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 07/16/2024 was filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
While the current title does encompass the claimed invention it is so generalized that it does not clearly indicate the claimed subject matter beyond generally linking it to vehicle control.
The following title is suggested: “Lidar based Object Contour and Bounding Box Transformations and Analysis for Vehicle Control”.
The suggested title makes clear that the claimed invention in particular is a lidar system which creates object contours and bounding boxes (and transformations of them such as scaling, rotating, etc) and performs analysis on those boxes for the purposes of vehicle control.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: The first sentence of the abstract is information known from the title and can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding the independent claims they recite the limitation “, wherein the reference axis is chosen from one of a first axis, a second axis, and a third axis ”; this lacks adequate written description in the specification in that while the specification has in-ipsis verbis (or equivalent level of generality recitations) of this limitation, when detailed in the specification the references axis are shown/disclosed as being normal (perpendicular) to each other. There are no general teachings for how to use any three arbitrary axes to perform the recited generations and determinations of the bounding boxes/external object. The embodiments where the three axis are normal to each other is adequately disclosed, however the current bounds of the claims recites any three axis (e.g. three lines/axes which are coincident at one point which have their axis directions offset from each other by 1 degree) as such the current bounds of the claims includes groups of axis which are not adequately disclosed.
Claim 7-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 7-8 they recite determining if an object interferes based on the shape formed by the points within the second bounding box. The applicant’s specification lacks adequate written description for the broad genus of “the shape” in that when this feature is discussed the only shape (species) disclosed is a zig zag, there is no disclosure of other species (shapes) that would indicate if an object is a ghost object (would interfere or not) nor is there any discussion as to what qualities of a shape would indicate if an object would interfere or not.
As such claims 7-8 recite/claim using an entire genus (a shape) for determining if an object would interfere or not whereas the applicant’s specification only every discloses a single species (zig zag) as a shape for this determination. There is no teachings as to analyzing if points match/form any (all) specific shape for determining if an object interferes or not, further from the disclosure of a single species (zig zag) one cannot infer the underlying characteristics for the broad genus by comparing and contrasting a zig zag with other disclosed species.
Claims 18-19 have the same written description issues as claims 7-8 regarding the claiming of a broad genus “a specified shape” (i.e. any shape) whereas the specification only ever discloses a single species (zig zag) with no discussion as to the what characteristics of a shape would indicate if an corresponding object would interfere or not.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 9 and 20 they recite determining if an object interferes or not using an neural network which determines “…based on points, whose quantity is smaller than a specified quantity and which are included in the second bounding box,”
The issue with this limitation is that neither the specification nor the claims make clear what is meant by “quantity”. From the claims “whose quantity is smaller than a specified quantity and which are included in the second bounding box” it is known that the point(s) being analyzes are some subset of the overall point cloud in the second box (i.e. is not simply counting the number of points and then comparing to a threshold) but instead appears to be counting (the quantity) of points which satisfy some parameter/criteria, however the applicant never discloses or makes clears what features of a point would be used to determine that a hypothetical point belongs to those points whose quantity is smaller than a specified quantity. As such the specification lacks adequate written description for the broad genus of any “quantity” of a (lidar) point being used to determine if an object interferes or not via a neural network. The broad genus of “quantity” is never defined nor are there any examples (species) disclosed as to a specific quantity which is being analyzed (as below a quantity threshold).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, while first reciting that the neural network uses all of it recites the limitation “based on applying the contour points, the second vertices, and the dynamics information into the neural network model, and wherein the neural network model is configured to determine whether the first bounding box or the second bounding box indicates that the external object does not interfere with the operation region of the vehicle, by using at least one of an absolute speed of the external object, a longitudinal speed of the external object, a lateral speed of the external object, whether the external object is moving, a heading of the external object, a type of the external object, a sensor identifying the external object, reliability of the sensor, shape information associated with contour points, points included in the first bounding box, or points included in the second bounding box.” It then goes on to limit/recite that the neural network only needs (at least one) parameter to perform the determination i.e. “and wherein the neural network model is configured to determine whether the first bounding box or the second bounding box indicates that the external object does not interfere with the operation region of the vehicle, by using at least one of an absolute speed of the external object, a longitudinal speed of the external object, a lateral speed of the external object, whether the external object is moving, a heading of the external object, a type of the external object, a sensor identifying the external object, reliability of the sensor, shape information associated with contour points, points included in the first bounding box, or points included in the second bounding box.”
The specification lacks adequate written description for this limitation regarding the “at least one of…”.
When described in the specification teachings of this limitation is recited at an equivalent level to the claims with no details as to how the neural network is trained/configured to use any single of the claimed parameters. (i.e. purely functionally described with no description/teachings as to how to configure a neural network to perform this function). Nor is it readily apparent with a only purely functional recitation how to configure a neural network to perform such functions using only one of the parameters.
For example, how can a neural network determine if an object would interfere or not based only the object’s type (e.g. pedestrian, vehicle, etc). (the “at least one of” in claim 10 being an object’s “type”).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 13 they recite the limitation “a quadrilateral having a smallest size on a plane formed by axes different from the reference axis;” this renders the claims indefinite in that it is unclear if “axes different from the reference axis” is referencing the two other axes of the independent claims (i.e. the two axes of the three in the independent claims which aren’t the reference axis) or if referencing/includes any other number of axes (e.g. some 4th -1000th axis) in space.
Claims 3 and 14 depend on claims 2 and 13 and inherit the indefiniteness concerning the axes.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In short, claim 10 is an improper dependent claim in that of all three categories parameters of the determination (as recited in claim 1) being required, only one parameter (and by extension category) is required, and further the use of the “second vertices included in the second bounding box,” as recited in claim 1 does not appear to be used by the neural network in claim 10. Therefore claim 10 does not include all the limitations of claim 1.
In more detail, regarding Claim 10, while the claim first recites that the neural network is based on apply all three of the parameters recited in claim 1’s determination, it then recites “and wherein the neural network model is configured to determine whether the first bounding box or the second bounding box indicates that the external object does not interfere with the operation region of the vehicle, by using at least one of an absolute speed of the external object, a longitudinal speed of the external object, a lateral speed of the external object, whether the external object is moving, a heading of the external object, a type of the external object, a sensor identifying the external object, reliability of the sensor, shape information associated with contour points, points included in the first bounding box, or points included in the second bounding box.” Which appears to recite that the neural network instead only requires (at least) one of the listed parameters and therefore claim 10 fails to include all the limitations on which it depends (claim 1).
Claim 1 recites that the determination (if an object interferes or not) is based on all three of (1) contour points, (2) second vertices included in the 2nd bounding box, and (3) dynamics information of the external object.
Claim 10 however in the limitation reciting inputs to the neural network is instead reciting that the determination is based on any one of (1) (shape information) of contour points, (2?) points in either of the first or second boxes, or (3) dynamic information (i.e. the external object’s speeds, heading, etc. as recited in claim 10).
While claim 10 is more detailed in what parameters are included in the broad categories (of claim 1) and that the determination is performed via neural network (i.e. claim 10 is further limiting in some respects) it fails to include that the determination (if an object interferes or not) requires all of (1),(2),(3) as recited in claim 1.
As such claim 10 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends and is an improper dependent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 12-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 12,
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 12 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 12 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 12 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. “generating” of bounding boxes to represent a shape, generating a second bounding box via transforming the first boxes vertices about a reference axis (1st-3rd axis)and then “determining” if the object within the bounding boxes “interferes” with the vehicle.
This is equivalent to a person drawing out the points on paper, linking the points (the first bounding box), then adjusting/drawing a second box which (second bounding box), and then based on the similar/amount of points within the two, etc, determining that the object would interfere or not.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 12 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While the claim does recite that the method is a” vehicle control method”, and the final limitation includes “controlling, based on the determination, an operation of the vehicle”; under BRI/plain meaning “an operation of the vehicle” includes insignificant post solution activity such as generally outputting/displaying the results of an abstract idea. (i.e. this limitation under BRI includes insignificant post solution activity of displaying)
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of generating, generating, and determining are performed by a “processor”, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 12 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Transforming data (generating and/or determining), i.e. WURC, activities performed by computers, purely abstract (data) manipulation transformations do not constitute a “specific transformation” for satisfying the requirements of U.S.C 101 regarding abstract ideas.
Thus, since claim 12 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claims 13-17 they recite further adjustments to the bounding box, these various adjustments are reasonably performed in the human mind/with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding Claims 18-19 they recite determinations/analysis which can reasonable be performed in the human mind/with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding Claim 20, it recites a determination reasonably performed in the human mind, while it further recites that a machine learning model (neural network) performs this determination, this is only generally linking the abstract idea (determination) to a field of use/technology (using machine learning to perform a determination) thus does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. (i.e. the general recitation of/using a neural network does not provide practical application for an abstract idea similar to how generally linking/implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not provide practical application.); the further recitation of that the neural network was configured via learning is recited a WURC activity recited at a high level of generality/functionally claimed. (training/learning of a neural network via training data collected during/of real-world environment is WURC for machine learning)
Claims 1-11 are not rejected under U.S.C 101 as directed to an abstract idea as it positively claims the lidar sensor, while the operations of processor do include (recites) a mental process reasonably performable in the mind it is not directed to the idea, i.e. the lidar sensor itself is not an abstract idea. (akin to example iii of mpep 2106.04(a)(1) as not being directed to an abstract idea)
One way to overcome the abstract idea rejection of claim 12 and its dependents would be to amend the “controlling, …, an operation” limitation of claim 12 to make clear that “an operation” is a specific vehicle maneuvering type control (i.e. driving along a determined route) such that it positively recites a vehicle control step and thus integrates the abstract idea into practical application. Grounds for such an amendment can be found in at least [0153] of the specification
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220204029 A1, “COLLISION AVOIDANCE USING AN OBJECT CONTOUR”, Chen et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Chen et al teaches “A vehicle control apparatus comprising: a light detection and ranging (LiDAR);”( [0015] This disclosure is directed to techniques for determining bounding contours associated with objects and using those bounding contours for actions such as collision avoidance. In some examples, a lidar sensor may receive lidar data associated with an object. The lidar data may be projected into a two-dimensional plane and a convex hull can be identified based on the projected lidar data; “ );”and a processor configured to: generate, based on contour points obtained through the LiDAR and representing a shape of an external object of a vehicle, a first bounding box corresponding to the external object;”( [0021] “In some examples, the bounding contour discussed herein may be a polygon that closely identifies the perimeter of the object. ...” The bounding contour is the first bounding box from lidar data);” generate, based on aligning first vertices included in the first bounding box around a reference axis, a second bounding box, wherein the reference axis is chosen from one of a first axis, a second axis, and a third axis;”( [0022] In some examples, an axis-aligned bounding box can be used to quickly check for potential collisions, such as between a vehicle and an object. For example, the axis-aligned bounding box may be associated with a bounding contour. A second distance between a vehicle and the object may be determined based on the axis-aligned bounding box. In some examples, the axis-aligned bounding box is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.” + [0044] At operation 302, the process may include determining a bounding box associated with an object. In some examples, the bounding box may be determined based on an image of the object, lidar data associated with the object, and the like. In some examples, the bounding box determined in the operation 302 can be an axis-aligned bounding box based on the bounding contour determined in the operation 304. Additional examples of an axis-aligned bounding box are discussed in FIGS. 11A-11C, as well as throughout this disclosure.” The axis-aligned bounding box (second bounding box) is based on the bounding contour (First bounding box) which is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle (first axis));” determine whether the first bounding box or the second bounding box indicates that the external object does not interfere with an operation region of the vehicle, based on the contour points, second vertices included in the second bounding box, and dynamics information of the external object; and control, based on the determination, an operation of the vehicle.”( [0046] At operation 306, the process may determine whether there is a possibility of a collision with the object based on the bounding box. In some examples, operation 306 may determine a likelihood of a collision between the object and a vehicle performing the process 300. If operation 306 determines there is no possibility of a collision (or the possibility is below a threshold value) based on the bounding box, the process ends at operation 314, which indicates a “no collision likely” status. In some examples, the “no collision likely” status may be communicated to one or more systems in the vehicle, other vehicles, other systems, the object, and the like.” + [0047] Here determines collision risk (if detected object would interfere (i.e. collide) with the vehicle, and responding if such a risk exists) i.e. based on the contour points and second bounding box + from [0087]/[0091] this risk is known to be in part on the speed(s) of the vehicle and other/detected object (i.e. dynamics information of the external object) in addition)
Regarding Claim 5, Chen et al teaches “The vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: adjust a size of the second bounding box based on a type of the external object.”( [0054] In some examples, a bounding box can be expanded by a threshold amount, which may be based on a size of the object, an object type, and the like. In some examples, the bounding box 404 may be expanded in size by 0.4 meters … In one or more examples, the bounding box 404 is expanded on all four sides to capture lidar points located outside any of the sides of the bounding box 404.” Here teaches that the bounding box is expanded (size adjusted) in part on the class of object);
Regarding Claim 11, Chen et al teaches “The vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the dynamics information comprises at least one of a speed of the external object, whether the external object is moving, a sensor identifying the external object, or a type of the external object.”([0087] here teaches that the threshold for determining if a collision may occur (object interferes) includes/is based on classification (type of external object) and/or speed of the vehicle (or external object); )
Regarding Claim 12, it is a method equivalent the configuration of claim 1’s processor, it has the same ground of rejection as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, it is a method equivalent to claim 5 it has the same grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240264276 A1; US 12012122 B1; US 20220299626 A1; WO 2022055873 A1; US 20180203447 A1; US 20140324266 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights