DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 – 13 and 18 – 30 in the reply filed on June 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on March 27, 2024. Claims 14 – 17 and 31 – 34 have been withdrawn from consideration. As such, claims 1 – 13 and 18 – 30 are pending and examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “transmitter” recited in claims 1, 7 , 18 and 24 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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, 3 – 7, 9 – 13, 18 – 24 and 26 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Do claims 1 and 7 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claims 1 and 7 recite a controller. The body of claims 1 and 7 recite at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed controller. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are directed to an apparatus
.
Do claims 18 and 24 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claims 18 and 24 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions which, if executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform recited steps. The body of claims positively recite steps performed by the processor. Therefore, claims 18 and 24 are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1, 5 – 7, 11 – 13, 18, 22 – 24 and 28 – 30 recite a judicial exception?
Yes. The claims recite the limitations of
determining a trajectory planned for the vehicle based on a third message received from outside the vehicle (Claims 1 and 18);
generating a fourth message, wherein the fourth message indicates an intended trajectory of the vehicle (Claims 5, 11, 22 and 28);
coordinating a trajectory with another vehicle in case of conflict (Claims 6 and 23);
determining a plurality of desired trajectories capable of being undertaken by the vehicle; and determine a trajectory planned for the vehicle based on a third message received from outside the vehicle (Claims 7 and 24); and
coordinating a trajectory with another vehicle (Claims 13 and 30).
generating a fourth message; and wherein the fourth message indicates a commitment to perform the maneuver planned for the vehicle (Claims 12 and 29);
The determining, coordinating and generating limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim precludes the determining, coordinating and generating steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the “one or more processors” language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform the aforementioned steps. As such, claims 1, 5 – 7, 11 – 13, 18, 22 – 24 and 28 – 30 are considered mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1, 5 – 7, 11 – 13, 18, 22 – 24 and 28 – 30 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 5, 6, 11 – 13, 22, 23 and 28 – 30 are directed specifically to the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 18, however, recite two additional elements and claims 7 and 24 recite one: receiving a first message, comprising a plurality of potential trajectories capable of being performed by the vehicle; sending a second message to a vehicle-external network component (Claims 1 and 18); and controlling a transmitter to send a second message to a vehicle-external network component, wherein the second message comprises the plurality of desired trajectories (Claims 7 and 24).
The receiving step is recited in the claims are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of a first message, comprising a plurality of potential trajectories capable of being performed by the vehicle), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The transmitter is used in its conventional capacity, as a device to transmit data/information. The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of the transmitters. In addition, applicant does not recite any specific algorithm or hardware configuration that would tie the abstract idea to a concrete technological improvement of the transmitter (contrast with McRO v. Bandai, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Much like the receiving step the transmitter is recited in the claims are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of transmitting an electronic representation of a second message to a vehicle-external network component, wherein the second message comprises the plurality of desired trajectories), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. As such, claims 1, 5 – 7, 11 – 13, 18, 22 – 24 and 28 – 30 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1, 5 – 7, 11 – 13, 18, 22 – 24 and 28 – 30 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 1, 5 – 7, 11 – 13, 18, 22 – 24 and 28 – 30 are ineligible.
As to claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, these claim merely further define the abstract idea. The additional limitations in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 13, 18 – 24 and 26 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 7 – 9, 18 – 20 and 24 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0336788 A1 to Iagnemma (herein after “Iagnemma publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 18,
the Iagnemma discloses a controller (21) for a vehicle (10)(see FIG. 1), the controller (21) comprising:
one or more processors (21)(Note: processors are an inherent and essential feature of a vehicle controller. Every electronic control unit or vehicle control unit relies on an embedded processor, microcontroller, or system-on-chip to interpret sensor data, execute control logic, and command actuators) configured to:
receive a first message (191), comprising a plurality of potential trajectories capable of being performed by the vehicle (10)(see FIG. 1 and ¶113 for “an input a supervisory command 191 provided through an input device(s) by an operator located, for example, either inside the vehicle or at a remote location. The input from the operator identifies or otherwise selects one of potentially multiple travel lanes (or other types of travel paths) within the candidate set as the desired lane or path of travel for the ego vehicle”) (Emphasis added);
control a transmitter (60) to send a second message (27) to a vehicle-external network component (13), wherein the second message comprises the plurality of potential trajectories (see ¶36 for “a teleoperator 13 located outside the vehicle” which is equivalent to a vehicle-external network component; ¶69 for “devices for wireless communications over point-to-point or ad-hoc networks or both”; and ¶79 for “[a] wireless communication device 72 configured, among other thing, . . . to transmit data to a remotely located database. In some instances, the transmitted data includes video information captured from a camera showing the scene ahead of or behind the vehicle or both. In some instances, the transmitted data carries a wide variety of additional information including, for example, the operation, state, or condition of the vehicle, the trajectory of the vehicle, the optimal trajectory, information related to maps, information derived from one or more of the sensors, information about obstacles, alerts of various types, and other information, and combinations of any two or more of them”); and
determine a trajectory planned for the vehicle (10) based on a third message (171) received from outside the vehicle (see ¶36, where “a remote process 171 alone” can determine a trajectory planned for the vehicle; see also ¶43, where “[t]he teleoperator . . . selects a short-term movement or maneuver or other supervisory objective for the vehicle's control system to execute or achieve, for example, switching to a different travel lane or to a different upcoming roadway. The short-term supervisory control objective is wirelessly transmitted as a supervisory command to a control computer or other control system 21 located on board the vehicle, which subsequently develops and executes the series of inputs 23 to the vehicle necessary to achieve the objective within the given road conditions”). (Emphasis added.)
As to claims 7 and 24,
the Iagnemma discloses a controller (21) for a vehicle (10)(see FIG. 1), the controller (21) comprising:
one or more processors (21)(Note: processors are an inherent and essential feature of a vehicle controller. Every electronic control unit or vehicle control unit relies on an embedded processor, microcontroller, or system-on-chip to interpret sensor data, execute control logic, and command actuators) configured to:
determine a plurality of desired trajectories capable of being undertaken by the vehicle (10)(see ¶113 for “an input a supervisory command 191 provided through an input device(s) by an operator located, for example, either inside the vehicle or at a remote location. The input from the operator identifies or otherwise selects one of potentially multiple travel lanes (or other types of travel paths) within the candidate set as the desired lane or path of travel for the ego vehicle”)(Emphasis added);
control a transmitter to send a second message (27) to a vehicle-external network component, wherein the second message comprises the plurality of desired trajectories (see ¶36 for “a teleoperator 13 located outside the vehicle” which is equivalent to sending a message to a vehicle-external network component; ¶69 for “devices for wireless communications over point-to-point or ad-hoc networks or both”; and ¶79 for “[a] wireless communication device 72 configured, among other thing, . . . to transmit data to a remotely located database. In some instances, the transmitted data includes video information captured from a camera showing the scene ahead of or behind the vehicle or both. In some instances, the transmitted data carries a wide variety of additional information including, for example, the operation, state, or condition of the vehicle, the trajectory of the vehicle, the optimal trajectory, information related to maps, information derived from one or more of the sensors, information about obstacles, alerts of various types, and other information, and combinations of any two or more of them”); and
determine a trajectory planned for the vehicle (10) based on a third message received from outside the vehicle (see ¶36, where “a remote process 171 alone” can determine a trajectory planned for the vehicle; see also ¶43, where “[t]he teleoperator . . . selects a short-term movement or maneuver or other supervisory objective for the vehicle's control system to execute or achieve, for example, switching to a different travel lane or to a different upcoming roadway. The short-term supervisory control objective is wirelessly transmitted as a supervisory command to a control computer or other control system 21 located on board the vehicle, which subsequently develops and executes the series of inputs 23 to the vehicle necessary to achieve the objective within the given road conditions”). (Emphasis added.)
As to claims 2, 8, 19 and 25,
the Iagnemma publication discloses the one or more processors (21) being further configured to control one or more components of the vehicle (10) to move according to the determined trajectory. (See Abstract and ¶4 et seq. for “control inputs” from the one or more processors to be delivered to one or more of the brake, accelerator, steering, or other operational actuator of the vehicle to move according to the determined trajectory; see also ¶40, where “the control system 21 of the self-driving vehicle uses algorithms to determine a sequence of steering wheel, brake, and throttle inputs 23, to cause the vehicle to execute the inputs to achieve the objective expressed by the supervisory command”.)
As to claims 3, 9, 20 and 26,
the Iagnemma publication, however, discloses “[i]n some cases, an operator inside the vehicle can control the vehicle using supervisory commands when the operator so desires and allow a teleoperator to control the vehicle under certain conditions. In some cases, both an in-vehicle and a remote operator can be selecting non-conflicting supervisory commands at essentially the same time; in case of conflicts between supervisory commands provided from the vehicle and from the remote operator, a conflict resolution mechanism can be used to mediate the conflict.” (See ¶45.)(Emphasis added.) Thus, the Iagnemma publication is considered to disclose the third message comprising advice regarding a trajectory of the plurality of potential trajectories.
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 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.
Claims 4, 5, 10 – 13, 21, 22 and 27 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over one embodiment of the Iagnemma publication in view of another embodiment of the Iagnemma publication.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 4, 10, 21 and 27,
the Iagnemma publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the second message comprising, for each potential trajectory of the plurality of potential trajectories, an associated information related to the respective trajectory for coordination between vehicles.
The Iagnemma publication discloses “[a] pruning process 110, as also shown in FIG. 7, which takes as an input a world state 88 and the feasible trajectory set 98, and eliminates from further analysis any trajectory that is determined to be in collision with any static or dynamic object or obstacle identified in the world model process or predicted to be in collision at some future time, by employing known collision checking methods.” (See ¶99.)
Such disclosure suggests the second message comprising, for each potential trajectory of the plurality of potential trajectories, an associated information related to the respective trajectory for coordination between vehicles.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Iagnemma publication so that the second message comprises, for each potential trajectory of the plurality of potential trajectories, an associated information related to the respective trajectory for coordination between vehicles, as suggested by the Iagnemma publication, in order to avoid colliding with another vehicle.
As to claims 5, 11, 22 and 28,
the Iagnemma publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the one or more processors being further configured to generate a fourth message, wherein the fourth message indicates an intended trajectory of the vehicle.
The Iagnemma publication discloses generating a message “either inside the vehicle or outside the vehicle (e.g., at a remote location)”. (See FIG. 1 and ¶46.) The Iagnemma publication also discloses that “any one or more (or a combination) of a broad variety of maneuvers can be specified by the operator through the input device including lane changes, u-turns (say, by using a “u-turn” button), pulling off onto a shoulder, parking, multipoint turns, or taking a ramp, to name a few. By using the input device to select, for example, a specific desired travel lane, the operator designates the general desired path of the vehicle without having to provide specific steering, brake, and throttle commands at high frequency.” (See ¶76.)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosures suggest the one or more processors being configured to generate a fourth message, wherein the fourth message indicates an intended trajectory of the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been an obvious exercise of mechanical skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Iagnemma publication so that the one or more processors are configured to generate a fourth message, wherein the fourth message indicates an intended trajectory of the vehicle, as suggested by the Iagnemma publication, in order to facilitate navigation/control of the vehicle.
As to claims 12 and 29,
the Iagnemma publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the one or more processors being further configured to generate a fourth message; and wherein the fourth message indicates a commitment to perform the maneuver planned for the vehicle.
The Iagnemma publication discloses generating a message “either inside the vehicle or outside the vehicle (e.g., at a remote location)”. (See FIG. 1 and ¶46.) The Iagnemma publication also discloses that “any one or more (or a combination) of a broad variety of maneuvers can be specified by the operator through the input device including lane changes, u-turns (say, by using a “u-turn” button), pulling off onto a shoulder, parking, multipoint turns, or taking a ramp, to name a few. By using the input device to select, for example, a specific desired travel lane, the operator designates the general desired path of the vehicle without having to provide specific steering, brake, and throttle commands at high frequency.” (See ¶76.)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosures suggest the one or more processors being configured to generate a fourth message; and wherein the fourth message indicates a commitment to perform the maneuver planned for the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been an obvious exercise of mechanical skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Iagnemma publication so that the one or more processors are further configured to generate a fourth message; and wherein the fourth message indicates a commitment to perform the maneuver planned for the vehicle, as suggested by the Iagnemma publication, in order to facilitate navigation/control of the vehicle.
As to claims 13 and 30,
the Iagnemma publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a trajectory of the second message conflicts with a trajectory of the third message; and wherein the determining the trajectory planned for the vehicle based on a third message comprises coordinating a trajectory with another vehicle.
The Iagnemma publication discloses that “[i]n some cases, an operator inside the vehicle can control the vehicle using supervisory commands when the operator so desires and allow a teleoperator to control the vehicle under certain conditions. In some cases, both an in-vehicle and a remote operator can be selecting non-conflicting supervisory commands at essentially the same time; in case of conflicts between supervisory commands provided from the vehicle and from the remote operator, a conflict resolution mechanism can be used to mediate the conflict.” (See ¶45.)(Emphasis added.)
The Iagnemma publication also discloses “[a] pruning process 110, . . . shown in FIG. 7, which takes as an input a world state 88 and the feasible trajectory set 98, and eliminates from further analysis any trajectory that is determined to be in collision with any static or dynamic object or obstacle identified in the world model process or predicted to be in collision at some future time, by employing known collision checking methods. FIG. 14 illustrates a candidate trajectory set resulting from a pruning process based on the trajectory set of FIG. 13.” (See ¶99.)
Such disclosures suggest the one or more processors being configured to generate a fourth message; and wherein the fourth message indicates a commitment to perform the maneuver planned for the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been an obvious exercise of mechanical skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Iagnemma publication so that the determining the trajectory planned for the vehicle based on a third message comprises coordinating a trajectory with another vehicle when a trajectory of the second message conflicts with a trajectory of the third message, as suggested by the Iagnemma publication, in order to facilitate navigation/control of the vehicle.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 18 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,947,357 (herein after “‘357 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, instant claims 1, 7, 18 and 24 are a broader recitation and correspond to claims 1 and 3 of the ‘357 Patent.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers 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 of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights