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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This action is in response to communications filed on 04/10/2026, claim 1-16 are presently pending in the application and have been considered as follows.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/10/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claims recites an intrusion response system, method, data processing apparatus, non-transitory computer readable storage medium and computer system. These are directed to a series of steps or acts and machine and manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1, 8 and 14-16 are directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
A system, method, machine, manufacture and machine for verifying a proposed mitigating action to perform in response to a detected cyber intrusion comprising :
Identify one or more verification tests to be performed (mental process: a human-being evaluating an incident and determining what applicable checks to run);
Perform each of the one or more verification tests to obtain a respective one or more verification outcomes (mental process: a human-being executing the checks and logging the results);
calculate a verification score associated with the at least one proposed mitigating action based on the respective one or more verification outcomes (mathematical concept/mental process: a human-being calculating a score based on predetermined rules);
determine whether the verification score exceeds a predetermined threshold value (mathematical concept/mental process: a human-being comparing two numbers to make a decision.)
Claims 1, 8 and 14-16 recites the following additional elements:
Wherein the system is “an intrusion response system comprising an action verification module”;
receiving an identifier associated with the proposed mitigating action and details of the detected cyber intrusion;
Wherein the method is “computer-implemented”;
Where the machine is a “data processing apparatus comprising a processor”;
Wherein the manufacture is a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program”;
Wherein the other machine is a “computer system comprising at least one processor and memory”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining if a verification score exceeds a numerical threshold. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers and generic system modules as a tool to implement the abstract idea of evaluating and scoring an action plan. Thus the additional elements are considered mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining if a verification score exceeds a numerical threshold. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers and generic system modules as a tool to implement the abstract idea of evaluating and scoring an action plan. Thus the additional elements are considered mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claims 2
Regarding claims 2 the following claim limitations recites an abstract idea
determine the at least one proposed mitigating action to perform in response to the detected cyber intrusion. (mental process: the human-being’s evaluating an incident and selecting a response plan.)
Claims 2 recites the additional elements:
An action selection module.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with evaluating, scoring and selection of an action plan. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The addition of performing the mitigating action merely constitutes insignificant extra-solution data gathering or post-solution activity that links the abstract scoring mechanism to a generic technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with evaluating, scoring and selection of an action plan. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The addition of performing the mitigating action merely constitutes insignificant extra-solution data gathering or post-solution activity that links the abstract scoring mechanism to a generic technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claims 3 and 9
Regarding claims 3 and 9 and the following claim limitations recites an abstract idea
No new abstract idea outside of what the base claim discloses
Claims 3 and 9 recites the additional elements:
An action execution module configured to perform the at least one proposed mitigating action.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with execution of a proposed mitigation action. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers and generic system modules as a tool to implement the abstract idea of evaluating, scoring and selection of an action plan. Thus the additional elements are considered mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with execution of a proposed mitigation action. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers and generic system modules as a tool to implement the abstract idea of evaluating and scoring an action plan. Thus the additional elements are considered mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claims 4 and 10
Regarding claims 4 and 1and the following claim limitations recites an abstract idea
calculate a plurality of verification scores associated with a respective plurality of mitigating actions and determine a set of verified actions having respective verification scores that exceed respective predetermined threshold values/calculating second verification scores (mathematical concept/mental process: the human-being’s calculating multiple scores and grouping results.)
determining that the second verification score exceeds the first verification score. (mathematical concept/mental process: the human-being’s comparing two numerical values.)
Claims 4 and 10 recites the additional elements:
receiving another identifier associated with a second proposed mitigating action;
An action execution module configured to perform mitigating actions from the set of verified actions in order from highest to lowest verification score.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with execution of a proposed mitigation action. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers and generic system modules as a tool to implement the abstract idea of evaluating, scoring and selection of an action plan. Thus the additional elements are considered mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with execution of a proposed mitigation action. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers and generic system modules as a tool to implement the abstract idea of evaluating and scoring an action plan. Thus the additional elements are considered mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claims 5-7 and 11-13
Regarding claims 5-7 and 11-13 the following claim limitations recites an abstract idea
(Claim 5 and 11) identifies the one or more verification tests based on at least one of the identifier or the details of the detected cyber intrusion. (mental process: the human-being cross-referencing rules to test based on identifiers .)
(Claim 6 and 12) each test has an associating weight value... calculates the verification score combining weight values of successful verification tests. (mathematical concept/mental process: the human-being performing mathematical operations based on assigned values to variables.)
(Claim 7 and 13) each verification outcome represents whether the respective test is successful. (mental process: the human-being evaluating an outcome as false or true.)
Claims 5-7 and 11-13 recites the additional elements:
No new elements not previously analyzed in reference to the base claims
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B
Claims 5-7 and 11-13 fail to recite any new additional elements relative to base claims 1 and 8. Thus, the analysis and findings for step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B incorporates the analysis and findings of claims 1 and 8 however, the analysis and findings includes consideration of claims 5-7 and 11-13 as a whole. Therefore, claims 5-7 and 11-13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is unpatentable.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “performing the proposed action” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this proposed action is the same as “the proposed mitigating action” recited in base claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Towards cost-sensitive assessment of intrusion response selection to Stakhanova et al. (hereinafter “Stakhanova”) in view of US 11470106 to Lin et al. (hereinafter “Lin”) as disclosed in IDS dated 10/26/2023
Claim 1
Stakhanova teaches an intrusion response system [e.g. Stakhanova, Abstract “a framework for the cost-sensitive selection of intrusion response”] comprising:
an action verification module [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 18 Sec 5 “we have implemented our response selection framework as a plugin tool for Snort IDS”] configured to:
receive an identifier associated with at least one proposed mitigating action [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 15 Sec 4 “response rg “] to perform in response to a detected cyber intrusion[e.g. Stakhanova, Page 15 Sec 4 “a suspected intrusion is “] and details of the detected cyber intrusion, [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 15 Sec 4 “intrusion matrix” Page 16 Sec 4 “an event is matched to an attack signature or the number of intrusion detection rules triggered (e.g., via hierarchical attack signatures [23]).”]
identify one or more tests to be performed, [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 14-18 Sec 4 provides great detail on the assessment performed (e.g. one or more verification test) to be used to select the appropriate response.]
perform each of the one or more tests to obtain a respective one or more outcomes, [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 14-18 Sec 4 provides great detail on the assessment performed (e.g. one or more verification test) to be used to select the appropriate response, such as response impact on system and response cost.]
calculate a score associated with the at least one proposed mitigating action, [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 17-18 Sec 4 “expected value”]
While Stakhanova teaches the intrusion response system of claim 1 and teaches optimization for selecting a response before implementing the response [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 18 Sec 4 “the response is chosen to maximize the benefit Eff(rg, Is), and consequently, the calculated expected value EV”] Stakhanova fails to explicitly teach:
“identify one or more verification tests to be performed”
“perform each of the one or more verification tests to obtain a respective one or more verification outcomes”
however, Lin teaches discloses:
“identify one or more verification tests to be performed” [e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 - Lin discloses generating hypothetical machine characteristics to simulate remediation plans for detected vulnerabilities or cyberattacks.]
“perform each of the one or more verification tests to obtain a respective one or more verification outcomes” [e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 Lin discloses permuting the actions to generate hypothetical machine characteristics and feeding the characteristics to a machine learning model to determine an outcome.]
calculate a verification score associated with the at least one proposed mitigating action based on the respective one or more verification outcomes [e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 Lin discloses determining risk score reductions of applying the simulation and indicating success and generating a final rank metric.]
determine whether the verification score exceeds a predetermined threshold value. [e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 Lin discloses comparing the rank metric to a threshold.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, the limitations above in the invention as disclosed by Stakhanova in order to evaluate security benefits from hypothetical (e.g. testing) courses of action as disclosed by Lin in Col 4 Ln 34-44 .
Claim 2:
Stakhanova and Lin teaches the intrusion response system of claim 1, further comprising an action selection module [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 18 Sec 5 “we have implemented our response selection framework as a plugin tool for Snort IDS”] configured to determine the at least one proposed mitigating action to perform in response to the detected cyber intrusion. [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 18 Sec 4 “the response is chosen to maximize the benefit Eff(rg, Is), and consequently, the calculated expected value EV”] [e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 - Lin discloses generating hypothetical machine characteristics to simulate remediation plans for detected vulnerabilities or cyberattacks.]
Claim 3:
Stakhanova and Lin teaches the intrusion response system of claim 1, further comprising an action execution module [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 18 Sec 5 “we have implemented our response selection framework as a plugin tool for Snort IDS”] configured to perform the at least one proposed mitigating action responsive to the action verification determining that the verification score exceeds the predetermined threshold value. [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 18 Sec 4 “the response is chosen to maximize the benefit Eff(rg, Is), and consequently, the calculated expected value EV”] [e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 Lin discloses comparing the rank metric to a threshold and implementing actions automatically exceeding the threshold.]
Claim 4:
Stakhanova as modified by Lin teaches the intrusion response system of claim 3, wherein the action verification module is configured to calculate a plurality of verification scores associated with a respective plurality of mitigating actions and determine a set of verified actions having respective verification scores that exceed respective predetermined threshold values; and wherein the action execution module is configured to perform mitigating actions from the set of verified actions in order from highest to lowest verification score[e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 Lin discloses comparing the rank metric to a threshold and disclose calculating a plurality of metric scores representative of a variety of permutations of actions.]
Claim 5:
Stakhanova and Lin teaches the intrusion response system of claim 1, wherein the action verification module identifies the one or more verification tests based on at least one of the identifier or the details of the detected cyber intrusion. [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 15, 17 Sec 3 candidate response set] [e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 - Lin discloses generating hypothetical machine characteristics to simulate remediation plans for detected vulnerabilities or cyberattacks.]
Claim 6:
Stakhanova and Lin teaches the intrusion response system of claim 1, wherein each test has an associating weight value, and wherein the action verification module calculates the verification score combining weight values of successful verification tests. [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 7-14, 17 Sec 3 discloses the utilization of weights for computing the final score] [e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 - Lin discloses the rank metric is computed based on cost factors to each individual remediation action that is mathematically combined with risk reduction.]
Claim 7:
Stakhanova and Lin teaches the intrusion response system of claim 1, wherein each verification outcome represents whether the respective test is successful. [e.g. Stakhanova, Page 16 Sec 4 “Generally, the common approach to response success quantification is the differentiation of two response outcomes: response success, if the deployed response achieved the expected result (e.g., blocked intrusion, collected the data), and response failure, otherwise.”] [e.g. Lin; Col 4 Ln 45-62, Col 7 Ln 55 – Col 9 Ln 34, Col 23 Ln 8-23 - Lin discloses performing qualitative comparison of the effectiveness of the different remediation plans.]
Regarding claims 8-16 they are method, machine and manufacture claims essentially corresponding to the above recitations, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please check attached PTO-892 form for any additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM CST.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights