DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 3/13/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1- 10. Therefore, claims 1 – 10 are pending.
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 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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 6 is internally inconsistent with respect to its claim form, rendering its scope unclear. The claim is presented in independent form, reciting a complete combination of elements without first incorporating the limitations of a prior claim, yet the claim also recites that it is "according to claim 2." It is therefore unclear whether claim 6 is intended to (1) stand alone as an independent claim, such that the reference to claim 2 is surplusage and the limitations of claims 1 and 2 are not incorporated, or (2) function as a dependent claim that incorporates by reference all of the limitations of claim 2 (and, in turn, those of claim 1 from which claim 2 depends). Because these two readings define materially different claim scopes, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with the requisite reasonable certainty. See MPEP § 2173.
Appropriate correction is required. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may either (a) amend claim 6 to remove the reference to claim 2 and present it in proper independent form, or (b) amend claim 6 to be set forth in proper dependent form under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), expressly referring back to claim 2 and specifying a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.
Examiner notes that if claim 6 is amended into proper dependent form, it must specify a further limitation of the subject matter of claim 2; a dependent claim that does not further limit the claim from which it depends would be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Examiner’s Note
The amendments and remarks have overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection. Further, the limitations “execution means for,” “first determination means for,” “instruction means for,” “second determination means for,” and “switching means for” (claim 1), and “search means for” and “connection instruction means for” (claim 6), are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f); the corresponding structure, including the algorithm(s) for each recited function, is set forth in the specification, and the limitations are therefore definite. The amendments and remarks have overcome the 35 USC 102 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (above) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights