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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “means for receiving” and “means for performing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
For example, ¶0044 of the specification states that “a UE (e.g., UE 120) includes means for receiving, via a user interface of the UE, an indication of a mobility mode associated with the UE, wherein the mobility mode indicates an environment associated with the UE; and/or means for performing an action based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE. The means for the UE to perform operations described herein may include, for example, one or more of communication manager 140, antenna 252, modem 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258,transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, controller/processor 280, or memory 282”, Fig. 2 shows the different systems and managers found within the UE/BS pair, and Fig. 4 shows the user interface disclosed in ¶0044. However, Examiner notes the use of the term “may include, for example” and argues that exemplary embodiments are not interpreted as exhaustive, meaning that there is uncertainty as to whether the “means for performing” is performed exclusively by hardware. Likewise, the “means for receiving” is said to be performed by a user interface, which could be interpreted as the touch panel of a UE, but is implied to be the software elements of the interface by the labelling included in Fig. 4, which points to the full screen as the “User Interface”. For both of the “means for receiving” and “means for performing”, it is unclear whether the means are fulfilled by a hardware element in all implementations or if there is a software element that can be employed to perform the means as well.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 15-19, 21, 23-24 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu, Xiao-Lei (CN 111246550 A), hereinafter Liu.
Re. Claims 1, 19, and 30, Liu teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Fig. 3), configured to: receive, via a user interface of the UE, an indication of a mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 3, Line 27 - the electronic device obtains the scene data), wherein the mobility mode indicates an environment associated with the UE (Pg. 3, Line 27- scene data comprises the user behaviour data, at least one electronic geographic position data in the device); and perform an action based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 3, Line 35- Next, electronic equipment according to the obtained scene data, usage scenario. For example, based on the longitude and latitude of the current position and the map data obtained in advance, analyzing whether the field area of the current position on the map. located in the field region under the condition at the current position, judging whether the current use scene is an outdoor scene).
Re. Claim 29, Claim 29 is the non-transitory computer readable medium storing the instructions described by Claims 1, 19 and 30. Liu further teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium (Pg. 9, Line 29 - memory 109 which can be used to store the software program and various data. Memory 109 mainly comprises storing program area and storage data area, wherein the storage program area may store an operating system, at least one function needed by the application program).
Re. Claims 3 and 21, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the mobility mode indicating the environment associated with the UE is a passenger vehicle mode including one of: a freeway mode associated with the UE traveling on a freeway, a city mode associated with the UE traveling in a city (Pg. 3, Line 27- the electronic device obtains the scene data. scene data comprises the user behaviour data, at least one electronic geographic position data in the device. wherein, the user behavior data can be obtained according to the operation record of the user of the electronic device, geographic position data can be obtained according to the GPS location data. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”), a rural mode associated with the UE traveling in a rural area, OR a water body mode associated with the UE traveling on a body of water.
Re. Claims 5 and 23, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the mobility mode indicating the environment associated with the UE is a power conservation mode associated with limited services for the UE to reduce a power consumption of the UE (Pg. 6, Line 39 - judging whether the base band power saving mode is triggered, when the baseband power saving mode is triggered, by the network configuration adjustment of the electronic device into the low power consumption state, which can effectively reduce the network power consumption of the electronic device, so as to save device power consumption to achieve power saving purpose).
Re. Claims 6 and 24, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to disable or enable one or more features of the UE based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 6, Line 39 - judging whether the base band power saving mode is triggered, when the baseband power saving mode is triggered, by the network configuration adjustment of the electronic device into the low power consumption state, which can effectively reduce the network power consumption of the electronic device, so as to save device power consumption to achieve power saving purpose).
Re. Claim 7, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to override a network control based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 2, Line 24- used for according to the current mode of use of the electronic device or use scene, determining whether the electronic equipment enters preset baseband power saving mode).
Re. Claim 11, Liu teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to perform a sleep operation or a wakeup operation based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 5, Line 39 - adjusting the network configuration of the electronic device into the low power consumption state, specifically comprising the following method: according to the preset sleep parameter, the sleep period is increased in non-continuous receiving according to the preset carrier parameter).
Re. Claim 15, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to apply safety features based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 7, Line 16 - the state adjusting module, used for when the electronic device enters the baseband power saving modes of operation, adjusting the network configuration of the electronic device is a low power consumption network configuration state, the network configuration comprising: a capability of the electronic device to report information, network functional configuration of the electronic device, based on speed in the configuration of user assistance information).
Re. Claims 16, Liu teaches Claims 1.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide the user interface that displays a plurality of possible mobility modes (Fig 2. Pg. 6, Line 32- the user can manually based on user-assisted network speed setting information, the interface adopts the gear adjustment mode, the operation mode is friendly. based on the electronic device interface shown in FIG. 2.)
Re. Claim 17, Liu teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine the mobility mode for the UE based at least in part on signal measurements (Pg. 7, Line 16 - the state adjusting module, used for when the electronic device enters the baseband power saving modes of operation, adjusting the network configuration of the electronic device is a low power consumption network configuration state, the network configuration comprising: a capability of the electronic device to report information, network functional configuration of the electronic device, based on speed in the configuration of user assistance information) and provide, via the user interface, a recommendation to switch to the mobility mode (Pg. 9, Line 25 - interface unit 108 can be used for input (e.g., data information, power, etc.) and one or more element input transmission received in the electronic device 100 or may be used for transmitting data between the electronic device 100 and the external device is received from the external device).
Re. Claim 18, Liu teaches Claims 1.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the user interface provides one or more of a touch interface or a voice command interface (Fig 2. Pg. 6, Line 32 - the user can manually based on user-assisted network speed setting information, the interface adopts the gear adjustment mode, the operation mode is friendly. based on the electronic device interface shown in FIG. 2.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2, 8-9, 13-14, 20, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of He, Xiang-Bin (CN 105142194 A), hereinafter He.
Re. Claims 2 and 20, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Yet, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility mode indicating the environment associated with the UE is a high speed train mode associated with the UE traveling on a high speed train OR a subway mode associated with the UE traveling on a subway.
However, He expressly teaches wherein the mobility mode indicating the environment associated with the UE is a high speed train mode associated with the UE traveling on a high speed train OR a subway mode associated with the UE traveling on a subway (Pg. 2, Line 20 - capable of moving the high-speed UE is from common public-private cell switching to the cell, and the UE moves from railway private cell switching to a common public network cell so as to improve the average throughput rate of UE in high-speed moving and operation smoothness. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of He to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as He provides that a mobility mode can be based on travelling on a railway (Pg. 2, Line 20, He). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 8, 9 and 25, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Yet, Liu does not explicitly teach the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to perform a cell search operation and cell measurements based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE, wherein the cell search operation is based at least in part on a property of a cell associated with the mobility mode or performing a channel estimation based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE.
However, He expressly teaches the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to perform a cell search operation and cell measurements based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE, wherein the cell search operation is based at least in part on a property of a cell associated with the mobility mode (Pg. 7, Line 7 - resource configuration parameter of the first cell and the second cell are different, for example, different frequency ranges of the frequency spectrum resource configuration parameter of the first cell is applicable to any moving speed of the user device, the resource allocation parameter of the second cell is suitable for moving speed description information is lower than the preset threshold value of the user equipment) or performing a channel estimation based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 7, Line 5- the wireless communication system provided by the embodiment of the invention comprises: in the first cell, the second cell base station, the second user equipment to the first user equipment and the second user equipment, the first user equipment; resource configuration parameter of the first cell and the second cell are different, for example, different frequency ranges of the frequency spectrum resource configuration parameter of the first cell is applicable to any moving speed of the user device, the resource allocation parameter of the second cell is suitable for moving speed description information is lower than the preset threshold value of the user equipment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of He to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as He provides that a cell search can be performed based on the mobility mode (Pg. 7, Line 7, He) and a channel estimation is performed based on the same mobility mode (Pg. 7, Line 5, He). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 13, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Yet, Liu does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to perform the action irrespective of a high speed configuration received from a base station.
However, He explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to perform the action irrespective of a high speed configuration received from a base station (Pg. 7, Line 24 - the high and low are relative to the moving speed boundary, higher mobile speed boundary is considered high moving speed lower than the moving speed boundary is considered low moving speed. equal to the moving speed of the borderline can be switched or not switched, residing in the first cell or the second cell.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of He to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as He provides that the action is performed regardless of a configuration sent by a base station (Pg. 7, Line 24, He). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 14 and 28, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to apply safety features based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 7, Line 16 - the state adjusting module, used for when the electronic device enters the baseband power saving modes of operation, adjusting the network configuration of the electronic device is a low power consumption network configuration state, the network configuration comprising: a capability of the electronic device to report information, network functional configuration of the electronic device, based on speed in the configuration of user assistance information).
Yet, Liu does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to perform a handover based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE
However, He explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to perform a handover based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 2, Line 10 - the UE residing in which cell are both depending on its own measurement result of the UE, reporting a measurement result of each cell by the UE to the base station (eNodeB), the eNodeB instructs the UE to perform cell handover according to the measurement result of the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of He to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as He provides that a handover is performed based on the mobility mode (Pg. 2, Line 10, He). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Gupta et al. (2023/0099551).
Re. Claims 4 and 22, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Yet, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility mode indicating the environment associated with the UE is a vehicle operation mode indicating whether the UE is being operated by an occupant of a vehicle, and wherein one or more capabilities of the UE are locked based at least in part on the vehicle operation mode.
However, Gupta expressly teaches wherein the mobility mode indicating the environment associated with the UE is a vehicle operation mode indicating whether the UE is being operated by an occupant of a vehicle, and wherein one or more capabilities of the UE are locked based at least in part on the vehicle operation mode (¶0205 - The positioning entity of any of clauses 22-38, wherein the at least one processor is configured to restrict the at least one functionality of the UE if the UE is determined to be located in the personal zone in the vehicle by being configured to at least one of: lock the UE; place the UE in sleep mode; turn off a display of the UE; disable touchscreen controls of the UE; pause an application on the UE; turn off the application on the UE; convert an active call to a speaker mode, or any combination thereof.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Gupta to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as Gupta provides that a UE can enter a vehicle operation mode that restricts UE usage (¶0205, Gupta). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Zhou, Yu (CN 109660663 A), hereinafter Zhou.
Re. Claims 10, and 26, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Additionally, Liu further teaches performing a sleep operation or a wakeup operation based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 5, Line 39 - adjusting the network configuration of the electronic device into the low power consumption state, specifically comprising the following method: according to the preset sleep parameter, the sleep period is increased in non-continuous receiving according to the preset carrier parameter).
Yet, Liu does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to perform an antenna control based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE.
However, Zhou explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to perform an antenna control based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (Pg. 2, Line 20 - according to the scene information and/or position information of the antenna, determining the configuration parameter, the scene information includes the handheld state, vehicle state and at least one of in the closed state according to the configuration parameter, and adjusting the antenna).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Zhou to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as Zhou provides that an antenna control action is performed based on the mobility mode (Pg. 2, Line 10, Zhou). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kaburlasos et al. (2023/0101997), hereinafter Kaburlasos.
Re. Claims 12, and 27, Liu teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Yet, Liu does not expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to activate or deactivate a processing block based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE.
However, Kaburlasos explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to activate or deactivate a processing block based at least in part on the mobility mode associated with the UE (¶0095 - The control logic being configured to disable the one or more idle-mode power-saving features of the processor includes the control logic being configured to disable one or more of dynamic power gating of idle blocks of the processor. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”) OR perform the action irrespective of a high speed configuration received from a base station (This limitation was taught by He in Claim 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kaburlasos to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as Kaburlasos provides a means of activating or deactivating a processing block based on the mobility mode (Kaburlasos, ¶0095). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mach, Tomasz (2013/0208610) - ¶0015-0046
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475