Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Amendments and arguments are not persuasive over the previous 35 USC 101 rejections. The claims recite abstract mental and mathematical concepts. Applicant argues that the amended claims require specialized interaction between software and hardware components, such as, “driver program,” “wireless communications chip,” and “wireless transceiver.” Remarks pg. 9. These components are merely generic computer components used to implement Applicant’s invention (AUTOMATIC ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND USER GUIDED REMEDIATION). In other words, those components are insignificant to the invention. The invention is focused on identifying issues in a processing system, finding a remediation, and executing a remediation. The generic hardware components in the method claim are moot to the actual invention.
Examiner recommends adding language from the specification “the automated remediation may include automatically performing at least one action based on the at least one recommendation, the at least one action modifying operation of the data processing system.” Specification at 0143. This makes clear that the user guided remediation process excludes “manual remediation.” Id. at 0143.
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 directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a] method for managing a data processing system while mitigating down- time associated with addressing an identified issue of the data processing system, the method comprising: receiving a request to provide a wireless communications service by the data processing system; executing, according to the request, a driver program to configure a wireless communications chip of the data processing system to operate a wireless transceiver according to an internet protocol; identifying an issue impacting the data processing system, the issue comprising a failure of the driver program to instruct the wireless communications chip to provide the wireless communications service; performing, based on the identified issue, a dynamic resolution synthesis process to obtain at least one remediation recommendation; and performing, based on the at least one remediation recommendation, a user guided remediation process to attempt to address the identified issue.”
The limitation of “identifying an issue impacting the data processing system, the issue comprising a failure of the driver program to instruct the wireless communications chip to provide the wireless communications service,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “performing, based on the identified issue, a dynamic resolution synthesis process to obtain at least one remediation recommendation,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “performing, based on the at least one remediation recommendation, a user guided remediation process to attempt to address the identified issue,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “identifying… and performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying an issue and performing a remediation process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact identifying and performing. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitation of “receiving a request to provide a wireless communications service by the data processing system,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitation of “executing, according to the request, a driver program to configure a wireless communications chip of the data processing system to operate a wireless transceiver according to an internet protocol,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the identifying and performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein identifying the issue comprises: obtaining interface data associated with an instance of a user interface presented by the data processing system; performing an analysis of the interface data based on: code rules that define when issues are being exhibited by the data processing system, the code rules being keyed to at least a portion of the interface data, and dependencies that indicate causes of the issues; and identifying, based on the analysis, the issue and at least one potential cause of the issue.”
The limitation of “obtaining interface data associated with an instance of a user interface presented by the data processing system,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
The limitation of “performing an analysis of the interface data based on: code rules that define when issues are being exhibited by the data processing system, the code rules being keyed to at least a portion of the interface data, and dependencies that indicate causes of the issues,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
The limitation of “identifying, based on the analysis, the issue and at least one potential cause of the issue,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “identifying… and performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying an issue and performing a remediation process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact identifying and performing. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the identifying and performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein performing the dynamic resolution synthesis process comprises: identifying relevant data associated with the identified issue from one or more data repositories; performing, based on the identified relevant data, at least one remediation discerning process to obtain known remediation solutions; and performing, based on the known remediation solutions, a remediation recommendation generation process to obtain the at least one remediation recommendation.”
The limitation of “identifying relevant data associated with the identified issue from one or more data repositories,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
The limitation of “performing, based on the identified relevant data, at least one remediation discerning process to obtain known remediation solutions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
The limitation of “performing, based on the known remediation solutions, a remediation recommendation generation process to obtain the at least one remediation recommendation,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “identifying… and performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying an issue and performing a remediation process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact identifying and performing. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the identifying and performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he method of claim 3, wherein performing the at least one remediation discerning process comprises, at least in part, performing a lookup process to obtain at least a first portion of the known remediation solutions from an accessible knowledge base; performing probabilistic inferencing based on known solution-orientated action sets facilitated by a user and/or other users of the data processing system to obtain at least a second portion of the known remediation solutions; and performing a dependency matrix resolution process for identifying dependencies of the interface data based on, at least in part, code rules associated with the interface data to obtain at least a third portion of the known remediation solutions.”
The limitation of “performing a lookup process to obtain at least a first portion of the known remediation solutions from an accessible knowledge base,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
The limitation of “performing probabilistic inferencing based on known solution-orientated action sets facilitated by a user and/or other users of the data processing system to obtain at least a second portion of the known remediation solutions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
The limitation of “performing a dependency matrix resolution process for identifying dependencies of the interface data based on, at least in part, code rules associated with the interface data to obtain at least a third portion of the known remediation solutions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “identifying… and performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying an issue and performing a remediation process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact identifying and performing. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the identifying and performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein performing the user guided remediation process comprises: generating a user interface based on the issue and the at least one remediation recommendation; and presenting the user interface to a user to obtain user feedback from the user, the user feedback indicating a course of action for addressing the issue.”
The limitation of “wherein performing the user guided remediation process comprises: generating a user interface based on the issue and the at least one remediation recommendation,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
The limitation of “presenting the user interface to a user to obtain user feedback from the user, the user feedback indicating a course of action for addressing the issue,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “generating… and presenting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper generating and presenting data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact generating and presenting. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the generating and presenting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he method of claim 5, wherein in a first instance of the presenting where the user feedback indicates that the course of action is an automated remediation: automatically performing at least one action based on the at least one remediation recommendation, the at least one action modifying operation of the data processing system.”
The limitation of “wherein in a first instance of the presenting where the user feedback indicates that the course of action is an automated remediation: automatically performing at least one action based on the at least one remediation recommendation, the at least one action modifying operation of the data processing system,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “identifying… and performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying an issue and performing a remediation process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact identifying and performing. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the identifying and performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he method of claim 6, wherein in a second instance of the presenting where the user feedback indicates that the course of action is a manual remediation: providing actionable steps for the user to manually address the issue using the at least one remediation recommendation.”
The limitation of “wherein in a second instance of the presenting where the user feedback indicates that the course of action is a manual remediation: providing actionable steps for the user to manually address the issue using the at least one remediation recommendation,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper providing remediation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact providing. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the providing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he method of claim 7, wherein based on the performance of the actionable steps by the user, actual actions of the user relative to the data processing system are recorded and used to update the dynamic resolution synthesis process so that future dynamic resolution synthesis processes are more likely to align with user selected processes.”
The limitation of “wherein based on the performance of the actionable steps by the user, actual actions of the user relative to the data processing system are recorded and used to update the dynamic resolution synthesis process so that future dynamic resolution synthesis processes are more likely to align with user selected processes,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “identifying… and performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying an issue and performing a remediation process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact identifying and performing. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the identifying and performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he method of claim 7, wherein in a third instance of the presenting where the user feedback indicates that the course of action is to obtain alternate recommendations: performing a second dynamic resolution synthesis process to obtain an alternate remediation recommendation; and providing the alternate remediation recommendation to address the issue.”
The limitation of “wherein in a third instance of the presenting where the user feedback indicates that the course of action is to obtain alternate recommendations: performing a second dynamic resolution synthesis process to obtain an alternate remediation recommendation; and providing the alternate remediation recommendation to address the issue,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “identifying… and performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying an issue and performing a remediation process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact identifying and performing. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the identifying and performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he method of claim 9, wherein in a fourth instance of the presenting where the user feedback indicates that there is no action to be performed: marking the issue as addressed.”
The limitation of “wherein in a fourth instance of the presenting where the user feedback indicates that there is no action to be performed: marking the issue as addressed,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “presenting… [and] marking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper presenting and marking data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact presenting and marking. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the presenting and marking steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein performing the dynamic resolution synthesis process comprises integrating data and user interactions across a cloud aggregate system infrastructure, the integrated data and integrated user interaction being obtained from devices and their device components of the cloud aggregate system infrastructure.”
The limitation of “wherein performing the dynamic resolution synthesis process comprises integrating data and user interactions across a cloud aggregate system infrastructure, the integrated data and integrated user interaction being obtained from devices and their device components of the cloud aggregate system infrastructure,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics, Post-solution Activity.
That is, other than reciting “data processing system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data processing” language, “identifying… and performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying an issue and performing a remediation process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “data processing” to enact identifying and performing. The data processing system in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a data processing system to enact the identifying and performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-16 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1-5, respectively.
Claims 17-20 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1-4, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights