zadeh et al. with Beck et al. and Nushi et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
With respect to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected same reason as claim 6 above.
With respect to claim 7, Beck et al. and Nushi et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 2 respectively depend.
Beck et al. and Nushi et al. do not teach expressly determining the feature vector comprises determining the object is not a part of a background associated with the area of interest.
Zadeh et al. teach expressly that determining the feature vector comprises determining the object is not a part of a background associated with the area of interest. (para [1825], the system recognize high level features of foreground).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize features of foreground in the method of Beck et al. and Nushi et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to identify salient feature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zadeh et al. with Beck et al. and Nushi et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
With respect to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected same reason as claim 7 above.
With respect to claim 8, Beck et al. and Nushi et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 2 respectively depend.
Beck et al. and Nushi et al. do not teach expressly determining the feature vector comprises comparing an object to a previously detected object.
Zadeh et al. teach expressly that determining the feature vector comprises comparing an object to a previously detected object. (para [1925], input features are selected at a given time, compared to the previous time).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to comparing an object to a previously detected object in the method of Beck et al. and Nushi et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to identify change of feature over time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zadeh et al. with Beck et al. and Nushi et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
With respect to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected same reason as claim 8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667