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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment of 22 October 2025. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 13-14, and 18-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Amendment and/or Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Drawing Objection as set forth in the office action 23 July 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Drawing Objection as set forth in the office action 23 July 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection as set forth in the office action 23 July 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection as set forth in the office action 23 July 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the office action 23 July 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the office action 23 July 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 23 July 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on 10/22/2025):
PNG
media_image1.png
281
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s Response:
The examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. The amended claims, when read in light of specification, still fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty about the scope of the invention. The amendments adds functional language but do not clarify the meaning or boundaries of key limitations, including “virtual fields”, “virtual physical model”, “electromagnetic field theory”, “mechanical force theory,” and the calculation of desired acceleration therefrom. The specification describes these concept only in broad and conditional terms and does not definite their structure, mathematical representation, or operational constraints. As a result, it remains unclear what constitutes the claimed virtual fields, virtual physical model, electromagnetic field theory, or mechanical force theory, or how virtual forces are derived and applied, such that metes and bounds of claim 1 remain uncertain. Accordingly, the claims remain indefinite and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the office action 23 July 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (pages 6-8 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on 10/22/2025):
PNG
media_image2.png
429
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
854
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
376
712
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s Response:
The examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
Regarding Argument (I.):
Applicant’s arguments are NOT persuasive. Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description requirement must be determined based on the disclosure of the present application as originally filed, and not on disclosures in other applications or on the fact that related applications by the same inventors/co-inventors have issues as patents. Each application stands on its own, an Applicant has not shown that the present specification reasonably conveys possession of the claimed subject matter at issues. Furthermore, Applicant’s reliance on various articles to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claims is misplaced, as written description requires that the specification itself demonstrates possession of the claimed invention, not that a POSTIA could supply missing details/information not disclosed in the specification. Knowledge in the art may be used to interpret what is disclosed but it cannot replace disclosure of claim limitation that are absent from the specification. Additionally, the various articles (mentioned in the remark) were not submitted via an information disclosure statement and therefore are not part of the record. Accordingly, the specification continues to lack adequate written description support for the claimed limitations, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained.
Regarding Argument (II.):
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Merely amending independent claims 1 and 13 to recite additional functional limitations does not cure a lack of written description where the specification fails to reasonably convey possession of the claimed subject matter. Applicant asserts that the amended claim now provides sufficient detail regarding the construction of virtual physical models and determination of virtual fields, construction of virtual physical models, and calculation of desired virtual acceleration, the cited portion of the specification remain conceptual and conditional. In particular, the disclosure stating that “assuming that the virtual physical model represents object as electromagnetic charges” or “assuming that the virtual physical model represents objects is a mechanical model” merely reference broad categories of physical phenomena without identifying any specific governing laws, equations, parameters, or computational procedures. Electromagnetic field theory and mechanical force theory each encompasses numerous materially different model (e.g. Lorentz force law, Coulomb-based potential fields, spring damper system, rigid body dynamics, etc.), and the specification does not describe which model is employed, how virtual charges/masses/forces are defined, how such corresponding forces are calculate and integrated to influence vehicle trajectory. The conditional phrasing of these disclosure further indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art have to select, design and implement an appropriate model (which the applicant fails to disclose and describe) out of all possible models, which is insufficient to demonstrate possession. While the specification mentions that “a vector weighted sum” may be performed to calculate a total virtual force, it does not describe how the vectors or weights are derived (specifically, with what electromagnetic model and/or mechanical model). Furthermore, Applicant’s reliance on other applications to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claims is misplaced, as written description requires that the specification itself demonstrates possession of the claimed invention, not that a POSTIA could supply missing details/information not disclosed in the specification. Knowledge in the art may be used to interpret what is disclosed but it cannot replace disclosure of claim limitation that are absent from the specification.
Regarding Argument (III.):
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The present specification, even when considered in view of the knowledge of a person ordinary skill in the art, does not enable the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Although amended claims 1 and 13 recites additional limitations, enablement must be supported by the disclosure in the specification itself, not by the mere presences of functional claim language. As discussed above in (regarding argument (II.)), the specification does not describe how to implement the claimed determination of virtual fields, construction of virtual physical models, or calculation of desired virtual acceleration using electromagnetic or mechanical theory in a manner that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The cited disclosures rely on broad, hypothetical statements (e.g., “assuming that the virtual physical model represents objects as electromagnetic charges” or “assuming that the virtual physical model is a mechanical model”) without identifying specific governing equations, parameters, model structures or computational steps. Electromagnetic and mechanical models encompass numerous materially different implementations, and the specification provides no guidance as which model is selected, what parameters are used or how object information is transformed into virtual forces and accelerations. Further, while the specification mentions operations such as performing “a vector weighted sum”, it does not disclose how the vectors or weights are determined, how comfort parameters, safety parameters, or driver-related parameters are quantified, or how these parameters interact with the claimed model. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be required to design and select substantial portions of the claimed algorithms and models, engaging in undue experimentation to practice the full scope of the claims. Applicant’s reliance on the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art is insufficient to supply these missing details. Accordingly, the specification does not enable the claimed subject matter commensurate with the scope of the amended claims 1 and 13.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument regarding (I.)-(III.) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are NOT persuasive and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections are maintained. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections below for details.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 13-14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the office action 23 July 2025 have been considered. The Examiner notes that, despite the amendments, claim 1 (similarly claim 13) remains indefinite and confusing in its entirety; and unsupported by the specification. The claim recites a combination of elements including: (i) virtual fields of the one or more objects by applying neural network…reinforcement learning; (ii) virtual fields based on virtual physical model…virtual physical model is built based on …physical laws and additional driving related parameters; (iii) physical laws…electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory; (iv) additional driving related parameter…differences between the reference parameters and driving patterns of a driver… and (v) desired acceleration…calculated from virtual forces derived from virtual fields according to the virtual physical model; and (vi) the interaction of a neural network with a physical based model built based on one or more physical laws and driver behavior differences. The claim does not clearly define (i) how the virtual physical model incorporates both the physical law and the additional driving related parameters; (ii) how the neural network interacts with or modifies the virtual physical model; (iii) the scope and meaning of driving related operations; (iv) the manner in which virtual fields represent potential impact forces affecting vehicle trajectory; (v) how the desired acceleration is calculated from the combined virtual forces in a reproducible and definite manner. Because claim 1 cannot be reasonably interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art, its scope is unclear and indefinite, and the specification fails to provide adequate written description or enablement sufficient to support the claimed combination of elements. As a result, the claim cannot be meaningfully compared to or applied against any prior art, and no 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 rejections can be properly made per MPEP 2173.06, II. guidance. Accordingly, all prior art based rejections are deferred, and Applicant is advised that claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 13-14, and 18-20 must be further clarified and supported before any consideration of novelty or obviousness can be conducted. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below for details.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 October. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 5, 8-9, 13-14, and 18-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), Applicant has apparently not described, in the specification, in sufficient details, for any or all of the recited limitations:
The limitation of “determining…one or more virtual fields…by applying a neural network trained to mimic reference driving patterns using behavior cloning or reinforcement learning;” fails to comply with written description requirement. The specification fails to provide adequate written description support for this limitation. While the specification references the concept of virtual fields at a high level, it does not describe how such virtual fields are generated by a neural network trained using behavior cloning or reinforcement learning. In particular, the specification is completely silent how reference driving patterns are associated with virtual fields, or how the outputs of the neural network corresponds to parameters defining the virtual fields, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of a neural network trained to determine virtual fields from object information.
The limitation of “determining of the one or more virtual fields is based on a virtual physical model…one or more physical laws… electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory” fails to comply with written description requirement. The claim recited that the virtual fields are determined based on a virtual physical model built on electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory but the specification’s disclosure of this element is limited to conditional and hypothetical statements suggesting possible analogies to electromagnetic or mechanical phenomena, without identifying any specific physical laws, governing equations, model assumptions or computational logics. Electromagnetic and mechanical theories encompass numerous materially different models, the failure to specify any particular model prevents the specification from demonstrating possession of the claimed virtual physical model, hence, the disclosure fail to support the full breadth of the this limitation.
The limitation of “wherein the virtual physical model is built based on one or more physical laws and at least one additional driving related parameter…parameter comprises differences between the reference driving patterns and driving patterns of a driver of the vehicle” fails to comply with written description requirement. The claim recited that the virtual physical model is built based on “one or more physical law” and “differences between the reference driving pattern and driving patterns of a driver of the vehicle” but the specification merely repeats the claim language without providing any disclosure explaining how these elements are combined, integrated or jointly used to build the claimed virtual physical model; specifically, the specification fails to describe: (i) how the additional driving related parameter modifies, influences, or is incorporate into the virtual physical model, including whether the parameters alters field strength, force direction, model coefficient, biases the physical law equations or something else; (ii) any mathematical relationship or interactions between the physical law (e.g. electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory), and the differences between reference driving patterns and the driving patterns of the driver; (iii) any working examples, embodiment illustrating how a difference between reference and driver driving patterns is quantified and how that quantified differences is used in constructing or modifying the virtual physical model.
The limitation of “determining a desired acceleration of the vehicle based on the total virtual force…derived from one or more virtual fields according to the virtual physical model” fails to comply with written description requirement. The specification fails to describe how the total virtual force is used to calculate the desired acceleration in accordance with the claimed virtual physical model. Although the specification generally references virtual forces and mentions that a “vector weighted sum” may be performed, it does not disclose any specific algorithm, equations or steps for translating the total virtual force into a desired acceleration. The disclosure does not define how force magnitude or directions is mapped to acceleration, and further because the virtual physical model is broadly defined as being based on electromagnetic field theory or mechanical force theory, the specification does not explain how acceleration is calculated consistently across these models. The specification fails to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention, particularly the concept of a virtual physical model as broadly claimed. While the illustrated examples involves electromagnetic charges/fields/forces and mechanical models are presented, there is no description on how virtual fields/forces are computed from any object information and how to select or apply virtual model or integrate the virtual fields to affect vehicle behavior or using it in a functional driving system. See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]"). Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated 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.
Regarding Claim 9, recites limitation “a safety parameter that represents at least one of a collision risk metric, a time-to-collision threshold, or minimum safe distance” which is subject matter that was not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings.
The original specification is completed silent in regards to the limitation “a safety parameter that represents at least one of a collision risk metric, a time-to-collision threshold, or minimum safe distance”. Per broadest reasonable interpretation in the art and the lack of specificity from the specification. The newly amended limitation “a safety parameter that represents at least one of a collision risk metric, a time-to-collision threshold, or minimum safe distance” was not supported from the original disclosure. Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated 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.
Claims 1 and 13 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Given the limited guidance in the specification, a PHOSITA at the time of effectively filing would not be able to make or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. see MPEP 2164.01(a); enablement is evaluated in view of the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), which collectively weigh against enablement in the present claim.
(A) The breadth of the claims: The claims are so broad as to cover any environment, any object type and any form of virtual field modeling that including any physical laws and driving related parameters to calculate vehicle acceleration. The specification, however, provides only high-level and abstract descriptions, which are not commensurate with the breadth of the claimed subject matter.
(B) The nature of the invention: The claimed invention is technically complex, involving the integration of sensor data, neural network processing, physical force modeling, and vehicle control logic. Such system would require precise definitions of models, parameters and algorithms to function as intended.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art does not provide a standardized or universally accepted approach for representing objects in a vehicle environment as virtual electromagnetic or mechanical force fields and using such fields to calculate vehicle acceleration as claimed. Accordingly, the state of prior art does not supply the missing implementation details required to practice the claimed invention.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: Although a PHOSITA may have expertise in vehicle system, control theory, or machine learning, such skill does not eliminate the need for disclosure of core aspects of the claimed invention. Even a PHOSITA would need to exercise substantial inventive judgement to fill in the missing details of the claimed invention.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The art is highly unpredictable. Electromagnetic and mechanical models can vary widely in formulation and behavior, and different modeling choices can lead to significant different vehicle behavior and control outcomes. The interaction between neural network outputs and physical law models further increase unpredictability, necessitating detailed disclosure.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The specification provides minimum guidance. Disclosure relating to virtual physical models rely on general and conditional statements referencing electromagnetic or mechanical theory without identifying any specific governing equations, modeling assumptions, or computational steps. Similarly, the specification does not explain how neural network outputs are structured or how they interface with virtual physical model.
(G) The existence of working examples: The specification lacks working examples demonstrating the claimed method/system. There are no examples showing how virtual fields are computed, how a virtual physical model is incorporated or how virtual forces and desired accelerations are calculated and applied in a vehicle system. and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Practicing claim 1 (similarly claim 13) would require extensive experimentation because the specification does not disclose how to determine virtual fields from object information, how to construct or select a virtual physical model out of all possible electromagnetics and mechanical models, how to derive virtual forces from the virtual fields, or how to compute desired accelerations from all these forces. A PHOSITA would be required to independently design mathematical formulations, selecting a physical model out of all possible electromagnetics and mechanical models, define parameters, and validate system behavior through repeated testing.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement because the specification does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of claim 1 without undue experimentation considering all eight In re Wands factors.
The dependent claims 3, 5, 8-9, 14, and 18-20 are also rejected under 112 first paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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, 5, 8-9, 13-14, and 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the recited limitation(s) “one or more virtual fields” is indefinite and not reasonably certain, with indeterminate metes and bounds1, from the teachings of the specification, because it is unclear what are these “virtual fields” (e.g. the published specification [0148] merely described examples not limitations) and how are they defined from “object information”, e.g. are they based on object’s size, location, velocity, mass, risk/threat level, importance, or something else, hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the recited limitation(s) “virtual physical model” is indefinite and not reasonably certain, with indeterminate metes and bounds1, from the teachings of the specification, because it is unclear what are these “virtual physical model” (e.g. the published specification [0148] merely described examples of electromagnetic models or mechanical models, not limitations) but the claim allows for any model that is built on one or more physical laws and at least one driving related parameter; hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the recited limitation(s) “desired virtual acceleration…virtual forces derived…virtual fields…physical model” is indefinite because it is unclear, from the lack of teachings of the specifications, how forces are combined and because the physical model is undefined and the mapping from force to acceleration is unspecified, hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the recited limitation(s) “wherein the virtual physical model is built based on one or more physical laws and at least one additional driving related parameter…parameter comprises differences between the reference driving patterns and driving patterns of a driver of the vehicle” is indefinite because the claim does not specify how the additional driving related parameter is incorporated into the virtual physical model or how it interacts with the recited physical laws specifically because the claim fail to provide reasonable certainty of: (i) what it means for the virtual physical model to be built based on physical laws and the additional driving related parameter (e.g. does the additional driving related parameter modifies the physical laws equations, is it an input into the physical laws); (ii) the specification merely repeats the claim language and does not clarify how the additional driving related parameters is incorporated into the virtual physical model or how it affects the application of physical laws. Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 13), the claim is indefinite in its entirety, it is internally inconsistent, reciting a combination of neural network based determination, physics based virtual fields, and driver specific behavior parameters without providing any clear explanation of how these elements interact to produce a coherent technical solutions. Terms such as “additional driving related parameter”, “driving related operations”, and the manner in which the virtual physical model incorporates both physical laws and driver behavior differences are ambiguous and unsupported by the specification (the specification fails to provide adequate written description or enablement for its entirety, see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections above). Because the claim cannot be reasonably interpreted by the examiner or those skilled in the art to define its scope or operation, the claim is too confusing to be given meaningful consideration against any prior art, and no references can be applied to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2173.06, II: Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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 DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)