Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 17, 2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on October 17, 2025.
Claims 9 and 11 are cancelled.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-20 are pending.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-20 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260206 for references purposes only.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 recites “at least one of wallet addresses, personally identifiable information.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “at least one of the wallet addresses, the personally identifiable information.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “an alert to user at occurrence... the potential threat actors” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “an alert to the user at an occurrence… the potential threat actor.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “collected from plurality of data points corresponding to plurality of data sources.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “collected from a plurality of data points corresponding to the plurality of data sources.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “received from blockchain.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “received from the blockchain.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “uniform headers wherein the uniform headers are added at occurrence of new data.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “uniform headers, wherein the uniform headers are added at an occurrence of new data.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “details of plurality.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “details of the plurality.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “at least one of a wallet addresses.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “at least one of the wallet addresses.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites “the change in at least one or the personally identifiable information, threat actors and blockchain transactions.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “the change in at least one of the personally identifiable information, the one or more known threat actors, and the blockchain transactions.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “information thereby.” For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “information, thereby.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd paragraph
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 1-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “the personally identifiable information from third party breaches.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “personally identifiable information from third party breaches.”
Claim 20 recites “the cryptocurrency transactions.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “cryptocurrency transactions.”
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-13 are vague and indefinite because they include purely functional limitations without corresponding structure. Specifically, the specification does not clearly link or associate structure(s) for these limitations:
“a receiving module configured to acquire… a combination thereof” in claim 1;
“a correlation engine operatively coupled to the receiving module, wherein the correlation engine is configured to map… comparison” in claim 1;
“a vision module operatively coupled to the correlation engine, wherein the vision module is configured to display… addresses” in claim 1;
“a record module operatively coupled to the vision module, wherein the record module is configured to: deliver… detect deltas… actor” in claim 1;
“the vision module is configured to expand… addresses” in claim 2;
“an input module wherein the input module is configured to receive… breaches” in claim 3;
“a search module configured to render… user” in claim 4;
“an alert module operatively coupled to the correlation engine, wherein the alert module is configured to generate… transactions” in claim 5.
Please see Claim Interpretation below.
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 1-8, 10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of identifying potential threat actors by correlating transactions with wallet addresses and transaction hashes from a plurality of transactions with personally identifiable information fields, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. 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).
Claim 1, representative of claim 14, includes the following limitations:
Acquiring a plurality of blockchain transactions;
Comparing a block address to a latest transaction with a block address to a latest read transaction;
Obtaining a list of block addresses to investigate and obtaining details, wherein the details comprise at least one of a list of transactions to pending block addresses, personally identifiable information from a plurality of data sources, data of known threat actors with corresponding wallet addresses, and a combination thereof;
Mapping a plurality of acquired blockchain transactions with the personally identifiable information;
Normalizing the personally identifiable information fields under uniform headers to enable cross-source comparison;
Displaying graphical representations that depict the blockchain transactions and the known threat actors with corresponding wallet addresses;
Delivering a plurality of user stories based on maintained temporal state;
Detecting a change to at least one of the personally identifiable information and blockchain transactions, thereby identifying a potential threat actor.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
a server;
a network;
blockchain transactions.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
Regarding “a server” and “a network”, they add 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).
Regarding “blockchain transactions”, they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of “a server” and “a network” are mere instructions to apply an exception, and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional elements of “a server” and “a network” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional elements of “a server” and “a network” are simply the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements only provide a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to “apply it”. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of “blockchain transactions” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional element of “blockchain transactions” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional element of “blockchain transactions” is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, “blockchain transactions” merely limits the claims to the computer field. See FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites expanding the graphical representations on the wallet addresses, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 3 recites representing a relationship between the wallet addresses and personally identifiable information from third party breaches, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 4 recites rendering a plurality of currencies, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 5 recites generating an alert at an occurrence of a change, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 6 recites the personally identifiable information is collected from a plurality of data points, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites the different types of data sources, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites providing periodic data and historical data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, 772 F.3d 709, 715.
Claim 10 recites providing current statistics for cryptocurrencies, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, 772 F.3d 709, 715.
Claim 12 recites the personally identifiable information is in the form of a structured file with uniform headers, which generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 13 recites the graphical representations display the details in a text format, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0101326) in view of Dalal et al. (US 2021/0160269).
Claims 1, 14
Kim discloses:
a processing subsystem (security intelligence platform for blockchain, SIPB, see figure 1) hosted on a server, wherein the processing subsystem is configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules comprising:
a receiving module configured to acquire a plurality of blockchain transactions (transaction data, see figure 1), by invoking a blockchain application programming interface (interface, see [0110]) configured to compare a block address corresponding to a latest transaction with a block address (immediate source wallets, see [0323], figure 19B) corresponding to a latest read transaction from the blockchain (immediate destination wallets, see [0323], figure 19B), thereby obtaining a list of block addresses to investigate (relay wallets, see [0323], figure 19B) in the blockchain, and to obtain details comprising at least one of a list of transactions (e.g. downstream transactions of D3, see [0323]) corresponding to one or more pending block addresses, personally identifiable information (user data, see [0101], figure 1) from a plurality of data sources, data of one or more known threat actors (threat reputation database, TRDB, see [0118, 0152], figure 1) with corresponding wallet addresses (hacker’s wallet addresses, see [0121]), and a combination thereof;
a correlation engine operatively coupled to the receiving module, wherein the correlation engine is configured to map (map out one or more immediate neighbor wallets, see [0312-0313]) a plurality of acquired blockchain transactions with the personally identifiable information, by applying correlation logic, wherein the correlation logic being configured to associate wallet addresses (wallet address, see [0312]) and transaction hashes (transaction hash, see [0312]) from the plurality of acquired blockchain transactions with personally identifiable information fields; and to normalize the personally identifiable information fields (data field of information, search fields, see [0152, 0449]) under uniform headers derived from breach datasets to enable consistent cross-source comparison;
a vision module operatively coupled to the correlation engine, wherein the vision module is configured to display one or more graphical representations (visualization diagram, see [0444-0448]) depicting the plurality of acquired blockchain transactions and the data of the one or more known threat actors with the corresponding wallet addresses; and
a record module (Sentinel Protocol, see [0143-0144]) operatively coupled to the vision module, wherein the record module is configured to:
deliver a plurality of user stories (e.g. file execution is blocked, trying to convert coins, see [0143-0144]), based on maintained temporal state; and
detect deltas representing a change (e.g. changes an address, see [0141]) to at least one of the personally identifiable information (e.g. sub-addresses, see [0144]) and a plurality of depicted blockchain transactions (e.g. downloaded file is highly suspicious, see [0143]), thereby identifying a potential threat actor (e.g. Malloy, see [0143-0144]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
A server.
Dalal teaches:
A server (server, see [0046]).
Kim discloses a processing subsystem communicating with modules; acquiring a plurality of blockchain transactions, personally identifiable information, and data of one or more known threat actors; mapping the blockchain transactions with the personally identifiable information; displaying one or more graphical representations; delivering a plurality of user stories; and detecting a change. Kim does not explicitly disclose a server, but Dalal does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus and method for cybersecurity of Kim with the server of Dalal because 1) a need exists for alerting an individual about inherent vulnerabilities embedded in a decentralized cryptocurrency system; and 2) a need exists for automating the process of discovering threat actors (see Dalal [0013]). The server is a necessary computer component to run a system capable of alerting an individual about vulnerabilities.
Claim 2
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the vision module is configured to expand the one or more graphical representations on the wallet addresses, thereby allowing user to view additional information (e.g. number of hops, see [0314-0315]) for the said wallet addresses.
Claims 3, 15
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the vision module comprises an input module wherein the input module is configured to receive at least one of wallet addresses (wallet addresses, see [0212]), personally identifiable information, or a combination thereof, as input from a user and subsequently represent a relationship between the wallet addresses via one of the plurality of depicted blockchain transactions and personally identifiable information from third party breaches (e.g. impersonated accounts, see [0213-0214]).
Claims 4, 17
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the vision module comprises a search module configured to render a plurality of currencies (e.g. ETH address, Bitcoin Address, see [0260]) associated with input, wherein the input is received from a user.
Claims 5, 18
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
an alert module operatively coupled to the correlation engine wherein the alert module is configured to generate an alert (alert, see [0212]) to user at occurrence of the change in at least one of the personally identifiable information, the potential threat actors and the plurality of depicted blockchain transactions (transaction is risky, see [0212]).
Claim 6
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the personally identifiable information is collected from plurality of data points corresponding to plurality of data sources (e.g. user input, transaction data, system logs, packet data, see [0101]).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the plurality of data sources comprises at least one of cryptocurrency transactions, data breaches, stealer logs, ransomware attacks (scam, phishing, ransomware campaign, see [0307]), or a combination thereof.
Claim 8
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the blockchain transactions are received from blockchain application programming interface (API, see [0124]) wherein the blockchain application programming interface provides periodic data and historical data (transaction history, see [0504]) of the plurality of blockchain transactions in a structured format.
Claim 10
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the blockchain application programming interface provides current statistics for cryptocurrencies (different types of tokens, see [0475]).
Claim 12
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the personally identifiable information from third party breaches is in the form of a structured file with uniform headers wherein the uniform headers are added at occurrence of new data (format of text file, see [0567-0570]).
Claim 13
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the one or more graphical representations display one or more details of plurality of blockchain transactions in a text format (e.g. label containing information of the origin, see [0450]).
Claim 16
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
checking the plurality of blockchain transactions with the corresponding wallet address to verify the occurrence of transactions for the said wallet address and subsequently display a trail (e.g. nodes S2, D2, D3 are associated to task 2, see [0344]) for one or more associated transactions.
Claim 19
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
monitoring, by an alert module, the one or more transactions using the wallet addresses to identify the change (malicious data detected, see [0272]) in the personally identifiable information; and
generating, by the alert module, an alert (alert, see [0212, 0272-0274]) to the user at the occurrence of a new transaction for at least one of the wallet addresses.
Claim 20
Furthermore, Kim discloses:
the cryptocurrency transactions are analyzed in a silo (sandbox, see [0134]) in the absence of the personally identifiable information thereby identifying diverted funds.
Response to Arguments
112 arguments
Applicant argues that all modules correspond to distinct software and hardware components.
Please see revised 112 rejection. Regarding the 112 rejection on claims 1-8, 10, and 12-13 for being vague and indefinite because they include purely functional limitations without corresponding structure, please see the 112f analysis below. Applicant may clearly identify on the record the corresponding structure for each of these limitations identified above, or amend the claims to no longer invoke 112f.
101 arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides concrete technical solutions that improve the functioning of blockchain security systems.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not explained how the invention improves the functioning of blockchain security systems. Applicant’s statements of improving processing efficiency and accuracy are not tied to any claim limitations.
103 arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach automated cross-source normalization of PII or correlation across distributed blockchain nodes in real time.
Examiner disagrees. Please see revised mapping.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that functional recitation(s) using the word and/or phrases “for”, “adapted to”, or other functional language (e.g. see claim 1 which recites “to enable”) have been considered but are given little patentable weight because they fail to add any structural limitations and are thereby regarded as intended use language. To be especially clear, all limitations have been considered. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed product must result in a structural difference between the claimed product and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it reads on the claimed limitation. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) ("The manner or method in which such a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.”); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See also MPEP §§ 2106 II (C.), 2114 and 2115. Unless expressly noted otherwise by Examiner, the claim interpretation principles in the paragraph apply to all examined claims currently pending.
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
module “1. In programming, a collection of routines and data structures that performs a particular task or implements a particular abstract data type.” Computer Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1997.
server “2. On the Internet or other network, a computer or program that responds to commands from a client.” Computer Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1997.
112f analysis
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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a receiving module configured to acquire… a combination thereof” in claim 1;
“a correlation engine operatively coupled to the receiving module, wherein the correlation engine is configured to map… comparison” in claim 1;
“a vision module operatively coupled to the correlation engine, wherein the vision module is configured to display… addresses” in claim 1;
“a record module operatively coupled to the vision module, wherein the record module is configured to: deliver… detect deltas… actor” in claim 1;
“the vision module is configured to expand… addresses” in claim 2;
“an input module wherein the input module is configured to receive… breaches” in claim 3;
“a search module configured to render… user” in claim 4;
“an alert module operatively coupled to the correlation engine, wherein the alert module is configured to generate… transactions” in claim 5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “a receiving module configured to acquire… a combination thereof” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “a receiving module” coupled with functional language “configured to acquire a plurality of blockchain transactions, by invoking a blockchain application programming interface configured to compare a block address corresponding to a latest transaction with a block address corresponding to a latest read transaction from the blockchain, thereby obtaining a list of block addresses to investigate in the blockchain, and to obtain details comprising at least one of a list of transactions corresponding to one or more pending block addresses, personally identifiable information from a plurality of data sources, data of one or more known threat actors with corresponding wallet addresses, and a combination thereof” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The remaining limitations listed above have a similar analysis.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-13 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <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).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.