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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 26, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-20 are newly amended by the RCE received December 26, 2025.
In claim 1, line 9, “represents” has been amended to read “represent” without appropriate markup.
In claim 2, line 7, “each” has been deleted without appropriate markup.
In claim 2 line 7, “the” has been added without appropriate markup.
In claim 9, line 23, “for” is marked with strikethrough, but was not present in the previous set of claims.
In claim 9, line 25, “for” is marked with strikethrough, but was not present in the previous set of claims.
In claim 10, line 9, “connections” is marked with strikethrough, but was not present in the previous set of claims.
In claim 10, line 9, “connection” is underlined, but was present in the previous set of claims.
In claim 11, line 8, “connection” is underlined, but was present in the previous set of claims.
In claim 18, line 23, “for” is marked with strikethrough, but was not present in the previous set of claims.
In claim 18, line 25, “for” is marked with strikethrough, but was not present in the previous set of claims.
In claim 20, line 3, “each” has been deleted without appropriate markup.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. Examiner notes that data processing using a hardware accelerator is extremely widespread, and therefore the title does not have sufficient informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
MPEP 608.02, section V, states that “[l]ead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake." However, in Figure 13, multiple reference characters (1334, 1322, 1330, and 1326) appear to be neither underlined nor associated with a lead line.
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 Objections
Claims 8, 11-12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 8, line 1, “The system of claim 6, wherein, each processing element” should be “The system of claim 6, wherein each processing element” for grammatical clarity.
In claim 11, line 7, “plurality of processing element” may have been intended to be “plurality of processing elements”.
Claim 12 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 11.
In claim 17, line 1, “The one or more processors of claim 15, wherein, each processing element” should be “The one or more processors of claim 15, wherein each processing element” for grammatical clarity.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A system, comprising: a plurality of processing elements forming a processing engine, each processing element of the plurality of processing elements operatively coupled with one or more different processing elements of the plurality of processing elements, a processing engine configuration based at least on the plurality of processing elements” in lines 1-6. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0074], [0075], [0076], and [0085]) does not appear to provide support for a processing engine configuration that is an element, of the recited system, that is distinct from the recited plurality of processing elements forming a processing engine.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets including physical interconnections between processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 8-10. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0076]) does not appear to provide support for the plurality of connection sets including both a) physical interconnections between processing elements of the plurality of processing elements, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended language “including”.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “a control system comprising one or more circuits configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system comprising one or more circuits configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform simulation operations; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform digital twin operations; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform light transport simulation; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform deep learning operations; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to present at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to host one or more real-time streaming applications; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to implement large language models (LLMs); a system comprising one or more circuits configured to implement vision language models (VLMs); a system comprising one or more circuits configured to implement one or more multi-modal language models; … a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform conversational artificial intelligence (AI) operations; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to generate synthetic data” in lines 3-26 and 29-32, which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0013]) does not appear to provide support for both a) an embodiment wherein just one circuit performs the recited functionality, and b) more than one circuit performs the recited functionality; Examiner notes that the “one or more” claim language necessitates both possibilities to be supported by the original disclosure. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0013]) does not appear to provide support for one or more circuits, of a control system, that are particularly configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0013]) does not appear to provide support for one or more circuits, of a perception system, that are particularly configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets including physical interconnections” in lines 7-8. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0076]) does not appear to provide support for the plurality of connection sets including both a) physical interconnections, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended language “including”.
Claims 11-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “a control system comprising configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system comprising configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system comprising configured to perform simulation operations; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform digital twin operations; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform light transport simulation; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform deep learning operations; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to present at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to host one or more real-time streaming applications; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to implement large language models (LLMs); a system comprising one or more circuits configured to implement vision language models (VLMs); a system comprising one or more circuits configured to implement one or more multi-modal language models; … a system comprising one or more circuits configured to perform conversational artificial intelligence (AI) operations; a system comprising one or more circuits configured to generate synthetic data” in lines 3-26 and 29-32, which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0013]) does not appear to provide support for both a) an embodiment wherein just one circuit performs the recited functionality, and b) more than one circuit performs the recited functionality; Examiner notes that the “one or more” claim language necessitates both possibilities to be supported by the original disclosure. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0013]) does not appear to provide support for a control system that is particularly configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0013]) does not appear to provide support for a perception system that is particularly configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets including physical interconnections between processing elements of a plurality of processing elements” in lines 6-8. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0076]) does not appear to provide support for the plurality of connection sets including both a) physical interconnections between processing elements of a plurality of processing elements, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended language “including”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets including physical interconnections between processing elements of a plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine and indicate one or more different processing elements from the plurality of processing elements” in lines 6-9. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0004]) does not appear to provide support for a plurality of processing elements indicating one or more different processing elements from the plurality of processing elements.
Claim 20 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 19 above.
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 recites the limitation “a plurality of processing elements forming a processing engine, each processing element of the plurality of processing elements operatively coupled with one or more different processing elements of the plurality of processing elements, a processing engine configuration based at least on the plurality of processing elements” in lines 2-6. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite, in the context of the instant invention, as to whether the recited “processing engine configuration” and the recited “plurality of processing elements forming a processing engine” are the same as each other or different from each other. In the latter case, it is unclear as to how the metes and bounds of “processing engine configuration” differ from the metes and bounds of “plurality of processing elements forming a processing engine”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a respective connection set of the plurality of connection sets is associated with a respective processing element of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 10-12. However, “respective” can be defined as “belonging or relating separately to each of two or more people or things”, and “respective” in the above limitation is associated with singular elements. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the limitation is conveying that the plurality of connection sets are respectively associated with the plurality of processing elements, or whether the limitation is conveying that a connection set is associated with a processing element. Note that the related limitation “the respective connection set associated with the respective processing element of the plurality of processing elements” is recited in claim 2, lines 2-4. Note that the related limitation “the respective processing element of the plurality of processing elements” is recited in claim 2, lines 5-6. Note that “the respective processing element” is recited in claim 2, line 7.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each processing element configured to communicate with one or more different processing elements from the plurality of processing elements to process an input to the system” in lines 12-14. However, it is indefinite as to whether a first processing element processes an input to the system, a second processing element likewise processes all of the input to the system, and so forth; whether a first processing element processes an input to the system, a second processing element processes a different input to the system, and so forth; whether the processing elements collectively process all of an input to the system (but each individual processing element does not process all of an input to the system); or whether another interpretation is intended. Similarly, see claim 1, lines 19-20, where it is unclear as to whether a same first set of sub-inputs are provided to each of one or more first processing elements, or whether sub-inputs of the first set of sub-inputs are respectively provided to first processing elements, or whether another interpretation is intended. Similarly, see claim 5, lines 1-3; claim 6, lines 1-3; and claim 6, lines 4-6.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the respective connection sets” in line 4. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “each of the respective connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets” in lines 4-5. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how a connection set (singular) can comprise connection sets (plural). For example, it is indefinite as to how a connection set can comprise both a) at least 4-neighborhood connection sets, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprising” language. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “at least” language is further limiting “4” or “4-neighborhood connection sets”.
Claim 3 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 2 above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a processing engine configuration of the processing engine” in line 5. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is a physical construct, or data that defines and is used to form the physical construct, or a higher-level concept relied upon as an aid to understanding, or something else. For example, it is indefinite, in the context of the instant invention, as to whether the recited “processing engine” and the recited “processing engine configuration” are the same as each other or different from each other. In the latter case, it is unclear as to how the metes and bounds of “processing engine” differ from the metes and bounds of “processing engine configuration”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets including physical interconnections between each connection set of the plurality of connection sets associated with a processing element of a plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine” in lines 7-10. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how the plurality of connection sets can “includ[e]” physical interconnections which are “between” each connection set. For example, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the plurality of connection sets associated with a processing element of a plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine” in the claims. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the claim is conveying that the plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine are associated with respective connection sets, or whether the claim is conveying that each connection set is associated with a [same] processing element of a plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine, or whether the claim is conveying something else.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “and respective connection set of the plurality of connection sets being associated with one or more different processing elements from the plurality of processing elements in communication with the processing element” in lines 10-13. Examiner notes that “respective” can be defined as “belonging or relating separately to each of two or more people or things”. It is unclear as to whether “respective connection set” is to be interpreted as “a respective connection set” or “respective connection sets”, and further unclear as to whether, for example, connection sets are respectively associated with one or more different processing elements, or connection sets are respectively associated with different instances of one or more different processing elements, or whether some other interpretation is the case. Note that claim 11 further recites “each respective connection set” in line 4, and “respective connection sets” in lines 5-6. Similarly, see claim 10, lines 14-15, where it is unclear as to whether a same first set of sub-inputs are provided to each of one or more first processing elements, or whether sub-inputs of the first set of sub-inputs are respectively provided to first processing elements, or whether another interpretation is intended. Similarly, see claim 14, lines 1-3; claim 15, lines 1-3; and claim 15, lines 4-6.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the size of the input to the one or more processors in line 16. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 11-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 10 above.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the respective connection sets” in line 5. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “each of the respective connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets” in lines 5-6. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how a connection set (singular) can comprise connection sets (plural). For example, it is indefinite as to how a connection set can comprise both a) at least 4-neighborhood connection sets, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprising” language. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “at least” language is further limiting “4” or “4-neighborhood connection sets”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “at least 4-neighborhood connection sets for communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing element and processing elements of the plurality of processing elements that are adjacent to each processing element” in lines 6-8. However, it is indefinite as to whether the 4-neighborhood connection sets are for communication between a given processing element and processing elements of the plurality of processing elements that are adjacent to that given processing element, or whether the 4-neighborhood connection sets are for communication between a given processing element and processing elements of the plurality of processing elements that are adjacent to each processing element (but not merely that given processing element).
Claim 12 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 11 above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the one or more first processing elements of a first row of the processing engine” in lines 4-5. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Also note that the limitation “the one or more first processing elements of the first row of the processing engine” is recited in claim 14, lines 5-6.
Claims 15-17 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 14 above.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “that processing element” in line 4. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a processing element” of claim 10, line 9, or a processing element that corresponds to a particular processing element instance of “each processing element” of claim 17, lines 1-2. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 17, line 5.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a control system comprising configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine” in lines 3-4. However, it is indefinite as to what is being conveyed, at least in part in view of the “comprising configured” portion of the limitation.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a perception system comprising configured to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine” in lines 5-6. However, it is indefinite as to what is being conveyed, at least in part in view of the “comprising configured” portion of the limitation.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a system comprising configured to perform simulation operations” in lines 7-8. However, it is indefinite as to what is being conveyed, at least in part in view of the “comprising configured” portion of the limitation.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a processing engine configuration of the processing engine” in line 4. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is a physical construct, or data that defines and is used to form the physical construct, or a higher-level concept relied upon as an aid to understanding, or something else. For example, it is indefinite, in the context of the instant invention, as to whether the recited “processing engine” and the recited “processing engine configuration” are the same as each other or different from each other. In the latter case, it is unclear as to how the metes and bounds of “processing engine” differ from the metes and bounds of “processing engine configuration”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the size of the input to a system” in line 12. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets including physical interconnections between processing elements of a plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine and indicate one or more different processing elements from the plurality of processing elements” in lines 6-9. For example, it is unclear as to how a plurality of processing elements can indicate one or more “different” processing elements from that same plurality of processing elements. For example, it is unclear as to what the “different” processing elements” are different relative to.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “causing a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 10-11. However, it is unclear as to whether a same first set of sub-inputs are provided to each of one or more first processing elements, or whether sub-inputs of the first set of sub-inputs are respectively provided to first processing elements, or whether another interpretation is intended.
Claim 20 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 19 above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets that indicate each processing element of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets that indicate each processing element of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 2-3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to what it means for connection sets (e.g., physical interconnections) to themselves “indicate” each processing element of the plurality of processing elements; is such an indication referring to a person looking at the plurality of connection sets to determine the endpoints of the connection sets? For example, it is unclear as to whether a processing element is indicated by each connection set of the plurality of connection sets in a 1:many relationship, or whether another interpretation is intended.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “each of the plurality of connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets” in lines 3-4. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how a connection set (singular) can comprise connection sets (plural). For example, it is indefinite as to how a connection set can comprise both a) at least 4-neighborhood connection sets, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprising” language. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “at least” language is further limiting “4” or “4-neighborhood connection sets”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets that indicate each processing element of the plurality of processing elements, each of the plurality of connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets for communication between adjacent processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 2-5. However, it is indefinite as to whether the recited communication between adjacent processing elements is referring to communication between a processing element and processing elements adjacent to the processing element, or communication between one processing element adjacent to a processing element and another processing element adjacent to the processing element, or some other type of communication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 16 argues: “Without conceding the propriety of these objections, Applicant has amended the Specification in a manner believed to obviate the objections. As such, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the Objection to the Specification.”
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the previously presented objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 17 argues: “Without conceding the propriety of these Objections to the Drawings, Applicant has amended the drawings in a manner believed to obviate these objections. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the Objections to the Drawings.”
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the previously presented objections to the drawings are withdrawn. However, the amendments also catalyze a further objection — see the drawings section above.
Applicant on page 18 argues: ‘Without conceding the propriety of this interpretation, Applicant has amended the claims to include the structural term "comprising at least one circuit configured to..." which Applicant submits obviates the interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite sufficient structure and submits that these claims do not invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).’
Examiner is no longer interpreting the claims as invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Applicant on page 18 argues: “Without conceding the propriety of this rejection, Applicant has amended claims 9 and 18 to obviate the interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). By virtue of the above- discussed amendments, Applicant submits that the rejection of claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §§112(a) and (b) are obviated. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §§112(a) and (b).”
As noted above, Examiner is no longer interpreting the claims as invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Applicant on page 18 argues: “Without conceding the propriety of this rejection, Applicant has amended claims 1, 10, and 19 to obviate the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).”
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the associated previously presented rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 19 argues: “Without conceding the propriety of this rejection, Applicant has amended the claims to obviate the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).”
Various previously pending rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. However, other previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) remain applicable, and in various cases the amendments to the claims introduce additional indefinite subject matter; see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at (571)270-3995. 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.
/KEITH E VICARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights