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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 22 July 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 10, 19 and 20 have been amended.
The rejection of Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as presented in the previous office action has been withdrawn as neccessited by Applicant’s amendment and/or the persuasiveness of Applicant’s arguments. The objection to the drawings and all art rejections as presented in the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by Applicant’s amendment and/or the persuasiveness of Applicant’s arguments.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the specification including the abstract filed on 7/22/26 has been accepted/entered.
However, the abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because the replacement/amended abstract, filed 7/22/26, was not provided on a separate sheet. Applicant has provided the replacement abstract on the same sheet with amendments to paragraphs of the detailed disclosure of Applicant’s specification. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings originally filed on 12/13/23 are now accepted by the amendment to specification filed on 7/22/26
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:
computing system configured to identify, generate, obtain, promote in claim 19 Note: Para 0050 discloses a computing system may be a virtual server machine or a container. A Virtual server machine and containers, when viewed as a computing system, do not reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function
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 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 19-20 remain 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.
As per claims 19-20, the claim limitation containing “…computing system configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of each limitation containing “…computing device configured to”. Also, no clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed unit(s)/means. This is required as described in MPEP 2181 II.B. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “…identify a selection of a wired connection from a plurality of wired connections in a first portion of a user interface, wherein the plurality of wired connections represented in the first portion correspond to industrial automation equipment” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “user interface”, “industrial automation equipment” and “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “user selection” from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human with a pen and paper. For example, but for the “user interface”, “industrial automation equipment” and “processor”, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to see a list of items and determine which items have been selected by their associated visual indicator (e.g. circled, not crossed out).
Similarly, the limitation “…indicating completion of installation of the wired connection in the industrial automation equipment” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “industrial automation equipment” and “processor”, “indicating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to see a list of tasks on paper and check off each tasked on the list that been completed.
Similarly, the limitation “…promote a next wired connection…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “processor”, “promote” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to see a list of tasks on paper and circling the next task on the list with a pencil/pen.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
in response to the selection, generate a display in a second portion of the user interface that promotes the wired connection in a model of the industrial automation equipment over other objects in the model
obtain a sensor signal indicating completion of installation of the wired connection in the industrial automation equipment
in response to the completion of installation, promote a next wired connection in the display for installation.
The “generate a display” limitation is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The processor, user interface, and automation equipment in the generate limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the view interface and client terminal are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “obtain” limitation(s) mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitation(s) amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The processor and the industrial automation equipment in the limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the processor and the industrial automation equipment is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “in response to the completion of installation, promote a next wired connection in the display for installation” is mere data being selected to be manipulated recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data selected to be manipulated, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitation(s) amount to necessary data selected to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05.
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: computer readable storage media devices, processor, user interface and industrial automation equipment to perform the identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote steps. The computer readable storage media devices, processor, user interface and industrial automation equipment in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer readable storage media devices, processor, user interface and industrial automation equipment performing a generic computer function of identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The displaying limitation is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of the user interface and industrial automation equipment in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The “obtain” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These
elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of the processor and industrial automation equipment in this step amounts to no
20 more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer
component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent
mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception (or use of a f processor and industrial automation equipment) and insignificant extra-solution
activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The limitation(s) of “in response to the completion of installation, promote a next wired connection in the display for installation” is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g), subsection II.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using computer readable storage media devices, processor, user interface and industrial automation equipment to perform the identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites the corresponding computing apparatus of the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the computing apparatus of Claim 10 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the apparatus of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding computing apparatus of Claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the apparatus of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claim 10 has the following additional elements: storage system, and processing system. In regards to the storage system, and one or more processors:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: storage system, one or more processors, user interface and industrial automation equipment to perform the identify and generate steps. The storage system, processing system, user interface and industrial automation equipment in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic storage system, processing system, user interface and industrial automation equipment performing a generic computer function of identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using storage system, one or more processors, user interface and industrial automation equipment to perform the identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites the corresponding system of the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the system of Claim 19 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the apparatus of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding system of Claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the apparatus of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claim 19 has the following additional elements: user input device, and computer device. In regards to the user input device, and computing system:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: user input device, computing system, user interface and industrial automation equipment to perform the identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote steps. The user input device, computing system, user interface and industrial automation equipment in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic user input device, computer device, user interface and industrial automation equipment performing a generic computer function of identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using user input device, computer device, user interface and industrial automation equipment to perform the identify and/or generate steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20
As per dependent claim(s) 2, 7, the claim(s) do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 3, the limitation(s) of “…option to display”, “…option to display”, “…option to display”, and “…option to display”, encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 4, the limitation(s) of “receive a second selection” and “update the display” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 5, the limitation(s) of “…option to rotate” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 6, the limitation of “…selection to add or remove..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “industrial automation equipment”, “add or remove” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually add or remove items from a list.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 8, the limitation(s) of “…generating the display…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 9, the limitation(s) of “…generating the first portion…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claims 11-18, Claims 11-18 recite the corresponding computing apparatus form of the apparatus form of claims 2-9 wherein the computing device of Claims 13-19 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the apparatus of claims 2-9. Therefore, Claims 11-18 of the corresponding computing apparatus are rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the apparatus of claims 2-9.
As per dependent claim 20, the additional limitations of “voice input device” would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g., GUI circuit design). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the “voice input device” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation(s) of “receive voice input” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, 11, 13-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al (US20190114387,2019) in further view of McGregor et al (US20220100181, 2022) in further view of Verma et al (WO2023/235603, 12/7/2023)
As per independent claim 1, Wolfe et al discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media devices; (0055, 0057)
program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media devices that, when executed by at least one processor, direct the at least one processor to: (0056, 0058)
identify a selection of a wired connection from a plurality of wired connections in a first portion of a user interface, wherein the plurality of wired connections represented in the first portion correspond to equipment; (FIG 6; 0042-0043: List of wires (wired connections) are displayed in first pane that are selectable. User may select one of the listed wires)
in response to the selection, generate a display in a second portion of the user interface that promotes the wired connection in a model of the equipment over other objects in the model. ((FIG 6; 0042-0043: a user may select a wire from list from the left pane, and in response logical layout displays or highlights the selected wire in right pane. FIG 6 shows the selected wire highlighted/bold/darker than the non-selected (0042))
While Wolfe et al discloses showing an interactive wiring diagram interface for an aircraft, the cited art does not explicitly state an interactive wiring diagram interface for an industrial automation equipment including installation in industrial automation equipment. However, McGregor et al discloses an interactive wiring diagram interface for industrial control design of an industrial automation equipment. (abstract) 0107 clearly states the developer can define the wiring connections between devices within a form of an interactive wiring diagram interface (e.g., input and output devices that will be wired back to the industrial controller) that represents industrial automation equipment. Defining the wiring connections and wiring input and devices back to the industrial controller is a form of installation. 0060 discloses a form of an interactive wiring diagram interface is used as a guide for installing the automation system. 0048, 0109 discloses the user interface component can render a graphical representation of the wiring model. Thus, McGregor et al discloses the ability to interact with wired connections within an interactive wiring diagram interface for an industrial automation equipment and installation in industrial automation equipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of McGregor et al since it would have provided the benefit of simplifying automation system development workflow (0044)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a user interface for installation in obtain a sensor signal indicating completion of installation of the wired connection in the industrial automation equipment; and in response to the completion of installation, promote a next wired connection in the display for installation. However, Verma et al discloses obtain a sensor signal indicating completion of installation of the wired connection in the industrial automation equipment; and in response to the completion of installation, promote a next wired connection in the display for installation (FIG 2J-2K; 3A-3B; 0072-0077: Discloses once a wire has been connect, it can be marked in the GUI/software that the connection has been completed/perform. This is a form of obtaining a sensor signal. In response to the step being marked completed, the next wire connection to be completed in the order is displayed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Verma et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing guided instructions to the user to assist in installation of one or more devices in the load control system (0036)
Thus, in conjunction with Verma et al, the combination of the cited art teaches identify a selection of a wired connection from a plurality of wired connections in a first portion of a user interface for installation in industrial automation equipment, wherein the plurality of wired connections represented in the first portion correspond to the industrial automation equipment…obtain a sensor signal indicating completion of installation of the wired connection in the industrial automation equipment: and in response to the completion of installation, promote a next wired connection in the display for installation.
As per dependent claim 2, Wolfe et al discloses wherein the display further comprises display options associated with the wired connection in the model. (FIG 6; 0042: controls for display options (e.g., pan, zoom in, zoom out, or the like))
As per dependent claim 4, Wolfe et al discloses receive a second selection of a display option of the display options; and update the display based on the second selection. (0042: Discloses zoom in and zoom out controls. One of a skilled artisan would have realized selecting the zoom in or zoom out control will result in the display being updated)
As per dependent claim 5, Wolfe et al discloses wherein the display options comprise an option to rotate the model (0040, 0042: When in 3D, the model can be rotated)
As per dependent claim 8, Wolfe et al discloses generating the display in the second portion of the user interface with the wired connection represented in a larger line size or different color than other wired connections visually represented in the model (0042 and FIG 6 discloses the selected component and wires are highlighted by different color than non highlighted wires. In particular, FIG 6 discloses a wire that is highlighted and wires that are not highlighted. When a wire is highlighted, the wire can have a different color (second) (as explained in 0042) along having the same path. In addition, FIG 6 shows the highlighted wire W1 being thicker (larger line size) than the non highlighted wire W2.)
As per independent claims 10 and 19, Claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Wolfe et al discloses a computing apparatus, storage system, processor(s) (Claim 1; 0047, 0055-0058) and an user input device, computing device (0024, 0040)
As per dependent claims 11, 13-14 and 17, Claims 11, 13-14 and 17 recite similar limitations as in Claims 2, 4-5, 8 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al in further view of McGregor et al in further view of Verma et al in further view of Feng et al (US20070271499, 2007) in further view of Peterson (“Better PCB Routing - How Altium Highlight Nets”, 2020, 7 pages)
As per dependent claim 3, Wolfe et al discloses an option to display the routing of the wired connection. (0042: Under BRI, a user can zoom out to see the entire routing of the wired connection). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose an option to display the source of the wired connection and an option to show the target of the wired connection. However, Feng discloses disclose an option to display the source of the wired connection and an option to show the target of the wired connection. (FIG. 7; 0054; 0081)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Feng et al since it would have given instantaneous graphical feedback on the block-diagrams being edited and shortening the time for developing a block diagram model (0051) Furthermore, the cited art fails to disclose an option to display related wired connections of the wired connection. However, Peterson discloses an option to display related wired connections of the wired connection. (Under BRI, page 3 discloses display options that will select all the wires within a net when enabled. Once this option is enabled, all connections involving this net will be automatically selected once the net has been selected from the displayed list. Form of displaying related wired connections of the wired connection)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Feng et al since it would have provided the benefit of simplify the verification of connections and circuit paths and make sure that the design you send to your manufacturer accurately reflects the printed circuit board you need to build (pg 1)
As per dependent claim 12, Claim 12 recites similar limitations as in Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al in further view of McGregor et al in further view of Verma et al in further view of Feng et al
As per dependent claim 6, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a selection to add or remove one or more components unrelated to the wired connection in the industrial automation equipment. However, Feng et al discloses options to allow the removal of components unrelated to the wired connection from being displayed. (0015, 0064, 0083: discloses the options that allows the user to remove/vanish non-selected components/elements unrelated to the selected wired connection from being displayed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Feng et al since it would have provided the benefit of having users' attention being attracted to the highlighted portion so its easily identified and removing distractions for the user (0015, 0064)
As per dependent claim 15, Claim 15 recites similar limitations as in Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al in further view of McGregor et al in further view of Verma et al in further view of Anderson et al (US 20190108294, 2019)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the display options comprise opacity options for the other objects in the model. However, Anderson et al discloses the display options comprise opacity options for the other objects in the model (0065: in to a wire/wired connection being selected, all other wires (wired connections) become more transparent)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Anderson et al since it would have provided the benefit of allowing the selected wire to be highlighted making its connections more apparent.
As per dependent claim 16, Claim 16 recites similar limitations as in Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al in further view of McGregor et al in further view of Verma et al in further view of Huh et al (US 20200242799, 2020)
As per dependent claim 9, Claim 9 recites similar limitation as in Claim 1 and rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Wolfe et al discloses generate the first portion of the user interface, wherein the first portion lists the plurality of wired connections based on an order (FIG 6; 0043: shows the display of a left pane having a listing of all the wired connections (wires) presented in the wiring diagram that is shown in the right page.) In addition, Wolfe discloses the components may be searched or filtered by type, name, fault code, or other criteria. Thus, any criteria will may be used to sort the list. Furthermore, McGregor et al discloses an interactive wiring diagram interface for an industrial automation equipment. However, the cited art fails to disclose sorting the list by assembly order (installation order for the wires). However, Huh discloses sorting the listing of parts in an installation order such that installation order can include a list of the parts to be installed and the order in which the parts should be installed. In other words, Huh discloses sorting the list of parts by their assembly/installation order. (0024)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Huh since it would had provided the intrinsic advantage of providing improved efficiency that reduces time spent searching for components, allowing for a faster, more organized, and more accurate assembly or repair process.
As per dependent claim 18, Claim 18 recites similar limitations as in Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al in further view of McGregor et al in further view of Verma et al in further view of Gupta et al (US 11941334, EFD 2/7/2022)
As per dependent claim 20, the cited art fails to specifically state the user input device comprises a voice input device, and wherein the user input device is configured to receive voice input indicative of the selection. However, Gupta discloses wherein the user input device comprises a voice input device, and wherein the user input device is configured to receive voice input indicative of the selection. (col 8, ll. 11-22: discloses GUI 1800 may display a prompt to the user asking them to “please speak your query”. In response, the voice input “select all wires and change color to red” from the user is received with the resultant red wires displayed in FIG. 18 after execution of the command. One of a skilled artisan would have realized in order for the GUI to have receive the voice input to select the wires and change the color of those wires that a form of a voice input device (e.g. microphone) must have been presented and used for that voice input to be inputted and received)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Gupta et al since it would have provided the benefit of an easy way provided by the tool to capture and execute the user's intent in a seamless way with minimal learning effort. (col 1, lines 20-22)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10, in response to Applicant’s remarks in regards to the objection to the specification and the drawings, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment to the specification. However, the objection to the specification/abstract of the disclosure remains because the replacement/amended abstract, filed 7/22/26, was not provided on a separate sheet. Applicant has provided the replacement abstract on the same sheet with amendments to paragraph(s) of the detailed disclosure of Applicant’s specification. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 10 that the amendment to claim 19 no longer invokes 112(f), The Examiner respectfully states that the amendment of Claims 19 by changing the limitation of "computing device configured to" to "computing system configured to" does not revoke the claim limitation from being viewing under 35 USC 112(f). The limitation “computing system configured to…” still passes the 3-prong test as explained in MPEP 2181 that determine if the limitation should be interpret under 35 USC 112(f).
On pages 10-11, in regards to claims 19-20 rejected under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant argues that claim 19 and 20 have been amended to recite a “computing system” for which the corresponding structure is illustrated and described in FIG 7. Therefore, Applicant argues claims 19-20 are not in definite. However, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully states, after a brief review, that the cited FIG 7 shows the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of each limitation containing “…computing system configured to” after review. If Applicant believes FIG 7 or any paragraphs in Applicant’s specification do show “corresponding structure, material, or acts…”, the Examiner requests the Applicant to pinpoint exactly where in Applicant’s specification the “corresponding structure, material, or acts…” can be found. The Examiner respectfully states merely stating FIG 7 to show where “corresponding structure, material, or acts…” can be found does not explicitly pinpoint the precise location the “corresponding structure, material, or acts…” for each invoked limitation as explained under “Claim Interpretation” (computing system configured to identify; computing system configured to generate…) . Therefore, 112(b) rejection remains for this reason. Furthermore, even if Applicant’s specification does disclose corresponding structure for the limitation(s) comprising the terms (“computing system configured to…”) (which the Examiner disagrees), a clear algorithm must also be shown in the specification to correspond to the claimed “computing system configured to identify”; “computing system configured to generate”…etc. Applicant’s arguments did not provide any indicate where a clear algorithm for the claimed “computing system” within Applicant’s specification. 2181 II.B. clearly states “For a computer-implemented U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, the Examiner was unable to find an algorithm for each of the claimed “computing system” limitations. Therefore, 112(b) rejection remains for this reason.
On pages 11-12, in regards to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to an abstract idea, Applicant argues that (Argument A) “First, claim 1 as amended herein includes limitations that cannot be practically performed by the human mind. Claim 1 recites: obtain a sensor signal indicating completion of installation of the wired connection in the industrial automation equipment; and in response to the completion of installation, promote a next wired connection in the display for installation. A human mind cannot practically promote a wire in a display in response to receiving a sensor signal, or even generate a display promoting a wired connection in a model. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. As such, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, prong 1 of the eligibility analysis.” In addition, Applicant argues that (Argument B) “Notwithstanding the above, even if claim 1 is found to recite an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the limitations are integrated into a practical application. The claims do not merely recite generic computing steps; they are directed to a specific physical context (wiring industrial automation equipment) and obtain a sensor signal indicating completion of installation of a wired connection in that physical equipment. Additionally, the display recited is not insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim recites a specific, structured interface: a first portion listing wired connections for installation, and a second portion that promotes the selected connection in a model of the equipment and advances to a next connection when a sensor signal indicates installation is complete….The sensor limitation further integrates the claims into a practical application. Under Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), and MPEP 2106.05(a), claims that use data measured from a physical process to control a subsequent step of that process are eligible. Claim 1 operates the same way: it obtains a sensor signal measuring a physical condition (completed installation of a wired connection in actual equipment) and uses that signal to drive the next step of the guided installation. Accordingly, claim 1 is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis.” Furthermore, Applicant argues that (Argument C) the recited claim “is the type of specific interface improvement held eligible in Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cited in 2106.05(a), where a particular manner of presenting information in a display was not directed to an abstract idea. Like this interface, the claimed interface solves a specific usability problem (guiding a technician through dense wiring information, see Specification, Para. [0004]) through a particular claimed display structure, not the generic idea of displaying data.” However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., obtains a sensor signal measuring a physical condition (completed installation of a wired connection in actual equipment) and uses that signal to drive the next step of the guided installation.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Response to argument A) In response, the Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant’s claim 1 does not result in integrating the claimed abstract into a practical application being performed, as explained in Step 2A, Prong One and Two. In regards to Step 2A, Prong One. As explained above, the claims fall into one of the three groupings of subject matter, mathematical concepts, organizing human activity, or mental process. In regards to explicitly argued subject matter, the Examiner explains that the limitation “…indicating completion of installation of the wired connection in the industrial automation equipment” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “industrial automation equipment” and “processor”, “indicating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to see a list of tasks on paper and check off each tasked on the list that been completed.
In addition, the Examiner explained the limitation “…promote a next wired connection…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “processor”, “promote” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to see a list of tasks on paper and circling the next task on the list with a pencil/pen.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Response to Argument B) Furthermore, in regards to Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner states that the claim recites judicial exception wherein the subject matter limitations (in response to the selection, generate a display in a second portion of the user interface that promotes the wired connection in a model of the industrial automation equipment over other objects in the model; obtain a sensor signal indicating completion of installation of the wired connection in the industrial automation equipment; in response to the completion of installation, promote a next wired connection in the display for installation.) recite additional elements that do not integrate claimed abstract into a practical application.
The “generate a display” limitation is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The processor, user interface, and automation equipment in the generate limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the view interface and client terminal are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “obtain” limitation(s) mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitation(s) amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The processor and the industrial automation equipment in the limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the processor and the industrial automation equipment is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “in response to the completion of installation, promote a next wired connection in the display for installation” is mere data being selected to be manipulated recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data selected to be manipulated, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitation(s) amount to necessary data selected to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05.
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: computer readable storage media devices, processor, user interface and industrial automation equipment to perform the identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote steps. The computer readable storage media devices, processor, user interface and industrial automation equipment in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer readable storage media devices, processor, user interface and industrial automation equipment performing a generic computer function of identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Response to argument C) In response, in regards to improvement of a technological field, the Examiner respectfully states MPEP 2106.05(a) states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In addition, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
The Examiner respectfully states the applicant fails to identify that the claims and the limitations themselves at issue are directed toward overcoming a problem within the technology. In addition, the Examiner respectfully states the claims themselves provide no evidence of an improvement in computer- related technology beyond the abstract idea, and the computer hardware cited/claimed (i.e. user interface and industrial automation equipment) is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea as opposed to claiming the process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result. Thus, the claims are merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Furthermore, while the Applicant states that the present invention provides the effect of “the claimed interface solves a specific usability problem (guiding a technician through dense wiring information) through a particular claimed display structure, not the generic idea of displaying data”; the Examiner states these statement(s) are merely conclusionary statements that provide no evidence/reasoning to counter the Examiner’s reasoning/rationale on how the claims or elements within the claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained, the claim limitation(s) of “obtain” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using computer readable storage media devices, processor, user interface and industrial automation equipment to perform the identify, generate, obtain, indicating, and promote steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The MPEP 2105.06(a) states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” Thus, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims are merely improving the abstract idea and not an improvement in technology.
Thus, the 101 rejection directed to an abstract idea remains for these reasons.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg 12, filed 7/22/26, with respect to claims 1-9 rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive. 0054 of Applicant’s original filed specification clearly states “In no case is the computer readable storage media a propagated signal”’ therefore, indicating the computer readable storage media (device) does not include transitory subject matter The 35 USC 101 rejection of Claims 1-9 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter has been withdrawn.
The rejection of Claims 10-18 under 35 USC 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter has been withdrawn as neccessited by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights