DETAILED ACTION
Re Application Number 18/513197, this action responds to the RCE dated 06/24/2026.
At this point, claims 1 and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-23 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
Examiner notes Applicant’s terminal disclaimer dated 06/24/2026. In view of the terminal disclaimer, Examiner’s double patenting rejections have been rendered moot, and are accordingly withdrawn.
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.
Examiner notes Applicant’s amended claims dated 06/24/2026. In view of the amendment, Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 has been rendered moot, and is accordingly withdrawn. Examiner’s rejections of claims 22-23 are maintained.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 are allowed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPLICANT
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 filed on 06/24/2026 have been fully considered.
As required by M.P.E.P. § 707.07(f), a response to these arguments appears below.
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING 35 USC § 112(b) REJECTIONS
Re claims 21-23, Applicant argues that claims 1 and 21 have been amended so as to overcome Examiner’s rejections under 35 USC § 112(b). In response, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered. Re claim 21, Applicant’s argument is deemed persuasive, and Examiner’s rejection is accordingly withdrawn. Re claims 22-23, Applicant’s argument is not deemed persuasive, and Examiner’s rejection is accordingly maintained. Claim 22 is directed to “the data”, which has insufficient antecedent basis, as there is antecedent basis for “the first data” and “the second data” in parent claim 1. Similarly, it is unclear if “the data is first data” (claim 22, line 1) refers to “the first data” from claim 1, or if it is a different instance of first data. Claim 23 depends on rejected claim 22. Applicant may correct this issue by, for example, either removing the ambiguous references to “the data” from claim 22, or by cancelling claim 22 and correcting the claim dependency of claim 23. Examiner attempted to contact Attorney John Ward (40216), but was unsuccessful. Applicant is encouraged to contact Examiner with any remaining questions.
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-1]).
Re claims 1-8, Applicant argues that the amendment is sufficient to overcome Examiner’s prior art rejections. In response, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered, and is deemed persuasive. Accordingly, Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8 have been rendered moot, and are accordingly withdrawn.
All arguments by the Applicant are believed to be covered in the body of the office action; thus, this action constitutes a complete response to the issues raised in the remarks dated 06/24/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-3489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached on 571-272-3978. 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.
/CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights