DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-7, 9-20, received 10 September 2025. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-7, 9-20 is as follows:
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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: processing function generator configured to…, deployment topology generator configured to…., deployment optimizer configured to… in claim 1-10, 12-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7, 9-20 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.
Claim 1 recites, “each resource…comprises a unique resource ID that includes metadata indicating the capabilities of the respective resource”, however, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature. After careful review of applicant’s specification, the examiner is only able to find support for a resource or resource ID associated with metadata [0048], the unique identity as an attribute field in the metadata record [0050], metadata records associated with the unique resource ID [0051] and creating a unique identity or address [0052]. The examiner is unable to find support for a resource ID that has metadata information including the capabilities as the unique identifier.
Claim 12 recites similar claim language as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-20 depend on the independent claims and are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-7, 10-11, 12-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al (US 20210004273 A1, hereafter referred to as You) in view of Tembey et al (US 20190327144 A1, hereafter referred to as Tembey) in view of Xu et al (US 20190140972 A1, hereafter referred to as Xu) in view of Kinney, Jr (US 10402227 B1, hereafter referred to as Kinney).
Regarding claim 1, You teaches system for deploying a processing function workflow, the system comprising:
a processing function generator configured to build the processing function workflow that includes a processing function (You [0040-0041] discloses building a workflow that includes a plurality of tasks [0020, 0018]) and to determine deployment criteria for the processing function that includes an input dataset for the processing function (You [0038] discloses identifying the nature and format of associated media data, including determining requirements [0098]) and at least one atomic compute function for executing the processing function within the workflow (You [0041, 0043] discloses a task as a running instance of a media processing function which performs a media processing operation for delivering media data and metadata to be consumed by other tasks, wherein the functions are identified from a received workflow description [0093]);
wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to query a processing resource database to identify the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network (You [0094] discloses determining resource availability from the cloud infrastructure where resources are instantiated).
However, You does not explicitly teach a deployment topology generator configured to generate a plurality of topologies of a plurality of resources available in a cloud computing network and based on the determined deployment criteria, with the generated plurality of topologies indicating different configurations of physical and software resources for executing the processing function and at least one of a plurality of processors configured for executing the atomic compute function of the processing function; and a deployment optimizer configured to select a topology of the plurality of topologies to deploy the processing function within the cloud computing network, wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to query a processing resource database to identify respective capabilities of the plurality of resources, wherein each resource of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network comprises a unique resource ID that includes metadata indicating the capabilities of the respective resource, such that the deployment topology generator is configured to generate the plurality of topologies of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network based on the unique resource ID for each resource.
Tembey, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to query a processing resource database to identify the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network and the respective capabilities of the plurality of resources (Tembey [0088-0089] teaches obtaining resource information via a DAL wherein the resource information provides availability, capacity, performance, identification, usage and attributes of the resources [0090, 0093, 0183, and 0140]), wherein each resource of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network comprises a identifier that includes metadata indicating the capabilities of the respective resource (Tembey [0088-0089] teaches obtaining resource information including abstracted configuration information, attributes, performance, availability and identification [0088-0089 and 0093]), such that the deployment topology generator is configured to generate the plurality of plans of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network based on the unique resource ID for each resource (Tembey [0144-0148] teaches generating a plurality of plans including the resources based on the obtained resource information [0140-0143]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify You in view of Tembey in order to configure a query to identify the plurality of resources available, as taught by You, further return respective capabilities of the plurality of resources wherein each resource of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network comprises a identifier that includes metadata indicating the capabilities of the respective resource, such that the deployment topology generator is configured to generate the plurality of topologies of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network based on the identifier for each resource, as taught by Tembey.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to provide improved visibility regarding system configurations not previously available thereby improving provisioning flexibility and resource allocation Tembey [0031-0034]).
Xu, in an analogous art, teaches , wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to query a processing resource database to identify respective capabilities of the plurality of resources (Xu [0008, 0051] teaches querying a management unit to identify capabilities of the resources), wherein each resource of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network comprises a unique resource ID (Xu [0054-0055] teaches the resources are associated with a unique capability identifier and unique resource identifier) that includes metadata indicating the capabilities of the respective resource (Xu [0054-0055] discloses the capability information includes a capability description information and additional attributes).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify You-Tembey in view of Xu in order to configure the resource identifier and corresponding metadata capabilities as taught by You-Tembey, to be a unique resource ID that includes metadata indicating the capabilities of the resource, as taught by Xu.
KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (resource identifier, as taught by You-Tembey) for another known element (unique resource ID, as taught by Xu) in order to yield predictable results (identifying a resource, ID and capabilities for provisioning and deployment) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
However, You-Tembey-Xu does not explicitly teach the identifier as a unique resource ID plurality of plans as topologies, such that You-Tembey-Xu does not teach a deployment topology generator configured to generate a plurality of topologies of a plurality of resources available in a cloud computing network and based on the determined deployment criteria, with the generated plurality of topologies indicating different configurations of physical and software resources for executing the processing function and at least one of a plurality of processors configured for executing the atomic compute function of the processing function; and a deployment optimizer configured to select a topology of the plurality of topologies to deploy the processing function within the cloud computing network.
Kinney, in an analogous art, teaches a deployment topology generator configured to generate a plurality of topologies of a plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network and based on the determined deployment criteria (Kinney [10:44-18] teaches generating a plurality of configurations of the available resources based on based on job definitions), with the generated plurality of topologies indicating different configurations of the physical and software resources for executing the processing function and at least one of the plurality of processors configured for executing the atomic compute function of the processing function (Kinney [13:12-47] teaches a plurality of configurations for executing tasks associated with a received job definition); and
a deployment optimizer configured to select a topology of the plurality of topologies to deploy the processing function within the cloud computing network (Kinney [12:11] discloses selecting a recommended or optimal configuration of computing resources).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify You in view of Kinney in order to configure the media processing workflow, as taught by You, to include a deployment topology generator configured to generate a plurality of topologies of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network and based on the determined deployment criteria, with the generated plurality of topologies indicating different configurations of the physical and software resources for executing the processing function and at least one of the plurality of processors configured for executing the atomic compute function of the processing function and a deployment optimizer configured to select an optimal topology of the plurality of topologies to deploy the processing function within the cloud computing network, as taught by Kinney.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to optimize a computing environment for execution of processing tasks (Kinney [3:20-27]).
However, You-Kinney does not explicitly teach wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to dynamically select a different topology of the plurality of topologies to deploy the processing function within the cloud computing network in response to a change of a format of the input dataset.
Regarding claim 2, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above.
Additionally, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the system wherein the deployment optimizer is configured to select an optimal topology to deploy the processing function within the cloud computing network (Kinney [12:11] discloses selecting a recommended or optimal configuration of computing resources), with the optimal topology being selected to include the at least one processor for optimizing accessibility of the electronic memory to execute the atomic compute function (Kinney [9:64-27 and 8:58-10] teaches optimization including selecting resources based on specified requirements including processor type).
Regarding claim 3, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above.
Additionally, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the system wherein the processing function generator is configured to build a media production that includes the processing function (You [0040-0041] discloses building a workflow that includes a plurality of tasks [0020, 0018]) and to determine the deployment criteria for the processing function that includes an input dataset for the processing function (You [0038] discloses identifying the nature and format of associated media data, including determining requirements [0098]) and at least one atomic compute function for executing the processing function within a generated media production workflow (You [0041, 0043] discloses a task as a running instance of a media processing function which performs a media processing operation for delivering media data and metadata to be consumed by other tasks, wherein the functions are identified from a received workflow description [0093]).
Regarding claim 4, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the limitations of claim 2, as set forth above.
Additionally, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the system wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to select the topology to optimize the accessibility of the electronic memory to execute the atomic compute function (Kinney [9:64-27 and 8:58-10] teaches optimization including selecting resources based on specified requirements including processor type) based on at least one of a network type, network bandwidth, network latency, processor type, and processor location within the cloud computing network (Kinney [9:64-27] discloses an optimization factor is based on a required processor type and number and network resource usage [16:65-36]).
Regarding claim 5, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the limitations of claim 4, as set forth above.
Additionally, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the system wherein the deployment topology generator is configured to generate the plurality of topologies such that the processing function is executed at or below a maximum required time threshold (Kinney [20:3-26] discloses generating and selecting an optimal configuration to optimize a goal, wherein the goals include execution time, and completion by or deadline time [4:15-26]).
Regarding claim 6, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above.
Additionally, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the system wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to decompose the processing function into a plurality of atomic functions that are allocated to respective resources of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network ((You [table 3 and 0065] discloses a requirement descriptor indicating workflow functions are able to be split).
Regarding claim 7, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above.
Additionally, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the system wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to select the topology of the plurality of topologies based on availabilities and capabilities of the plurality of resources in the cloud computing network (Kinney [5:11-17 and 18:35-43] discloses selection of resources with capabilities that meet or exceed job definition requirements and based on varying availability [17:30-37]).
Regarding claim 10, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above.
Additionally, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the system wherein the input dataset comprises video content provided by at least one content generating device for producing a media production by a media production workflow (You [0038] teaches media data from a video camera source for input into the media workflow) and the processing function comprises at least one of image scaling, encoding and decoding of the video content (You [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above.
Additionally, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the system further comprising:
Memory (You [Fig 7 and 0114]); and
a processor configured to execute software on the memory, that when executed, configures the processor as the processing function generator, the deployment topology generator, and the deployment optimizer (You [0114] discloses loading processes into memory and executing by the processor).
Regarding claims 12-17 and 19-20, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 1-4, 6-7 and 10-11.
Therefore, claims 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1-4, 6-7 and 10-11.
Regarding claim 18, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1 and 12.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al (US 20210004273 A1, hereafter referred to as You) in view of Tembey et al (US 20190327144 A1, hereafter referred to as Tembey) in view of Xu et al (US 20190140972 A1, hereafter referred to as Xu) in view of Kinney, Jr (US 10402227 B1, hereafter referred to as Kinney), as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Amini et al (US 20180103505 A1, hereafter referred to as Amini).
Regarding claim 9, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney teaches the limitations of claim 8, as set forth above.
However, You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney does not teach wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to dynamically select a different topology of the plurality of topologies to deploy the processing function within the cloud computing network in response to a change of a format of the input dataset.
Amini, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the deployment optimizer is further configured to dynamically select a different topology within the cloud computing network in response to a change of at least one of a format and a type of the input dataset (Amini [0042, 0043 and 0051] teaches changing the topology of the network to dynamically select a different topology in response to determined changes in the packet [0053] payload, wherein the determined payload includes bits of a first format of content (video [0037, 0039, 0043]), second format of content (file [0043], or other format of content (voice and audio [0046]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify You-Kinney in view of Amini in order to configure the deployment optimizer configured to select a topology of the plurality of topologies to deploy the processing function within the cloud computing network, as taught by You-Tembey-Xu-Kinney, to dynamically select a different topology within the cloud computing network in response to a change of at least one of a format and a type of the input dataset, as taught by Amini.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to improve the performance of the network (Amini [0034 and 0043]) leading to increased throughput improving the experience of the client device using the provisioned resources (Amini [0043]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 17-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4-5 and 8, 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11765039. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 17-18, the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 17-18 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 4-5 and 8, 14-15 of the patent. That is claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 17-18 are anticipated by claims 1, 4-5, 12 and 14-15 of the patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Giardina et al (US 9130943 B1);
Adams et al (US 20130219397 A1);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446