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 .
Claims 11,12 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.
As to claim 11, it is entirely unclear whether the entirety of claim 1 presents a single method where each and every “case” (lines 9, 13, 25, 30) is a substantive limitation that occurs over time as the 2 “comparing” (lines 8 and 23-24) steps potentially link all of lines 8-22 with all of lines 23-last ; or in the alternative, whether the claim is (somehow) to be understood as 4 patentably different methods in the alternative (such as one of either of lines 9-12 or lines 13-22; in combination with one of either lines 25-29 or lines 30-33). All of the claimed material is supported in specification, but presentation of such as a method claim is problematic.
As to claim 11, the term “case” (lines 9,13,25,30) is inherently problematic because in this claim it presents uncertainly as to whether the claim is limited to include all of those cases, a combination of some of those cases, or fantastically even none of those cases. After all, a case can be a mere possibility, or even an intended use; so one of ordinary skill will be uncertain as to if the claim is substantively limited to only the combination of lines 1-8 and 23-24 (with all of the cases serving as mere possibilities, or even intended uses). Again, a method claim requires that each step be clearly defined, but in this instance it’s uncertain if any of those cases further limit the method at all. Again, all of the claimed material is supported in specification, but presentation of such as a method claim is problematic.
As to claim 11, this claim has 3 verbs (“receiving” (line 2), “comparing” (line 8) and “comparing” (line 23) that introduce 3 steps in this method claim. How each case relates to the “comparing” step steps is entirely uncertain. Presenting mere list of cases is problematic. The claim is uncertain as to how each and every case relates to “comparing” (lines 8, 23) if at all.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights