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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the interpretation of claims under 35 USC 112(f), the comments at page 5 directed to this interpretation incorrectly enumerate the claims. Certain claims are not at issue. Rather, the interpretation of the terms previously pointed out as recited by the Applicant are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Nothing in the Applicants remarks concerning the interpretation of the terms indicated previously traverses the claims. Modifying the content of the information relied upon in the functional component of the claim in the recited wherein clause does not impose a specific structure on the claim. Therefore, since there is no apparent traversal, the interpretation, being consistent with the disclosure is maintained.
Regarding the traverse of the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC 112(a), the Applicant asserts that the rejection is improper given the most recent amendment and the content of the disclosure at [0083, 0088, 0091, and 0098]. The specification filed 7/13/2023 includes only sixty nine enumerated paragraphs. Further, amending the claim to recite a wherein clause specifying the content of information does not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) because the claim still recites subject matter previously pointed out which is not described. The Applicant has further amended the claim to include a new functional limitation requiring the function of the control device “based” on information as amended. Where is the algorithm by which the control device converts information of particular content into steps or acts? It is not contained in the disclosure so far as the Examiner can discern, therefore, the grounds of rejection is equally applicable to the claims as amended.
Regarding the traverse of the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC 112(b), the Applicant’s traverse is on the ground that the claims as amended. Even as amended with the newly added additional functional language, none of the disclosure contains an algorithm for causing the control device to carry out the claimed function. The Examiner has reread the specification in the file wrapper and cannot locate paragraphs [0083, 0087, 0088, 0091, 0095, or 0098]. Despite this, the disclosure as filed still lacks algorithms either in prose or diagramed for causing the control device to carry out the claimed functions. Therefore, even as amended, the rejection of claims under this heading is maintained.
Therefore, the interpretation of claim language under 35 USC § 112(f), previously made of record, is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC § 112(a) is maintained and made final.
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC § 112(b) is maintained and made final.
The reasoning previously made of record now incorporates the reasoning above in rebutting the Applicant’s remarks and amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A VANORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 6 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/DAVID A VANORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881