DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 17 March 2026, having claims 1, 3, and 6 (claims 2, 4-5, and 7-9 were cancelled).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1, 3, and 6, the words “a function” or “the function” is not adequately defined in the specification to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art how to make or use the claimed invention. The specification simply mentions that the function is a “function of controlling” a second device without providing detailed explanations on what the second device is being controlled to do or provide definite examples of what this “function” is.
5. 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, 3, and 6 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.
In claims 1, 3, and 6, the words “a function” or “the function” is not adequately defined in the claims or the specification. Thus, the words “a function” and “the function” render the claims vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “recruitment of a device” in line 12. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 recites the limitations “a first communication device” and “a second communication device.” Therefore, it is not clear whether “a device” refers to the first communication device, the second communication device, or a third communication device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second communication device” in line 13. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a second communication device” in lines 8-9. Thus, it is not clear if the second recitation of “a second communication device” refers to the same or another communication device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “candidacy for the device” in line 15. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 recites the limitations “a first communication device” and “a second communication device.” Therefore, it is not clear whether “the device” refers to the first communication device, the second communication device, or a third communication device.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “recruitment of a device” in lines 7-8. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 recites the limitations “a first communication device” and “a second communication device.” Therefore, it is not clear whether “a device” refers to the first communication device, the second communication device, or a third communication device.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “candidacy for the device” in lines 10-11. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 recites the limitations “a first communication device” and “a second communication device.” Therefore, it is not clear whether “the device” refers to the first communication device, the second communication device, or a third communication device.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1, 3, and 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights