DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-10 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A step counting method, comprising:
obtaining resultant acceleration and detecting peaks of the resultant acceleration to obtain a plurality of peak time points;
calculating respective time intervals between adjacent two peak time points,
if the time interval is in a first range, increasing a step count by one,
if the time interval is in a second range, selecting sensitive axis data from three-axis gyroscope data; and
if the sensitive axis data corresponding to the time interval meets a step counting condition, increasing the step count by two.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no additional elements recited in claim 1.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, there is no additional elements recited in the claim. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8, recites the same or substantially similar claim limitations as independent claim 1 merely further reciting addition elements of “ a peak detection module,…an interval determination module,…a first step counting module,…a data selecting module,…a second step counting module.” However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components for processing information. Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Janardhanan et al. US 2016/0138923 (hereinafter, Janardhanan) ([0019], Figs. 5, 23, 25), and Nie et al. US 2015/0185044 (hereinafter, Nie) ([0041], Fig. 3). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9, recites addition elements of “ a memory to store a computer program and a processor to execute the computer program to achieve the step counting method.” However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components for storing and processing information. Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Janardhanan ([0019], [0085], Fig. 25), and Nie ([0041], Fig. 3). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10, recites addition elements of “ a non-transitory computer readable storage medium used for store a computer program…..and a processor” .” However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components for storing and processing information. Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Janardhanan ([0019], [0085], Fig. 25), and Nie ([0041], Fig. 3). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
5. Claim 8 in this application is 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) Claim 8 limitation use the terms “peak detection module, interval determination, first step counting module, data selecting module, and second step counting module” that are generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the terms “peak detection module, interval determination, first step counting module, data selecting module, and second step counting module” or the generic placeholder are 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 terms “peak detection module, interval determination, first step counting module, data selecting module, and second step counting module” or the generic placeholder are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the terms “peak detection module, interval determination, first step counting module, data selecting module, and second step counting module” 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 terms “peak detection module, interval determination, first step counting module, data selecting module, and second step counting module” 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 terms “peak detection module, interval determination, first step counting module, data selecting module, and second step counting module” 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 terms ““peak detection module, interval determination, first step counting module, data selecting module, and second step counting module” 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.
Drawings
6. The drawings of Figures 2-6 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83 (a) and 1.84(n) and (o) because Figures 2-6 show features specified in Applicant’s disclosure and claims are not illustrated with “label representation” corresponding to elements of the drawing thereby the elements/features of the respective Figures 2-6 are not readily identifiable, Figures 2-6, are not readily identifiable, the horizontal axis (x-axis) and/or the vertical axis (y-axis) are missing proper labels...etc.
Further, The drawings are objected to because Figures 2-6 of the filed drawings is of a very poor quality, and therefore is unreadable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 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.
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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. CN 106441350 A, cited in IDS (hereinafter, Yao), in view of Nie et al. US 2015/0185044 (hereinafter, Nie).
9. Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a step counting method, comprising:
obtaining resultant acceleration and detecting peaks of the resultant acceleration to obtain a plurality of peak time points ([0071]-[0072], [0082]);
calculating respective time intervals between adjacent two peak time points ([0072], [0082], [0090]),
increasing a step count by one ([0099];
if the time interval is in a second range, selecting sensitive axis data from three-axis gyroscope data ([0038], [0049]: the acceleration data is triaxial acceleration data, which is the acceleration data in the X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis directions on the coordinate axes. Preferably, the acceleration data of the terminal is obtained through a MEMS inertial sensor installed on the terminal. This MEMS inertial sensor mainly integrates a gyroscope and an accelerometer… the attitude information of the terminal can be determined based on the combined acceleration r, the first included angle α, and the second included angle β. That is, it can be determined whether the terminal is in the user's pants pocket, in the user's hand, in the user's hand and swinging, or in the user's arm bag. For example, if the value of the first included angle α is within the allowable range of the first preset included angle…,the value of the second included angle β is within the allowable range of the second preset included angle…, and the fluctuation value in the Y-axis direction is the largest, then it can be determined that the terminal is in the user's pants pocket. Furthermore, by determining whether the maximum value among the fluctuation values in the three axis directions is greater than a preset fluctuation threshold,…[Further], [0096]-[0099]: the step frequency information is converted into its corresponding time for explanation. For example, the time interval corresponding to the preset step frequency range of the terminal user is from 0.2s to 2s, where s is seconds. If the time interval corresponding to the step frequency information obtained by the terminal is not within the range of 0.2s to 2s, then step S208 is executed, and the set of characteristic values is not used as step count statistics If the time interval corresponding to the step count frequency information is in the range of 0.2
s to 2s, then step S207 is executed to count steps according to the pre-designed step rules corresponding to the usage state… if the step counting condition is met, then one
step is counted. This step counting also needs to be performed according to the pre-designed step rule corresponding to the usage state. The pre-designed step rule is the specific number of steps corresponding to one step counting. For example, when a user walks or runs with the terminal in their pocket, the step count for each step is incremented by 1; when a user walks or runs while holding the terminal and swinging their arm, the step count for each step is incremented by 2); and
if the sensitive axis data corresponding to the time interval meets a step counting condition, increasing the step count by two ([0099]).
Yao does not disclose:
if the time interval is in a first range, increasing a step count by one.
However, Nie discloses:
if the time interval is in a first range, increasing a step count by one ([0006], [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yao to use if the time interval is in a first range, increasing a step count by one as taught by Nie. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to validate the step counting method more precisely and accurately (Nie, [0025]).
10. Regarding claims 8, 9, and 10, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
11. Regarding claim 2, Yao in view of Nie disclose the step counting method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Yao further discloses wherein the three-axis gyroscope data comprises X-axis data, Y-axis data and Z-axis data, and wherein the selecting sensitive axis data from three-axis gyroscope data comprises: obtaining sensitive axis information; and determining the X-axis data, the Y-axis data or the Z-axis data corresponding to the sensitive axis information as the sensitive axis data ([0038], [0049], [0099]: the acceleration data is triaxial acceleration data, which is the acceleration data in the X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis directions on the coordinate axes. Preferably, the acceleration data of the terminal is obtained through a MEMS inertial sensor installed on the terminal. This MEMS inertial sensor mainly integrates a gyroscope and an accelerometer… the attitude information of the terminal can be determined based on the combined acceleration r, the first included angle α, and the second included angle β. That is, it can be determined whether the terminal is in the user's pants pocket, in the user's hand, in the user's hand and swinging, or in the user's arm bag. For example, if the value of the first included angle α is within the allowable range of the first preset included angle…,the value of the second included angle β is within the allowable range of the second preset included angle…, and the fluctuation value in the Y-axis direction is the largest, then it can be determined that the terminal is in the user's pants pocket. Furthermore, by determining whether the maximum value among the fluctuation values in the three axis directions is greater than a preset fluctuation threshold).
12. Regarding claim 3, Yao in view of Nie disclose the step counting method according to claim 2, as disclosed above.
Yao further discloses calculating respective sums of historical values of the X-axis data, the Y-axis data and the Z-axis data within a preset time period based on a target time point, and determining axis information corresponding to the largest one of the sums as the sensitive axis information ([0071]: referring to Figure 3, which is a schematic diagram of the terminal coordinate axis provided…Where r is the resultant acceleration, α is the first included angle, and β is the second included
angle. The resultant acceleration r is the resultant of accelerations in the X, Y and Z directions…[0049], [0097]-[0099]: the attitude information of the terminal can be determined based on the combined acceleration r, the first included angle α, and the second included angle β. That is, it can be determined whether the terminal is in the user's pants pocket, in the user's hand, in the user's hand and swinging, or in the user's arm bag. For example, if the value of the first included angle α is within the allowable range of the first preset included angle…,the value of the second included angle β is within the allowable range of the second preset included angle…,and the fluctuation value in the Y-axis direction is the largest, then it can be determined that the terminal is in the user's pants pocket. Furthermore, by determining whether the maximum value among the fluctuation values in the three axis directions is greater than a preset fluctuation threshold). Further, Nie discloses collecting a 3-axis acceleration; calculating sum of squares for the 3-axis acceleration to generate a standard acceleration; smoothing the standard acceleration to generate a processed acceleration; acquiring maximum and minimum of all processed acceleration during a period (Abstract). Yao in view of Nie does not disclose calculating absolute values of the X-axis data, the Y-axis data and the Z-axis data. However, calculating absolute values of the X-axis data, the Y-axis data and the Z-axis data would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Yao in view of Nie as disclosed above.
13. Regarding claim 4, Yao in view of Nie disclose the step counting method according to claim 2, wherein obtaining sensitive axis information comprises obtaining target axis information, and determining the target axis information as the sensitive axis information as disclosed above.
Yao further discloses determining whether an update cycle is reached; and if the update cycle is reached, updating the target axis information based on the X-axis data, the Y-axis data and the Z-axis data ([0046]-[0047]: calculate the fluctuation value of the acceleration data within the first preset time window. Specifically, the acceleration data fluctuation values include acceleration data fluctuation values in three axial directions. The data information of the fluctuation value in this axis can represent the motion state information of the terminal in that axis…[Further], [0049], [0060]: the attitude information of the terminal can be determined based on the combined acceleration r, the first included angle α, and the second included angle β. That is, it can be determined whether the terminal is in the user's pants pocket, in the user's hand, in the user's hand and swinging, or in the user's arm bag. For example, if the value of the first included angle α is within the allowable range of the first preset included angle…,the value of the second included angle β is within the allowable range of the second preset included angle…,and the fluctuation value in the Y-axis direction is the largest, then it can be determined that the terminal is in the user's pants pocket. Furthermore, by determining whether the maximum value among the fluctuation values in the three axis directions is greater than a preset fluctuation threshold, if so, it can be determined that the user is running; if not, it can be determined that the user is walking…other characteristic values of acceleration data can also be obtained, such as the slope change value of the acceleration data curve). Further, Nie discloses collects a three-axis acceleration of a user, calculates a sum of squares of the three-axis acceleration for generating a standard acceleration,…the time window will be adjusted periodically according to the difference between the maximum and the minimum of all the processed accelerations generated in a period, which means the time window can be varied adaptively in different time interval during whole exercising process….keep determining the processed acceleration. And then the method determines whether the time difference between two serial step started time is within the current time window or no ([0019], [0025]).
14. Regarding claim 7, Yao in view of Nie disclose the step counting method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining resultant acceleration and detecting peaks of the resultant acceleration to obtain a plurality of peak time points as disclosed above.
Yao further discloses obtaining three-axis acceleration data, and obtaining the resultant acceleration using the three-axis acceleration data; detecting maximum values of the resultant acceleration to obtain initial peak time points ([0071]-[0072]).
Yao does not disclose:
filtering out invalid peaks from the initial peak time points to obtain the peak time points.
However, Nie discloses:
filtering out invalid peaks from the initial peak time points to obtain the peak time points ([0006], [0018]-[0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yao to use filtering out invalid peaks from the initial peak time points to obtain the peak time points as taught by Nie. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to filter out invalid accelerations data (Nie, [0019]).
15. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao, in view of Nie, in further view of Janardhanan et al. US 2016/0138923 (hereinafter, Janardhanan).
16. Regarding claim 5, Yao in view of Nie disclose the step counting method according to claim 1, wherein if the sensitive axis data corresponding to the time interval meets the step counting condition, the increasing the step count by two as disclosed above.
Yao further discloses obtaining an extreme value of the sensitive axis data ([0072]-[0073], [0098]-[0099]: fluctuation value of the acceleration data within a first preset time window is calculated…a specific time period on the acceleration data time axis can be selected as the first preset time window, and the fluctuation value within the first preset time window can be obtained. Preferably, the fluctuation values within the first preset time window are the maximum and minimum values of the acceleration data within the first preset time window); and
if the extreme value is in an extreme value range, and increasing the step count by two ([0072], [0073], [0099]). Further, Nie discloses acquiring maximum and minimum of all processed acceleration during a period, calculating the difference between the maximum and the minimum (Abstract, [0025]).
Yao in view of Nie does not disclose:
performing a zero-crossing detection on the sensitive axis data to obtain a number of zero-crossing points; and if the extreme value is in an extreme value range and the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to two, determining that the step counting condition is met.
However, Janardhanan discloses:
performing a zero-crossing detection on the sensitive axis data to obtain a number of zero-crossing points ([0142], [0148]); and
if the extreme value is in an extreme value range and the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to [a given number], determining that the step counting condition is met ([0142], [0148], [0166], Figs. 10A-B: The correlation output is independent of spikes present in most accelerometer walk profiles, enabling easy zero crossing detection. A zero crossing detection (or peak detection) on this correlation output is used to determine steps. Additionally, a check on periodicity is done such as to check if the left leg step and right leg step periods are almost equal. This promotes robustness of accurate step detection in different use scenarios and avoids false detection when the periods are not Sufficiently near equality… A stride (2 steps) is correlated with the next stride, instead of a step). Further, Yao discloses count steps according to the pre-designed step rules corresponding to the usage state,…The pre-designed step rule is the specific number of steps corresponding to one step counting. For example, when a user walks or runs with the terminal in their pocket, the step count for each step is incremented by 1; when a user walks or runs while holding the terminal and swinging their arm, the step count for each step is incremented by 2. The pre-designed step rule for this usage state is that one feature value that meets the step counting conditions corresponds to two steps (see, [0098]-[0099]). Yao in view of Nie in view of Janardhanan does not disclose obtaining the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to two. However, obtaining the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to two would have been have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Yao in view of Nie in view of Janardhanan as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yao in view of Nie to use performing a zero-crossing detection on the sensitive axis data to obtain a number of zero-crossing points; and if the extreme value is in an extreme value range and the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to two, determining that the step counting condition is met as taught by Janardhanan. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to reduce false detection of steps (Janardhanan, [0148]).
17. Regarding claim 6, Yao in view of Nie disclose the step counting method according to claim 5, wherein obtaining an extreme value of the sensitive axis data comprises obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value of the sensitive axis data, and wherein if the extreme value is in an extreme value range and the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to two, determining that the step counting condition is met as disclosed above.
Yao further discloses if the maximum value is in a maximum period, the minimum value is in a minimum period, determining that the step counting condition is met ([0072], [0093], [0097]-[0099]). Further, Nie discloses acquiring maximum and minimum of all processed acceleration during a period, calculating the difference between the maximum and the minimum, and setting a current time window according to the difference; determining whether there are at least three serial processed accelerations decrease progressively; if yes, confirming the collected time for the first processed acceleration of the at least three serial processed accelerations to be a current step starting time; determining whether a time difference between the two serial current step starting time falls within the current time window (Abstract, [0025]).
Yao in view of Nie does not disclose:
the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to two, determining that the step counting condition is met.
However, Janardhanan discloses:
the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to [a given number], determining that the step counting condition is met ([0142], [0148], [0166], Figs. 10A-B: the correlation output is independent of spikes present in most accelerometer walk profiles, enabling easy zero crossing detection. A zero crossing detection (or peak detection) on this correlation output is used to determine steps. Additionally, a check on periodicity is done such as to check if the left leg step and right leg step periods are almost equal. This promotes robustness of accurate step detection in different use scenarios and avoids false detection when the periods are not Sufficiently near equality… A stride (2 steps) is correlated with the next stride, instead of a step). Further, Yao discloses count steps according to the pre-designed step rules corresponding to the usage state,…The pre-designed step rule is the specific number of steps corresponding to one step counting. For example, when a user walks or runs with the terminal in their pocket, the step count for each step is incremented by 1; when a user walks or runs while holding the terminal and swinging their arm, the step count for each step is incremented by 2. The pre-designed step rule for this usage state is that one feature value that meets the step counting conditions corresponds to two steps (see, [0098]-[0099]). Yao in view of Nie in view of Janardhanan does not disclose obtaining the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to two. However, obtaining the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to two would have been have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Yao in view of Nie in view of Janardhanan as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yao in view of Nie to use the number of the zero-crossing points is equal to two, determining that the step counting condition is met as taught by Janardhanan. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to reduce false detection of steps (Janardhanan, [0148]).
Conclusion
18. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857