DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/658556 filed on 05/08/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below 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. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 07/02/2026, 01/22/2026, 08/22/2025 and 05/08/2024 acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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.
Claim 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, “generating … a visual representation of the event …”, “generating a graphical schematic diagram …”, and “determining …. A component of the one …”, as drafted, recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “generating … a visual representation of the event …”, “generating a graphical schematic diagram …”, and “determining …. A component of the one …” as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “at least one processor”, “a memory operably coupled to the at least one processor”, “obtaining a set of event message” and “replaying the set of event message” The additional elements “at least one processor”, and “a memory operably coupled to the at least one processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, and “obtaining a set of event message” and “replaying the set of event message” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and displaying data. The claim recites the additional elements “obtaining a set of event message” and “replaying the set of event message”; this limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “at least one processor”, and “a memory operably coupled to the at least one processor” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations “obtaining a set of event message” and “replaying the set of event message” the courts have identified mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Under prong 2, the “wherein each event message in the set of event messages is associated with one or more devices of the classification yard” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Under prong 2, the “wherein the one or more components of the classification yard includes one or more of: a switch device; a wheel detector device; a retarder device; a distance to coupling sensor; a radar sensor; a track segment of the classification yard; a control component of the classification yard; an occupancy device; and a notification component of the classification yard” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 4, 14 and 20, Under prong 2, the “wherein the one or more components of the classification yard includes one or more of: a switch device; a wheel detector device; a retarder device; a distance to coupling sensor; a radar sensor; a track segment of the classification yard; a control component of the classification yard; an occupancy device; and a notification component of the classification yard” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 5, and 15, Under prong 2, the “wherein the visual representation of the event that occurred during the operations of the classification yard represented by each respective event message of the set of event messages includes one or more of: a color-based indication of the respective event; a numerical indication of the respective event; and a size-based indication of the respective event.” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 6, Under prong 2, the “wherein the color-based indication of the respective event includes highlighting the graphical representation of the component …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 7, Under prong 2, the “wherein the numerical indication of the respective event includes displaying a numerical value proximate the graphical representation of the component …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 8 and 16, Under prong 2, the “wherein replaying the set of event messages in the GUI includes replaying each of the event messages in the set of events messages in sequence …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 9 and 17, the limitation “wherein obtaining the set of event messages from the event log includes determining a time-based range specifying a range of events messages …” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claim 10 and 18, the limitation “determining a type for each of the event messages in the set of event messages” and “determining a communications module configured to handle each respective type for each of the event messages in the set of event messages” are an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “tasking, for each of event message in the set of event messages, a respective communications module to determine the one or more components of the classification yard …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior arts:
US 2023/0334340 to Neal JR
The present disclosure provides a technological solution missing from conventional systems via an extraction and analysis engine that can identify train events, retrieve train system logs, translate and transform structured and unstructured data into a predefined, standard format, perform root-cause analysis of PTC events, and notify subscribed users of the resolution. The extraction and analysis engine can implement one or more extraction models to identify the relevant data. The present disclosure provides for improved system performance through an extraction and analysis engine (and corresponding models) that can parse a plurality of PTC event-related files to retrieve only relevant details related to a particular PTC event, and implement a user-defined operational, scenario-based enforcement.
US 2023/0260387 to Latham
an event detection component may use computer vision to identify train 102 approaching the station, person 104 on the tracks, and multiple other persons walking in the station. The computer vision may be applied to frames taken from one or more sensors 106, such as a thermal camera or a video camera.
US 2020/0172133 to Abrosimov
receive or sense an information notification originating from an end of train device associated with a first train in a geographic area, the information notification including at least one of traversal information associated with a position of the first train in a track network or an identifier associated with the first train; identify the first train based on at least one of the position of the first train or the identifier associated with the first train; determine one or more events or conditions of the first train in the track network based on the information notification; generate an updated operation including one or more actions, the updated operation based on the one or more events or conditions associated with the first train; and control a movement of a second train based on at least one of the one or more actions.
US 2018/0162301 to Meng
For example, when event data recorder 250 detects that vehicle 200 is starting in a parking lot at a time the vehicle is not supposedly start, server 110 may determine that vehicle 200 is abnormal. Server 110 may send an instruction to tracking module 240 to track the location of vehicle 200. As another example, when the temperature internal vehicle 200 is higher than 50 degrees, server 110 may send an alert to user terminal 130, and/or shut down vehicle 200. As still another example, if the driver of vehicle 200 is a stranger, server 110 may send an instruction to event data recorder 250 to record the internal and/or external environmental information of vehicle 200.
US 2016/0236697 to Giebel-Roder
switching a train off and on in a parking position include a train side automatic train control device and a route side train monitoring system. In order to switch the train on and off economically and independently from personnel, the following steps are provided: A) entering the parking position, wherein a train reclosing unit, together with a route side coupling module connected to the train monitoring system, establishes an electrical connection; B) switching off train side subsystems using the train control device; C) shutting down and switching off the train control device; D) event triggered reactivation of the train control device using the train reclosing unit; E) switching on remaining train subsystems by using the train control device, and F) exiting the parking position, while separating electrical connection between the reclosing unit and the coupling module.
US 2015/0329129 to Sengupta
at block static data about the railway network, including of stations, platforms, loops, and about the trains planned in the network may also be modified. If there is a cold start for the method, static data structures for tracks and trains may be populated and trains may be positioned as per system time, timetable, user inputs, and events. At block, actual data and predicted events may be compared for each first type sub-network. Further track and train status may be updated in the database 118, infrastructure changes input may be analyzed, and sub-network level traffic congestion level may be analyzed. The static data comprises static railway track data, configuration of the first type sub-networks and thresholds for the deviation of status for the first type sub-networks, and configuration of the second type sub-networks, temporary railway track data, temporary railway network modification data, and train timetable and the like. The dynamic data comprises arrivals and departures of the trains at timetable points and availability of resources in the railway network.
US 2012/0072576 to Yumerefendi
Each of the received persistent data store files contains a record of events and their associated timestamps generated by the respective collector applications during the specified time interval.
The prior art of record does not disclose and/or fairly suggest at least claimed limitations recited in such manners in dependent claims 10 and 18.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-6, 1-15 and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 2017/0001653 to Ferencz, JR et al. (hereafter “Ferencz” in view of US 2007/0179688 to Muinonen et al. (hereafter “Muinonen”) and US 2014/0176708 to Ramakrishnan et al. (hereafter “Ramakrishnan”)
As per claim 1, Ferencz discloses a method of visualizing event data associated with operations of a train yard (FIGs. 8-9; paragraphs 0011 and 0045: “a user authorized to view data for a given rail yard may display a home page 800 for that railyard. Individual RCLs in the railyard may be tracked by widgets and represented by icons 804 on a railyard map 808. Icons 804 may be color-coded to indicate RCL current connection status (e.g., available, busy, MCU down, offline, available (remote mode), busy (remote mode), etc.) As shown in FIG. 9, a user may click on a particular RCL icon to display summary information 904 about that particular RCL, including, e.g., date and time, yard name, RCL velocity, velocity set point, direction, automatic brake pressure, independent brake pressure, throttle, configuration mode, etc. When a specific RCL icon has been selected, the user may launch a locomotive virtual dashboard (LVD) 908 for that RCL.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] displaying info/data about machine/RCL/remote controlled locomotive in the rail yard), comprising:
obtaining a set of event messages from an event log associated with operations of the yard (FIGs. 2-6; paragraphs 0029, 0038-0044: event messages are extracted from databases 128 (including 130-132), and 190 sent to web application 124), wherein each event message in the set of event messages represents an event that occurred during the operations of the classification yard (FIGs. 8-9; paragraphs 0011 and 0045);
generating, for each event message of the set of event messages, a visual representation of the event that occurred during the operations of the yard represented by each respective event message of the set of event messages (FIGs. 8-9; paragraphs 0043-0046: “a user authorized to view data for a given rail yard may display a home page 800 for that railyard. Individual RCLs in the railyard may be tracked by widgets and represented by icons 804 on a railyard map 808. Icons 804 may be color-coded to indicate RCL current connection status (e.g., available, busy, MCU down, offline, available (remote mode), busy (remote mode), etc.).” );
generating a graphical schematic diagram of the yard (FIGs. 8-9), wherein the graphical schematic diagram includes a graphical representation of one or more components of the yard (FIGs. 8-9; paragraphs 0045-0046: “Icons 804 may be color-coded to indicate RCL current connection status (e.g., available, busy, MCU down, offline, available (remote mode), busy (remote mode), etc.) As shown in FIG. 9, a user may click on a particular RCL icon to display summary information 904 about that particular RCL, including, e.g., date and time, yard name, RCL velocity, velocity set point, direction, automatic brake pressure, independent brake pressure, throttle, configuration mode, etc. When a specific RCL icon has been selected, the user may launch a locomotive virtual dashboard (LVD) 908 for that RCL. The LVD 908 delivers in-depth locomotive information 912, direct from the selected RCL.”);
determining, for each event message of the set of event messages, a component of the one or more components of the yard with which each respective event message is associated (FIGs. 8-9; paragraphs 0045-0046: data/information/event are display in report/web application including a multiple of RCL/icons (components) with different color codes [Wingdings font/0xE0] selecting a specific icon); and
replaying the set of event messages in a graphical user interface (GUI) (FIGs. 8-9; paragraphs 0045-0046: clicking on icons/tab/button [Wingdings font/0xE0] displaying information/data/event associated with icons/tab/button).
Ferencez discloses a train yard, however, Ferencez does not explicitly disclose the train yard is a classification yard; wherein replaying the set of event messages includes overlaying each visual representation of an event represented by a respective event message onto the graphical representation of a component determined to be associated with the respective event message.
Muinonen further discloses the train yard is a classification yard (paragraphs 0036 and 0134)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Muinonen into Ferencez’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of computing car switching solutions in a railway switch yard containing a plurality of classification tracks (Muinonen, paragraph 0009).
Ramkrishman further discloses wherein replaying the set of event messages includes overlaying each visual representation of an event represented by a respective event message onto the graphical representation of a component determined to be associated with the respective event message (paragraphs 0004, 0041 and 0056: “The video playback module 160 displays portions of the video and sensor data 134 that correspond to high-interest events from the priority identification module 158. In some embodiments, the video playback module 160 inserts an overlay graphic or other indicia to highlight the portion of the video that includes the high-interest event. A human operator reviews the video and sensor data and takes an appropriate action or retrieves additional video footage if the identified event is a high-interest event.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Ramakrishman into Ferencez’s teaching and Muinonen’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of retrieving video and optionally sensor data from the video and sensor data in the data storage system for playback via the mobile electronic device and monitoring terminal (Ramkrishman, paragraph 0041).
As per claim 2, Ferencez discloses wherein each event message in the set of event messages is associated with one or more devices of the classification yard (FIGs. 2-3; paragraphs 0019-0021).
As per claim 3, Ferencez discloses wherein the one or more components of the classification yard includes one or more of:
a switch device;
a wheel detector device;
a retarder device;
a distance to coupling sensor;
a radar sensor;
a track segment of the classification yard;
a control component of the classification yard;
an occupancy device; and
a notification component of the classification yard.
Muinonen further discloses wherein the one or more components of the classification yard includes one or more of:
a switch device (paragraphs 0036 and 0134);
a wheel detector device;
a retarder device;
a distance to coupling sensor;
a radar sensor;
a track segment of the classification yard;
a control component of the classification yard;
an occupancy device; and
a notification component of the classification yard.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Muinonen into Ferencez’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of computing car switching solutions in a railway switch yard containing a plurality of classification tracks (Muinonen, paragraph 0009).
As per claim 4, Ferencez discloses wherein the graphical representation of the one or more components of the classification yard includes positioning each component of the one or more components on a location within the graphical schematic diagram of the classification yard corresponding to a generally relative physical location of each component of the one or more components on the physical layout of the classification yard (FIGs. 8-9; paragraphs 0045 and 0051: “a user authorized to view data for a given rail yard may display a home page 800 for that railyard. Individual RCLs in the railyard may be tracked by widgets and represented by icons 804 on a railyard map 808. Icons 804 may be color-coded to indicate RCL current connection status (e.g., available, busy, MCU down, offline, available (remote mode), busy (remote mode), etc.)” [Wingdings font/0xE0] locomotive tracking midget 808 displaying the colored RCL location in the map).
As per claim 5, Ferencez discloses wherein the visual representation of the event that occurred during the operations of the classification yard represented by each respective event message of the set of event messages (FIGs. 8-9; paragraphs 0011 and 0045: “a user authorized to view data for a given rail yard may display a home page 800 for that railyard. Individual RCLs in the railyard may be tracked by widgets and represented by icons 804 on a railyard map 808. Icons 804 may be color-coded to indicate RCL current connection status (e.g., available, busy, MCU down, offline, available (remote mode), busy (remote mode), etc.) As shown in FIG. 9, a user may click on a particular RCL icon to display summary information 904 about that particular RCL, including, e.g., date and time, yard name, RCL velocity, velocity set point, direction, automatic brake pressure, independent brake pressure, throttle, configuration mode, etc. When a specific RCL icon has been selected, the user may launch a locomotive virtual dashboard (LVD) 908 for that RCL.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] displaying info/data about machine/RCL/remote controlled locomotive in the rail yard) includes one or more of:
a color-based indication of the respective event (FIG. 8; paragraph 0045: “Icons 804 may be color-coded to indicate RCL current connection status (e.g., available, busy, MCU down, offline, available (remote mode), busy (remote mode), etc.)”;
a numerical indication of the respective event; and
a size-based indication of the respective event.
As per claim 6, Ferencez discloses wherein the color-based indication of the respective event includes highlighting the graphical representation of the component determined to be associated with the respective event message associated with the respective event with a color to indicate the event (FIG. 8; paragraph 0045: “Icons 804 may be color-coded to indicate RCL current connection status (e.g., available, busy, MCU down, offline, available (remote mode), busy (remote mode), etc. [Wingdings font/0xE0] displaying a colored icon [Wingdings font/0xE0] displaying a message about a status of the icon).
As per claim 11, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 12, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 13, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 14, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 15, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 19, it is a computer-based tool claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 20, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferencz in view of Muinonen and Ramakrishnan, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of US 2007/0171029 to Inbarajan.
As per claim 7, Ferencz does not explicitly disclose wherein the numerical indication of the respective event includes displaying a numerical value proximate the graphical representation of the component determined to be associated with the respective event message associated with the respective event indicating a value associated with the event.
Inbarajan further discloses wherein the numerical indication of the respective event includes displaying a numerical value proximate the graphical representation of the component determined to be associated with the respective event message associated with the respective event indicating a value associated with the event (paragraph 0093).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Inbarajan into Ferencez’s teaching, Muinonen’s teaching and Ramkrishman’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of allowing a subscriber to receive special notification in the event of certain diagnostic findings, and allows the subscriber to specify exactly which diagnostic results and severity levels are to used in determining the need for a special notification (Inbarajan, paragraph 0010).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferencz in view of Muinonen and Ramakrishnan, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of US 2006/0168188 to Dutton.
As per claim 8, Ferencz discloses wherein replaying the set of event messages in the GUI (FIGs. 8-9; paragraphs 0045-0046: clicking on icons/tab/button [Wingdings font/0xE0] displaying information/data/event associated with icons/tab/button).
Ferencz does not explicitly disclose replaying each of the event messages in the set of events messages in sequence based on a timestamp associated with each respective event message in the set of events messages.
Dutton further discloses replaying each of the event messages in the set of events messages in sequence based on a timestamp associated with each respective event message in the set of events messages (paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Dutton into Ferencez’s teaching, Muinonen’s teaching and Ramkrishman’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of presenting events associated with recorded data exchanged between at least one user and at least one server (Dutton, paragraph 0010).
As per claim 16, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferencz in view of Muinonen, Ramakrishnan and Dutton, as applied to claims 8 and 16, and further in view of US 2013/0080348 to Pantaliano et al. (hereafter “Pantaliano”)
As per claim 9, Ferencz does not explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the set of event messages from the event log includes determining a time-based range specifying a range of events messages to be included in the set of event messages based on the based on the timestamp associated with each event message in the set of events messages.
Pantaliano further discloses wherein obtaining the set of event messages from the event log includes determining a time-based range specifying a range of events messages to be included in the set of event messages based on the based on the timestamp associated with each event message in the set of events messages (paragraphs 0111).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Pantaliano into Ferencez’s teaching, Muinonen’s teaching, Ramkrishman’s teaching, and Dutton’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of the feedback results comprise a vector of feedback result values for the event, wherein each feedback result value is associated with a point in time within the event timeline, and wherein each feedback value for the event is computed by aggregating the received feedback indicia for the event based on their associated event timestamps; and providing a representation of the feedback results to the clients (Pantaliano, paragraph 0111).
As per claim 17, it is a system claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 9. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Tuan Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 270 3387 and (571) 270 4387, respectively. The examiner can normally be reached on every Monday-Thursday, and the second Friday of the bi-week from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at (571) 272 3721.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights