The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 6-15) with traverse in the reply filed on 19 December 2025 is acknowledged. The Applicant argues that “the claims of Groups I, II, and III include at least partially overlapping subject matter that should result in similar or overlapping fields of search”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant application, restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. §121. Claims 1-5 of Group I, drawn to a remote driving system, classified in CPC class B25J9, subclass 1689. Claims 6-15 of Group I!, drawn to a system with operatively connected islands, classified in CPC class H04L67, subclass 12. Claims 16-20 of Group III, drawn to a method of operating a network islands for safety, classified in CPC class B25J9, subclass 1674..
Inventions I, II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as teleoperation, subcombination II has separate utility such as vehicle networking, and subcombination III has separate utility such as safety monitoring. See MPEP §806.05(d). The inventions require a different field of search. For example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries. Searching of subcombination I, II, and III will not necessarily retrieve result for each of subcombinations. Because the restriction is proper and Group II was elected for examination, claims 6-15 of Group II are examined. Accordingly, claims 1-5 of Group I and claims 16-20 of Group III are withdrawn.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 6-15 are examined. Claims 1-5 and 16-20 are withdrawn.
Drawing
Figures 1 and 5 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The feature “first processing island” as claimed in claims 7 and 8; “first processing island” as claimed in claim 9 are not shown in the Figure. Figures 1 and 5 are also objected because connectivity island and safety island as claimed appears in two different locations with the same name; one is under telecenter 110 and the second is under vehicle teleoperation system
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claim 6:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine, which is statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite a device with a processing island, a connectivity island and a safety island coupling. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and making an association. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim coupling of processing island, a connectivity island and a safety island is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., coupling) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component to join different parts. 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 using a processor to perform both the modelling, determining, computing, transmitting, receiving, and calibrating data 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 6 is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the modelling, determining, computing, transmitting, receiving steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that interface of teleoperated remote driving of a vehicle to vehicle systems for safe operation of vehicles is well-known [0002]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim 6 is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 7-15:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 7-15 are directed to “machine”, which is statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 7-15 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 6 applies. Claims 7-15 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 7-15 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 7-15 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 7-15 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 7-15 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 7-15 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Overall, claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC §112
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first processing island” as recited in claim 7 to perform function to “process”, “select”, “filter”, and “perform”.
“connectivity island” as recited in claim 8 to perform function to “receive”, “transmit”, “encrypt”, “optimize”, and “assess”.
“second processing island” as recited in claim 9 to perform function to “process”, “transmit”, and “verify”.
“connectivity island” as recited in claim 10 to perform function to “receive”, “transmit”, “decrypt”, “optimize”, and “detect”.
“safety island” as recited in claim 11 to perform function to “receive”, “transmit”, “verify”, “prevent”, “apply”, and “request”.
The above islands as recited from claims 7 to 11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
[0061] The processing islands 317 may comprise various processors, chips, cores, microcontrollers, applications, or other hardware and/or software configured to process imaging data, video data, audio data, or other sensor data received via one or more sensor data interfaces.
[0064] The connectivity island 318 may comprise various processors, chips, cores, microcontrollers, applications, or other hardware and/or software configured to transmit and/or receive data between the vehicle teleoperation system and one or more teleoperator stations…
[0069] The safety island 319 may comprise various processors, chips, cores, microcontrollers, applications, or other hardware and/or software configured to receive and process user inputs, commands, or instructions…
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth 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.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mariani et al., US 20250068160 (A1).
As to claim 6, Mariani teaches a system, comprising:
a processing island operatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a vehicle (sensing component 118 of autonomous platform 108 in Fig. 1 linked to sensor 128);
a connectivity island operatively coupled to a teleoperator station via at least one
network (action component 122 linked to remote system 102 in Fig. 1); and
a safety island operatively coupled to a vehicle motion controller associated with the vehicle (drive stack 120 and 608 as shown Figs. 1 and 6B);
wherein the processing island, the connectivity island, and the safety island comprise a single, integrated unit that is configured to be installed within the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 6B; “GPU(s) 808 may use one or more parallel computing platforms and/or programming models (e.g., NVIDIA's CUDA)”, ¶178).
As to claim 7, Mariani teaches the system wherein the processing island comprises a first processing island that is configured to process sensor data from the at least one sensor for presentation by the teleoperator station (Fig. 1 and related text; action component 118 receives sensor information 128 and output to remote system 102);
wherein the first processing island is configured to at least one of select portions of the sensor data, filter the sensor data, compress the sensor data, perform adaptive bitrate encoding, perform region of interest encoding, or perform dynamic resolution rendering (Fig. 1 and related text: sensor 128 and encoder 130); and
wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of an imaging device, an audio sensor, or a time of flight sensor (“one or more sensors 128. As described herein, the sensor data 126 may include, but is not limited to, image data generated using one or more image sensors (e.g., one or more cameras), LIDAR data generated using one or more LIDAR sensors, RADAR data generated using one or more RADAR sensors, IMU data generated using one or more IMU sensors, and/or any other type of sensor data generated by any other type of sensor”, ¶39).
As to claim 8, Mariani teaches the system wherein the connectivity island is configured to receive the sensor data from the first processing island, and to transmit the sensor data to the teleoperator station using at least one communication device via the at least one network (Figs. 1 and 6B; drive stack 608 receives data from sensing component 118; and transmit sensor data to remote control system 606 via network 604),
wherein the connectivity island is configured to at least one of encrypt the sensor data, optimize data transmission for latency, or assess available bandwidth (“reduce bandwidth or preserve network resources”, ¶128).
As to claim 9, Mariani teaches the system wherein the processing island comprises a second processing island that is configured to process user input data from the teleoperator station, and to transmit the user input data to the safety island (planning component 120 process sensor data and transmit to action component 122); and
wherein the second processing island is configured to at least one of verify integrity of the user input data or verify latency of the user input data (“Based on the input device(s) 140 receiving the input(s), the planning component 112 may receive input data 142 representing the input(s)”, ¶51).
As to claim 10, Mariani teaches the system wherein the connectivity island is configured to receive the user input data from the teleoperator station using at least one communication device via the at least one network, and to transmit the user input data to the second processing island (Fig. 1 and related text; “a latency associated with the communication link may increase above a threshold latency, the vehicle may cease receiving commands, the vehicle may no longer be able to send data to the remote system”, ¶31); and
wherein the connectivity island is configured to at least one of decrypt the user input data, optimize data reception for latency, or detect packet-loss of data (Fig. 1 and related text; “a latency associated with the communication link may increase above a threshold latency, the vehicle may cease receiving commands, the vehicle may no longer be able to send data to the remote system”, ¶31).
As to claim 11, Mariani teaches the system wherein the safety island is configured to receive the user input data, and to transmit the user input data to the vehicle motion controller (drive stack 120 and 608 as shown Figs. 1 and 6B); and
wherein the safety island is configured to at least one of verify a latency, compensate detected latency, verify an integrity, verify timestamps, verify a sequence, verify an accuracy, apply an appropriate formatting based on at least one attribute of the vehicle, prevent erroneous inputs, apply limits to the user input data, or request a safety maneuver (drive stack 120 and 608 as shown Figs. 1 and 6B; “drive stack 608), control component(s) 628 (e.g., corresponding to a control layer of the drive stack 608), obstacle avoidance component(s) (e.g., corresponding to an obstacle or collision avoidance layer of the drive stack 608), actuation component(s) 632 (e.g., corresponding to an actuation layer of the drive stack 608), and/or other components corresponding to additional and/or alternative layers of the drive stack 608”, ¶101); and
wherein the safety maneuver comprises at least one of reducing a speed of the vehicle, stopping the vehicle, or performing a safety pull-over of the vehicle (“last command message is received and move to a fail operational state (e.g., reduce speed”, ¶65).
As to claim 12, Mariani teaches the system wherein one of: the processing island and the at least one sensor are formed as part of the single, integrated unit;
the processing island is formed as part of the single, integrated unit, and the at least one sensor is integrated within the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 6B; “GPU(s) 808 may use one or more parallel computing platforms and/or programming models (e.g., NVIDIA's CUDA)”, ¶178);
the processing island and the at least one sensor are integrated within the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 6B; “GPU(s) 808 may use one or more parallel computing platforms and/or programming models (e.g., NVIDIA's CUDA)”, ¶178); or
the processing island and the at least one sensor are formed as a modular unit that is configured to be installed within the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 6B; “GPU(s) 808 may use one or more parallel computing platforms and/or programming models (e.g., NVIDIA's CUDA)”, ¶178).
As to claim 13, Mariani teaches the system wherein one of: the vehicle motion controller is formed as part of the single, integrated unit; or the vehicle motion controller is integrated within the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 6B; “GPU(s) 808 may use one or more parallel computing platforms and/or programming models (e.g., NVIDIA's CUDA)”, ¶178).
As to claim 14, Mariani teaches the system wherein the single, integrated unit comprises a single chip including the processing island, the connectivity island, and the safety island (Figs. 1 and 6B; “The vehicle 800 may include a system(s) on a chip (SoC) 804. The SoC 804 may include CPU(s) 806, GPU(s) 808, processor(s) 810, cache(s) 812, accelerator(s) 814, data store(s) 816, and/or other components and features not illustrated.”, ¶175); or
wherein the single, integrated unit comprises multiple chips, and wherein the processing island and the connectivity island are formed as part of a first chip of the multiple chips, and the safety island is formed as part of a second chip of the multiple chips (Figs. 1 and 6B; “The vehicle 800 may include a system(s) on a chip (SoC) 804. The SoC 804 may include CPU(s) 806, GPU(s) 808, processor(s) 810, cache(s) 812, accelerator(s) 814, data store(s) 816, and/or other components and features not illustrated.”, ¶175).
As to claim 15, Mariani teaches the system wherein the single, integrated unit comprises two portions in communication with each other, a first portion including the processing island and the connectivity island, and a second portion including the safety island (Figs. 1 and 6B; “The vehicle 800 may include a system(s) on a chip (SoC) 804. The SoC 804 may include CPU(s) 806, GPU(s) 808, processor(s) 810, cache(s) 812, accelerator(s) 814, data store(s) 816, and/or other components and features not illustrated.”, ¶175-184).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action 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. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Examiner’s Request
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on 313-446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667