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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a multi-phase trapezoidal commutation scheme including at least six commutation sectors for each rotation of the motor” (emphasis added), on lines 8-10 of claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 1-5 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 use the word “means” 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. Such claim limitations are: “the controller is configured to extend a drive signal of a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is actively driven during the first sector into the second sector for the duration of the current dissipation period” (emphasis added), as recited in the claim 3; “the controller is configured to increase a conduction band of a low-side power switch” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 4; “the controller is configured to temporarily pause the PWM control of the first high-side power switch for the duration of the current dissipation period and resume the PWM control within the second sector after an expiration of the current dissipation period ” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 6; “the controller is configured to extend an ON-cycle of one of first high-side power switch for the duration of the current dissipation period” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 9; “the controller is configured to temporarily set a PWM duty cycle of the first high-side power switch to 100% for the duration of the current dissipation period, and to resume normal control of the PWM duty cycle after an expiration of the current dissipation period” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 10; “the controller is configured to measure a current passing between the battery and the power switch circuit and set the current dissipation period as a function of the measured current” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 11. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 3-4, 6, and 9-11 have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “step” 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. Such claim limitations are: “controlling the power switch circuit to provide a dissipation current path comprises extending a drive signal of a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is actively driven during the first sector into the second sector for the duration of the current dissipation period” (emphasis added), as recited in the claim 14; “temporarily pausing the PWM control of the first high-side power switch for the duration of the current dissipation period and resuming the PWM control within the second sector after an expiration of the current dissipation period ” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 16; “temporarily setting a PWM duty cycle of the first high-side power switch to 100% for the duration of the current dissipation period, and to resuming normal control of the PWM duty cycle after an expiration of the current dissipation period” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 19; “measuring a current passing between the battery and the power switch circuit and setting the current dissipation period as a function of the measured current” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 20. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 14, 16, 19 and 20 have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (See paragraphs [0084]-[0085] and [0089]-[0090]; and in conjunction with Figs. 12 and 15) as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the limitation “the controller controls a pulse-width modulation (PWM) of a first high-side power switch of the plurality of high-side power switches, a dissipation current path is provided through at least two of the plurality of high-side power switches or two of the plurality of low-side power switches, for a current dissipation period that starts immediately after a motor commutation from the first sector to the second sector, for dissipation of the motor current associated with the first sector to avoid negative flow of motor current into the bus line” (emphasis added), on lines 12-18 is unclear. For example, it is not clear how the controller can perform the above recited functions. It is well known in the art that the controller is a device that causes an apparatus or other device to be controlled to operation. Since, the controller does not include any other element or technical features to perform the above functions. Specifically, the claim 1 must define how to drive the high-side power switches and the low-side power switches, for a current dissipation period that starts immediately after a motor commutation from the first sector to the second sector, and for dissipation of the motor current associated with the first sector to avoid negative flow of motor current into the bus line. Therefore, the above recited functions are not supported by the recited controller. Furthermore, claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependencies on the base claim 1; Claims 12-20 are rejected with the same reasons as explanation in claims 1-11 above.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the limitation “to extend a drive signal of a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is actively driven during the first sector into the second sector for the duration of the current dissipation period”, on lines 1-4 is unclear. For example, it is not clear how the controller recognizes a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is actively driven during the first sector into the second sector for the duration of the current dissipation period to extend a drive signal of the low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches. Clarification is required.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the limitation “the controller is configured to increase a conduction band of a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is actively driven during the first sector, so it overlaps with the second sector for the duration of the current dissipation period”, on lines 1-4 is unclear. For example, it is not clear how the controller recognizes a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is actively driven during the first sector, so it overlaps with the second sector for the duration of the current dissipation period to increase a conduction band of a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches. Clarification is required.
Claim 5 is indefinite because the limitation “the controller is configured to continue the PWM control of the fist high-side power switch to energize the motor via current from the battery concurrent with the current dissipation period”, on lines 1-3 is unclear. For example, it is not clear how the controller recognizes the first high-side power switch to energize the motor via current from the battery concurrent with the current dissipation period to continue the PWM control of the fist high-side power switch to energize the motor. Clarification is required.
Claims 6 and 16 are indefinite because the limitation “the controller is configured to temporarily pause the PWM control of the first high-side power switch for the duration of the current dissipation period and resume the PWM control within the second sector after an expiration of the current dissipation period”, on lines 1-4, is unclear. For example, it is not clear how the controller recognizes an expiration of the current dissipation period to temporarily pause the PWM control of the first high-side power switch for the duration of the current dissipation period and resume the PWM control within the second sector after that. Clarification is required.
Claims 7 and 17 are indefinite because the limitation “the controller is configured to activate a drive signal of a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is associated with the second sector after the expiration of the current dissipation period.”, on lines 1-3, is unclear. For example, it is not clear how the controller recognizes an expiration of the current dissipation period to activate a drive signal of a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is associated with the second sector after that. Clarification is required.
Claims 10 and 19 are indefinite because the limitation “the controller is configured to temporarily set a PWM duty cycle of the first high-side power switch to 100% for the duration of the current dissipation period, and to resume normal control of the PWM duty cycle after an expiration of the current dissipation period”, on lines 1-4, is unclear. For example, it is not clear how the controller recognizes an expiration of the current dissipation period to temporarily set a PWM duty cycle of the first high-side power switch to 100% for the duration of the current dissipation period, and to resume normal control of the PWM duty cycle after that. Clarification is required.
For claims 11 and 20, the limitations “the controller is configured to measure a current passing between the battery and the power switch circuit and set the current dissipation period as a function of the measured current” (emphasis added) of claim 1, and “measuring a current passing between the battery and the power switch circuit; and setting the current dissipation period as a function of the measured current” (emphasis added), of claim 20, are indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a controller is used to receive inputs and generate control signal, but rather performs measuring current. Therefore, It is not clear how the controller can perform the recited function without a specific structure for supporting the claims.
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 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 20 are ineligible.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1 and 20 are an apparatus and a method. The machine/apparatus and method involve multiple mental steps.
Step 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claims recite an apparatus (Claim 1) and a method (claim 20). Thus, the claim 1 is machine and claim 20 is a process, which are one of statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Limitations receiving data (i.e., “to measure a current” of claim 11, line 1; “measuring a current” (emphasis added), of claim 20, line 1) and performing mathematical calculations (i.e. “set the current dissipation period as a function of the measured current” of claim 11, lines 2-3, and of claim 20, lines 2-3, are all mental steps as evident from the disclosure. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, these limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
These limitations also fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving algebraic equations in their minds using a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii).
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II), and October 2019 Update at Section I.B. Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this example considers these limitations as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section Ill(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract ideas, the claims recite the additional elements “controller”, in claims 11 and 20, which uses controller and/or processor to perform the recited steps. The controller or the processor and memory in the above steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. An evaluation of whether limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation is well- known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, these additional elements are recited so generically that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(d). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the short primary linear motor does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(l) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of using a processor/controller and memory to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A processor/controller to no more than well-understood, routine or conventional which is notoriously well-known. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the 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 (Such as “as a function of the measured current”, etc.). The claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, claims 11 and 20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 12-15 and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanko (US 2020/0343840 A1) in view of Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu, EP 4 178 100 A1).
For claim 1, Vanko discloses a tool (Fig. 1 of Vanko discloses a tool 10 – see Vanko, Fig. 1, paragraph [0070]) comprising:
a motor (Fig. 1 of Vanko discloses a motor 16 – see Vanko, Fig. 1, paragraph [0070]);
a battery interface configured to make an electric connection from a battery (Fig, 4 of Vanko discloses a battery interface (B+, B-) configured to make an electric connection from a battery – see Vanko, Fig. 4, paragraph [0079], lines 8-11);
a power switch circuit disposed between the battery interface and the motor to supply electric power from the battery to the motor, wherein the power switch circuit comprises a plurality of high-side power switches and a plurality of low-side power switches configured as an inverter circuit (Figs. 4 and 6 of Vanko disclose a power switch circuit 226 disposed between the battery interface (B+,B-) and the motor 16 to supply electric power from the battery to the motor 16, wherein the power switch circuit 226 comprises a plurality of high-side power switches (S1a, S2a, S3a) and a plurality of low-side power switches (S1b, S2b, S3b) configured as an inverter circuit 226 – see Vanko, Figs. 4 and 6, paragraphs [0080], [0085]); and
a controller that controls the power switch circuit to drive the motor using a multi-phase trapezoidal commutation scheme including at least six commutation sectors for each rotation of the motor (Figs. 4 and 6-7 of Vanko disclose a controller 230, 250 that controls the power switch circuit 226 to drive the motor 16 using a multi-phase trapezoidal commutation scheme including at least six commutation sectors (sectors 1-6) for each rotation of the motor 19 – see Vanko, Figs. 4 and 6-7, abstract, paragraphs [0009]; [0019, lines 5-12; and [0087]);
wherein, within at least one phase of the motor that includes a first sector and a second sector and in which the controller controls a pulse-width modulation (PWM) of a first high-side power switch of the plurality of high-side power switches (Figs. 4 and 7 of Vanko discloses within at least one phase (phase U, phase V or phase W) of the motor 16 that includes a first sector 1 and a second sector 2 and in which the controller 230 controls a pulse-width modulation (PWM) of a first high-side power switch S1a of the plurality of high-side power switches (S1a, S2a, S3a) – see Vanko, Figs. 4 and 7, paragraph [0087]).
Vanko is silent for disclosing a dissipation current path which is provided through at least two of the plurality of high-side power switches or two of the plurality of low-side power switches, for a current dissipation period that starts immediately after a motor commutation from the first sector to the second sector, for dissipation of the motor current associated with the first sector to avoid negative flow of motor current into the bus line.
However, Wu discloses a dissipation current path which is provided through at least two of the plurality of high-side power switches or two of the plurality of low-side power switches, for a current dissipation period that starts immediately after a motor commutation from the first sector to the second sector, for dissipation of the motor current associated with the first sector to avoid negative flow of motor current into the bus line (Fig. 7A of Wu discloses a dissipation current path (the current 121-1 of dissipation current path of winding 121-1 across the first node N1 and node NC flows through Q6 and D2) which is provided through at least two of the plurality of high-side power switches or two of the plurality of low-side power switches (Fig. 7A indicate two of the plurality of low-side power switches (Q2, D2) and (Q6, D6)), for a current dissipation period that starts immediately after a motor commutation from the first sector to the second sector, for dissipation of the motor current associated with the first sector to avoid negative flow of motor current into the bus line Vbus – see Wu, Fig. 7A, paragraphs [0106]-[0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Vanko to incorporate teaching of Wu for purpose of controlling power of motor control system efficiently.
For claim 2, Vanko in view of Wu disclose the tool of claim 1, wherein the current dissipation path is provided through two of the plurality of low-side power switches (see Wu, Fig. 7A, paragraphs [0106]-[0110]).
For claim 3, Vanko in view of Wu disclose the tool of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to extend a drive signal of a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is actively driven during the first sector into the second sector for the duration of the current dissipation period (see Wu, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0017] and [0088]).
For claim 4, Vanko in view of Wu disclose the tool of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to increase a conduction band of a low-side power switch of the plurality of power switches that is actively driven during the first sector, so it overlaps with the second sector for the duration of the current dissipation period (see Vanko, Fig. 23, paragraph [0131]).
For claim 5, Vanko in view of Wu disclose the tool of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to continue the PWM control of the first high-side power switch to energize the motor via current from the battery concurrent with the current dissipation period (see Wu, Fig. 7A, paragraphs [0106]-[0110]).
For claim 8, Vanko in view of Wu disclose the tool of claim 1, wherein the current dissipation path is provided through two of the plurality of high-side power switches (see Wu, Fig. 8B, paragraphs [0121]-[0126]).
For claim 9, Vanko in view of Wu disclose the tool of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to extend an ON cycle of one of first high-side power switch for the duration of the current dissipation period (see Wu, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0017] and [0088]).
Claims 12-15 and 18 are "method" claims which are either same or similar to that of the "a tool" claims 1-3, 5 and 8, respectively. Explanation is omitted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571)272-2060. 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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Jun 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights