The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1, 10, 19 and 20
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention of a platform as claimed is directed to a software/layer which is not directed to any statutory categories of invention (Step 1: No). Independent claims 10, 19 and 20 are directed to a machine, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims and the other claims recite a controller, system and vehicle for forming a resource pool, providing operating condition, transmitting and managing data, and loading a service program as recited in independent claims 10, 19 and 20. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the processor”. That is, other than reciting “by the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements of forming a resource pool, providing operating condition, transmitting and managing data, and loading a service program. The forming, providing, and transmitting and managing data recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the loading step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The loading step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the managing step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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 (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating and outputting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that computer technologies in the development of automobile control is well known [0003]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 11-18
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 11-18 are directed to a domain controller. The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 11-18 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 10 applies. Claims 11-18 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 11-18 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 11-18 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 11-18 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 11-18 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 11-18 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 11-18 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
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 1-20 are rejected because claims 13-23, and 25 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10-11, and 19-20 are rejected because the features “hardware layer” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “form”; “operating system” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “provide”;
“platform service layer” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “transmit and manage”; “application layer” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “load”; “data base module” as recited in claims 2, 11 and 19-20 to perform respective function to “transmit and share”; “data function module” as recited in claims 2, 11, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “store and update”; and “operating system interface module” as recited in claims 2, 11, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “process” have triggered 35 USC 112f interpretation because the layers and modules as recited are devoid of any structure in the specification. As such, the layers and modules may be software that will require adequate and sufficient disclosure to perform the function to be definite. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 5, 7-8, 14, 16-17 are rejected because the connective for elements as recited as “comprises … or…” is unclear whether all the elements are included. For interpretation purpose, “comprises … or…” as recited is examined as “comprises at least one of … or…”. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected because “domain controller, comprising a memory, a processor, a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, and a platform of vehicle development installed on the domain controller” as recited is unclear and inconsistent what the structure of the domain controller includes. Obviously a computer program and a platform are not structures, as such, the structural components of domain controller must not include a computer program and a platform. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim 20 is rejected based on dependency on claim 19.
Dependent claims 2-9, and 11-18 are further rejected based on their dependency of the base claims 1 and 10.
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) that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is/are:
“hardware layer” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “form”;
“operating system” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “provide”;
“platform service layer” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “transmit and manage”;
“application layer” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “load”;
“data base module” as recited in claims 2, 11 and 19-20 to perform respective function to “transmit and share”;
“data function module” as recited in claims 2, 11, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “store and update”; and
“operating system interface module” as recited in claims 2, 11, and 19-20 to perform respective function to “process”.
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, all the above units are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. All the above units are DEVOID of any corresponding structure described in the specification.
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.
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.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Luo, etal, CN113821247 (A) in view of Moeller, WO2022106885 (A1).
As to claim 1, Luo teaches a platform of vehicle development (Fig. 1 and related text; “In-vehicle software development platform”, ¶1), the platform being operated on a vehicle controller (“vehicle controller”, ¶33) and comprising a hardware layer (“hardware layer 110”, ¶22), an operating-system-and-driven layer (“operating system and driver layer 120”, ¶22), a platform service layer (“service layer 140”, ¶22), and
an application layer (“application layer 160”, ¶22) that are connected and communicate with each other (“applications in application layer 160 through application programming interface”, ¶35), wherein:
the hardware layer (“hardware layer 110”, ¶22) comprises a carrier for software resources and is configured to form a resource pool (“application layer 160 can correspond to the heterogeneous controller hardware in the hardware layer 110. Thus, the application sequentially accesses the corresponding operating system and service resources (i.e., the corresponding heterogeneous controller hardware resources)”, ¶37);
an operating system of the operating-system-and-driven layer operates on the hardware layer, and is configured to provide an operation condition for the platform service layer (“operating system and driver layer 120 may include UNIX-like operating systems and microcontroller operating systems, as well as corresponding drivers, such as CAN (Controller Area Network) device drivers and general I/O device drivers. Among them, the microcontroller operating systems include BEOS, TTOS, RTFreeOS, UCOS, and ucLinux, corresponding to microcontrollers; the UNIX-like operating systems include HarmonyOS, QNX, Linux, and RTLinux, corresponding to 32/64-bit processors, virtual machines/containers, etc. of ARM/MIPS/X86 architecture”, ¶27);
the platform service layer (“service layer 140”, ¶22) operates on the operating system and is configured to transmit and manage data in a vehicle (“operating system interface layer 130 is used to implement data transmission between various operating systems and the service layer”, ¶29); and
Luo teaches the application layer (“application in the application layer 160 can correspond to the heterogeneous controller hardware in the hardware layer 110. Thus, the application sequentially accesses the corresponding operating system and service resources (i.e., the corresponding heterogeneous controller hardware resources) at the lower level through the application programming interface, service layer”, 37) access the operating system with a service program and an application program of the vehicle but does not explicitly teaches:
application layer is configured to load an upper-layer service program and an upper-layer application program.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moeller teaches industrial control system with “upper layer ICS control logic may be a software stack for supporting one or more ICS protocols, for example, a PROFINET stack implementing one or more conformance classes of PROFINET (e.g., PROFINET CC-A, CC-B, CC-C or CC-D). The ICS Control Logic may also cover such protocols as EtherNet/IP and or Modbus TCP over Ethernet and or other versions of IP communications and the variations thereof” (Moeller: P40L20-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the in-vehicle software development platform as taught by Luo to include and application layer configured to load an upper-layer service program and an upper-layer application program as taught by Moeller to reduce code development, shorten the development cycle, save testing time, and improve software quality (Luo: ¶6).
As to claim 2, Luo modified by Moeller teaches the platform wherein
the platform service layer comprises a data bus module (Luo: “service layer includes a data bus module”, ¶32), a data function module (“service layer includes … an update management module”, ¶32), and an operating system interface module (Luo: “operating system interface”, ¶5;
the data bus module is configured to transmit and share data between domain controllers or inside a domain controller on the vehicle (Luo: “data bus module is used to realize data flow and sharing between or within domain processors”, ¶33);
the data function module is configured to store and update the data between the domain controllers or inside the domain controller on the vehicle (Luo: “update management module is used to realize software updates in the vehicle controller”, ¶33); and
the operating system interface module is configured to process an upper-layer service and an upper-layer application to invoke the operating system and a driver (Luo: “operating system interface layer enables data transmission between each operating system and the service layer”, ¶5; Moeller: P40L20-28; see claim 1 above for rationale of obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine).
As to claim 3, Luo modified by Moeller teaches the platform wherein the operating system of the operating-system-and-driver layer comprises a Linux operating system and a QNX operating system, and each of the Linux operating system and the QNX operating system corresponds to one POSIX operating system interface (Luo: “operating systems include BEOS, TTOS, RTFreeOS, UCOS, and ucLinux, corresponding to microcontrollers; the UNIX-like operating systems include HarmonyOS, QNX, Linux”, ¶27; “operating system interface layer can be used to provide POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface)”, ¶30).
As to claim 4, Luo modified by Moeller teaches the platform wherein a bottom layer hardware interface is configured in a bottom layer of each of the Linux operating system and the QNX operating system (Luo: Linux and QNX, ¶ 5, 12).
As to claim 5, Luo modified by Moeller teaches the platform wherein the data function module comprises a time synchronization unit, a service management unit, a data persistence unit, a log and trace unit, a data update unit, an executor control service unit, network management, security management, a signal acquisition service unit, or a diagnostics service unit (Luo: “service layer includes a data bus module, a message queue module, a time synchronization module, a startup management module, an update management module, a security management module, a data persistence management module, a service management module, a domain controller status management module, a diagnostic service module, a network management module, a log and debugging module, a configuration management module, an actuator control service module, and a signal acquisition service module”, ¶32).
As to claim 6, Luo modified by Moeller teaches the platform wherein the application layer comprises an application service layer and an application program layer (Luo: “application layer 160 can correspond to the heterogeneous controller hardware in the hardware layer 110. Thus, the application sequentially accesses the corresponding operating system and service resources (i.e., the corresponding heterogeneous controller hardware resources) at the lower level through the application programming interface, service layer, and POSIX interface to realize the development of in-vehicle software”, ¶37).
As to claim 7, Luo modified by Moeller teaches the platform wherein the application service layer comprises a vehicle state service module, a signal outgoing service module, a signal parsing service module, an air conditioning control service module, a window control service module, a door control service module, or an identity authentication service module (Luo: “applications in the application layer include one or more of the following: smart key program, air conditioning program, lighting control program, door and window control program, and 3D instrument program”, ¶36).
As to claim 8, Luo modified by Moeller teaches the platform wherein the application program layer comprises a meter application module, an air conditioning application module, a lighting control application module, a door control application module, a window control application module, a remote driving application module, or a cloud service application module (Luo: “applications in the application layer include one or more of the following: smart key program, air conditioning program, lighting control program, door and window control program, and 3D instrument program”, ¶36).
As to claim 9, Luo modified by Moeller teaches the platform wherein the platform is developed based on a service-oriented architecture (Luo: “applications in the application layer include one or more of the following: smart key program, air conditioning program, lighting control program, door and window control program, and 3D instrument program”, ¶36) “in-vehicle software can be ported and run on different hardware platforms, saving development and testing time. Since the development of in-vehicle software is based on application programming interface (API) development, the API and service layer shield the application from the differences between different hardware, so that the in-vehicle software only needs to be developed once and can run between different microcontrollers and different high-end processors”, ¶39).
As to claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, they are machine claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the corresponding machine claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. As such, claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for corresponding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are incorporated herein (Luo: “domain controller”, ¶10, 32-33; see claim 1 above for rationale of obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine).
As to claims 19 and 20, they are machine claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the machine claim 1. As such, claims 19 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for claim 1 and are incorporated herein (Luo: “vehicle controller” and “domain controller”, ¶10, 32-33; see claim 1 above for rationale of obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/YUEN WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights