DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 18 September 2025
This office action is made Final.
Claims 16, 18, 21, 23-26, 29-30, and 34 have been amended.
Claims 19 and 31 have been cancelled.
The 112 rejections of Claims 16-20, 22-23, and 27-35 and all art rejections from the previous office action has been neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 16-18, 20-30, 32-35 are pending. Claims 16 and 30 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the specification, filed on 9/18/25, has not been accepted/entered for the following reasons: 1) The amendment to the specification titled “IN THE SPECIFICATION” also includes an amendment to the Abstract. However, 37 C.F.R. 1.121(h) states “Amendment sections. Each section of an amendment document (e.g., amendment to the claims, amendment to the specification, replacement drawings, and remarks) must begin on a separate sheet” MPEP 608.01(a) states that the Detailed description of the invention and the Abstract are different sections of the specification. Therefore, the amendment to the “Abstract” section of the specification needs to be on a separate sheet from the amendments to multiple paragraphs (e.g. 0062) located in the “Detailed description of the invention” of the specification. Therefore, the amendments to the specification were not entered.
Thus, the abstract of the disclosure, filed 7/24/23, remains objected because the abstract is over 150 words. In addition, the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since its written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; but not written like a claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on 9/18/25 has been accepted and entered. However, since the amendment to the specification filed on 9/18/25 was not entered, the drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 15-2, 15-3, 15-4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "11-1" and "13" have both been used to designate a first handle. FIG 2 shows “11-1” and “13” pointing to the same item; reference characters "3" and "5" have both been used to designate a vehicle; reference characters "100" and "110” have both been used to designate a first block diagram. FIG 5 shows “100” and “110” pointing to the same block. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 5, 5-n, 7-n, 11-n, 19, Zn, TH1, TH2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 24-26 remain 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.
Claim 21 recites the term " the last one handle deployment mechanism” in the outputting limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the term as " the at least one handle deployment mechanism” in the outputting limitation.
Claim 24 recites the term "a direction of travel of the vehicle” in the extends portion of the limitation. However, the displaced portion of the claim already introduced the element “a direction of travel of the vehicle”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the element “direction of travel of the vehicle” in the extend portion should depend on the element “direction of travel of the vehicle” in the displaced portion or should be viewed as new element. Thus, the claim is vague and indefinite for this reason. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the term in the extend portion as “the direction of travel of the vehicle”
Claims 25 and 26 recites the term "the at least one authorized device” in each of their respective claims. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the term in claims 25 and 26 as “the authorized device”
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites the limitation “…wherein identification of the authorized device comprises the one or more controller generating a polling signal…” within the identify step. It appears that the claim is trying to state that the “identification of the authorized device” comprises one or more controller and not “the authorized device” comprises the one or more controller. Thus, the Examiner believes the limitation is missing a colon after comprises. Therefore, claim 1 comprises a typographical error. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to include a colon between “comprises” and “one”.
Claim 30 is objected for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16, 20, 22-27, 29-30 , 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helligrath (US20180218552, 2018)(Disclosed in IDS filed on 7/24/23) in further view of Saiki et al (US 20190147678, 2019)
As per independent claim 16, Helligrath discloses a system for controlling at least one handle deployment mechanism associated with an aperture closure member of a vehicle; the system comprising: (0019; 0038-0040: deploying handle of a door on a vehicle)
a transceiver for communicating with at least one device; (0017, 0019: sensor system that transmits/receive signals to/from a fob)
a control unit comprising one or more controller configured to: (0017, 0019)
identify one of the at least one device which is an authorized device; (0014: discloses the fob or the like is used to perform vehicular operations such as a door handle deploying(0041) 0005 discloses authenticating a transmission of the key fob resulting in a vehicular operation being performed once authenticated. 0045 states “the proximity and relative positioning of the fob 16 promote convenient and safe access of an authorized or verified user with the ability to operate the vehicle 10”. 0043: discloses that a transmission, such as an access code, of the fob 16 is authentic. Thus, since the transmission needs to be authentic first for a vehicular operation to be performed, then an authentic fob used to operate the vehicle functions is indeed an authorized device)
determine a location of the authorized device in relation to the vehicle; (0019, 0021, 0041-0042: determine if the fob is in the specific communication zone of a specific door handle)
compare the determined location of the or each authorized device to one or more target zones; and (0019, 0021, 0041-0042: determine if the fob is in the specific communication zone of a specific door handle)
actuate the at least one handle deployment mechanism for deployment of a handle in dependence on a determination that the or each authorized device is located within the one or more of the target zones. (0041, 0042: deploy the handle)
Furthermore, Helligrath discloses a vehicle includes detecting, with a position sensor, a key fob at a specified position relative to a door of the vehicle, communicating, via a processor, with the key fob, (0005) Furthermore, FIG 1 discloses signals and communication zones are transmitted/outputted by the vehicle. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that a form of controller produces the signals and/or communication signals. However, Helligrath fails to specifically disclose wherein identification of the authorized device comprises the one or more controllers generating a polling signal to initiate communication with one or more of the at least one device; wherein the generation of the polling signal is initiated or a transmission rate of the polling signal is increased in dependence on a determination that a vehicle reference velocity has decreased to less than a first velocity threshold”. However, Saiki et al discloses transmitting a polling signal from the vehicle to a mobile device, a form of initiating communication with a device. (0085) 0032 discloses the mobile device acts like a key for the vehicle) 0085 discloses the authentication processing unit F4 transmits a polling signal which is within the vehicle itself. (0070 discloses unit F4 is within vehicle-side control unit 111 wherein FIG 2 discloses unit 111 is within ECU 110 wherein FIG 1 discloses ECU 110 is part of in-vehicle system which in-vehicle system 100 is part of the vehicle itself (FIG 1; 0043)). Furthermore, 0085 of Saiki clearly indicates that the polling signal is only initiated when the vehicle is parked (not moving as explained in 0075 clearly indicating the vehicle’s turned off). Thus, when the vehicle is parked, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the vehicle’s velocity is zero. In addition, Saiki discloses transitioning from a non-parked state to a parked state such that only enabling communications after identifying when a vehicle is transitioned to a parked state to enable communication. One of a skilled artisan would have realized when the vehicle is in a non-parked state (not parked) then its velocity would have been greater than zero since the vehicle would have been moving and not in park. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized when the vehicle goes to non-parking state to parking state, the velocity would have decreased to zero between states. Thus, Saiki clearly shows that the initiation of the polling signal is dependent on determining that the vehicle’s velocity is below a first velocity threshold (a velocity greater than zero)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Saiki et al since determining the velocity of the vehicle for door handle purposes would have provided the benefit of a vehicular electronic key system which is capable of restricting a reduction in user's convenience while restricting the possibility of unauthorized establishment of authentication in a wireless communication between an in-vehicle device and a mobile device.
As per dependent claim 20, Helligrath disclose wherein determining the location of the authorized device comprises receiving a response signal from the authorized device and processing the response signal to determine a location of the authorized device. (0013; 0019, 0021, 0041-0042, 0044: fob sends signals indicating its location)
As per dependent claims 22-23, Helligrath discloses the one or more controller is suitable for controlling a plurality of handle deployment mechanisms; the one or more controller being configured to compare the determined location of the authorized device to a plurality of the target zones, each target zone being associated with a respective one of the plurality of handle deployment mechanisms and identify which one of the plurality of target zones the authorized device is located within; and outputting the first actuation signal to the handle deployment mechanism associated with the identified target zone (Helligrath discloses the door has a handle (Abstract) wherein a vehicle has doors (0016) and multiple handles (0027). Since Helligrath discloses each door has a handle (Abstract) and a vehicle has multiple doors and handles then each door has a handle. (0016) Also, Helligrath discloses each handle has a contact sensor to sense a person reaching for the handle (0024, 0043) In addition, Helligrath discloses the position sensor detecting whether the fob 16 is within a specified communication zone Z relative to the handle 14 and the position sensor detecting whether or not the fob 16 is at a specified position relative to the vehicle 10 such as the handle 14 of the door. (0019) Thus, 0019 discloses a handle is associated with a specified communication zone wherein the position sensor detects of the fob is near the handle of a particular communication zone. Furthermore, Helligrath discloses that the specified communication zone(s) Z can be positional areas around various parts of the vehicle 10, such as at the entry/exit points defined at the doors. (0021) Thus, 0021 discloses each door associated with one of the communication zones.
Therefore, in summary, Helligrath discloses a vehicle having more than one door wherein each door has a handle having its own sensor. In addition, Helligrath discloses each door is associated with one of the communication zones wherein the handle of each door is associated with one of the communication zones. Thus, Helligrath discloses each door handle of the vehicle is associated with one of the communication zones. Thus, the position sensor in 0019 can detect 1) which handle of which door the fob is located near and 2) which communication zone the fob in. In response, Helligrath can deploy the appropriate door handle based on the detecting which handle the fob is near based on the communication zone the fob is in.)
As per dependent claim 24, Helligrath discloses the or each target zone is displaced from the associated aperture closure member in a direction of travel of the vehicle; or extends from the associated aperture closure member in a direction of travel of the vehicle (FIG 1, 0021-0022: Discloses that the zone, emitted from the door, includes being emitted from the car in a direction of travel of the vehicle. Shows it being extended/emitted to in front travel direction and back travel direction)
As per dependent claim 25, Helligrath discloses the one or more controller is configured to actuate the handle deployment mechanism to retract the handle in dependence on a determination that the at least one authorized device is located outside the or each target zone (0042: retracts after the fob leaves the zone)
As per dependent claim 26, Helligrath discloses the one or more controller is configured to actuate the handle deployment mechanism to retract the handle in dependence on a determination that the at least one authorized device is located outside the or each target zone for a predetermined time period (0042: retracts after certain amount of time passes even while in the zone)
As per dependent claim 27, Helligrath discloses the aperture closure member is a door for ingress to a cabin of the vehicle. (0016)
As per dependent claim 29, Claim 29 recites similar limitations as in Claim 16 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per independent claims 30 and 35, Claims 30 and 35 recites similar limitations as in Claim 16 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, One of a skilled artisan would have realize that instructions for instructing the deploying of a door handle would require pre-stored instructions being stored, such on a medium, and executed by the processor in order to perform these functions
As per dependent claim 34, Claim 34 recites similar limitations as in Claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 17-18, 21, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helligrath in further view of Saiki et al in further view of Aerts et al (US20150035296, 2015) (Disclosed in IDS filed on 7/24/23)
As per dependent claim 17, Helligrath discloses an electronic processor having electronic input (Claim 1); at least one memory device electrically coupled to the at least one electronic processor and having instructions stored therein wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions therein so as to determine the location of the at least one authorized device (0019; Claim 1: discloses if fob is in a communication zone. If so, the processor receives communication(s) instructing it to perform the deploying of the door handle. One of a skilled artisan would have realize that instructions for instructing the deploying of a door handle would require pre-stored instructions being stored and executed by the processor to perform these functions.) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose receiving a reference velocity signal indicating a reference velocity of the vehicle. However, Aerts et al discloses receiving a reference velocity signal indicating a reference velocity of the vehicle (0036-0038: vehicle controller determines if the vehicle is moving)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Aerts et al since determining the velocity of the vehicle for door handle purposes would have provided the benefit of advantageous aerodynamic qualities when the vehicle is in motion. (0023)
As per dependent claim 18, Helligrath discloses the at least one electronic processor has at least one output for outputting a first actuation signal to actuate the handle deployment mechanism (0019, 0021, 0041-0042:signal outputted to deploy/retract handle based on fob being in a communication zone)
As per dependent claim 21, based on the rejection of Claim 17 and the rationale incorporated, Aerts et al discloses wherein the one or more controller is configured to actuate the handle deployment mechanism when the reference velocity is determined to be less than a second velocity threshold, the second velocity threshold being less than the first velocity threshold. (0023, 0037: discloses the handle may be extended when the vehicle is stopped or relatively slow speed. 0048 discloses the handle is retracted at fast speeds. Thus, Aerts discloses three types of speed: zero, slow, and fast. Thus, when the vehicle is stopped, its handle is deployed since the vehicle’s velocity is less than slow and fast. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Aerts et al since that if the handle has to be deployable at a certain velocity, the system needs to start polling for the presence of an authorized key already from a higher measured vehicle speed in order to ensure a smooth execution.)
As per dependent claim 33, Claim 33 recites similar limitations as in Claim 21 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helligrath in further view of Saiki et al in further view of Kwon (US20120049544, 2012)
As per dependent claim 28, the cited art fails to specifically wherein the aperture closure member is a tailgate for access to a load space of the vehicle. However, Kwon discloses wherein the aperture closure member is a tailgate for access to a load space of the vehicle. (Abstract; 0066-0068: discloses a tailgate handle that is deployed to allow the tailgate to be open to access the back of the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Aerts et al since it would have provided the benefit of facilitating the opening and closing of the tailgate and improving its appearance without deterioration (0012, 0010)
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helligrath in further view of Saiki et al in further view of Lickfelt (US 20120092129, 2012)
As per dependent claim 32, the cited art fails to determining the location of the authorized device comprises triangulating the position of the authorized device in dependence on the transmission and/or receipt of one or more wireless signals. However, Lickfelt discloses determine the signal strength of the respective fob signal received from the fob to determine a location of the fob by triangulation (0017)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Lickfelt since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of more accurate and timely localizations, or determinations of positions and/or distances of the key fob relative to the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 15-16, in response to Applicant’s remarks in regards to the objection to the specification and drawings, the objection to the specification and a number of the drawing objections remain because the amendment to the specification was not entered. The amendment was not entered because the amendment to the specification titled “IN THE SPECIFICATION” also appears to include an amendment to the Abstract. However, 37 C.F.R. 1.121(h) states “Amendment sections. Each section of an amendment document (e.g., amendment to the claims, amendment to the specification, replacement drawings, and remarks) must begin on a separate sheet” MPEP 608.01(a) states that the Detailed description of the invention and the Abstract are different sections of the specification. Therefore, the amendment to the “Abstract” section of the specification needs to be on a separate sheet from the amendments to multiple paragraphs (e.g. 0062) located in the “Detailed description of the invention” of the specification. Therefore, the amendments to the specification and abstract were not entered for these reasons.
Therefore, the abstract of the disclosure, filed 7/24/23, remains objected to because the abstract is over 150 words. In addition, the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Note: the proposed amendment to the abstract filed on 9/18/25 would still be objected for repeating similar wording used in the independent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
In addition, since the Applicant relied on the amendment to the specification to address a number of objections of the drawings which was not enter, the Examiner respectfully states these objections remain since the amendment(s) to the specification were not entered for not meeting the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(i) as fully explained above.
Furthermore, on page 15, in response to Applicant’s drawing objection arguments of reference numbers 11-1 and 13, the Examiner respectfully states that the filed FIG 1 contradicts to the explanation of numbers 11-1 and 13 explained in Applicant’s specification. FIG 1 shows 11-1 and 13 both pointing to the same line of a first handle and provides no clear visual indication that 11-1 and 13 are visually pointing to different parts . FIG 1 does not show 13 pointing to a “outer surface” but a line from “13: pointing to the same part “11-1” points to (first handle). It is unclear what part from the drawings is “first handle” and what part is “outer surface. Thus, 13 is also pointing to a first handle which is also associated with 11-1. Therefore, this portion of the objection remains.
Furthermore, on page 16 in response to Applicant’s arguments of reference numbers 100 and 110, the Examiner respectfully states that the filed FIG 5 contradicts to the explanation of numbers 100 and 110 explained in Applicant’s specification. FIG 5 shows 110 being a block step in a flow diagram and 100 pointing to the same block 110 is assigned to. FIG 5 provides no clear visual indication that 100 and 110 are visually pointing to different parts . FIG 5 does not show 100 pointing to a “entire diagram” but pointing directly to the particular block labeled with 110. Thus, reference numbers 100 and 110 are designating to the same block in FIG 5. Therefore, this portion of the objection remains.
Therefore, the drawing objection(s) remain for these reasons.
On page 16 in response to Applicant’s arguments towards the 112 rejection, the Examiner respectfully state Applicant’s amendment did not overcome all of the pending issues that were disclosed in the previous office action. 112 Issues with Claims 24-26 remain, In addition, the amendment made to the claim 21 resulted in a new 112 issue that were not previously addressed presented. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” section of the office action above regarding the matters. Therefore, the 112 rejection(s) to the claims remain.
Arguments in regards of the new limitations of Claims 16 and 30 brought forth in the amendments and not addressed by Mori alone, are now in view of the new ground(s) of rejection of 35 USC 103 using the new reference(s) Saiki et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights