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 .
Claim Status
Claims 21-72 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of claims 1-20 was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/28/2026.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 11-20 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. apparatus).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong One
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. For example, claim 1 (and substantially similar with independent claim 11) recites:
A method of presenting interactive sessions to address functional impairment in users, comprising:
identifying, by a computing system, a plurality of sessions to address an impairment associated with a condition of a user, each session of the plurality of sessions comprising a corresponding layer of a plurality of layers for the user;
providing, by the computing system, a first session for a cognitive training layer by displaying one or more first images with which the user is to recognize one or more of a plurality of social cues associated with a social skill;
providing, by the computing system, a second session for a virtual functional training layer for the user to apply the social skill in virtual social settings, comprising:
(i) displaying a second image of a social setting with (a) a first prompt identifying a query associated with a character displaying one of the plurality of social cues and (b) a set of interactive elements identifying a corresponding plurality of responses to the character,
(ii) receiving a first response from the plurality of responses selected by the user via at least one of the set of interactive elements, and
(iii) providing a feedback to the user based on the query for the social setting and the response; and
providing, by the computing system, a third session for a functional training layer for the user to apply the social skill, comprising (i) displaying a second prompt to direct the user to perform an activity and (ii) receiving a second response associated with performance of the activity.
These underlined elements recite an abstract idea that can be categorized, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to cover the management of personal behavior or interactions (i.e., following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the computing system, virtual settings, virtual training layers, processors coupled with memory (clm. 11), the limitations in the context of this claim encompass following rules to train users to recognize social cues and improve their skills for social settings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-10 and 12-20 reciting particular aspects of the abstract idea).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong Two
For example, claim 1 (and substantially similar with independent claim 11) recites:
A method of presenting interactive sessions to address functional impairment in users, comprising:
identifying, by a computing system (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a plurality of sessions to address an impairment associated with a condition of a user, each session of the plurality of sessions comprising a corresponding layer of a plurality of layers for the user;
providing, by the computing system (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a first session for a cognitive training layer by displaying one or more first images with which the user is to recognize one or more of a plurality of social cues associated with a social skill;
providing, by the computing system (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a second session for a virtual functional training layer (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) for the user to apply the social skill in virtual social settings (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), comprising:
(i) displaying a second image of a social setting with (a) a first prompt identifying a query associated with a character displaying one of the plurality of social cues and (b) a set of interactive elements identifying a corresponding plurality of responses to the character,
(ii) receiving a first response from the plurality of responses selected by the user via at least one of the set of interactive elements, and
(iii) providing a feedback to the user based on the query for the social setting and the response; and
providing, by the computing system (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a third session for a functional training layer for the user to apply the social skill, comprising (i) displaying a second prompt to direct the user to perform an activity and (ii) receiving a second response associated with performance of the activity.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations, which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitations of the computing system, virtual settings, virtual training layers, processors coupled with memory, thereby invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0060], [0083], [0085], [0240]-[0241], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite additional limitations that further the abstract idea; claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-15, 17-20 recite additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test for Claims
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Additionally, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than elements which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as using the computing system, virtual settings, virtual training layers, processors coupled with memory, e.g., Applicant’s spec describes the computer system with it being well-understood, routine, and conventional because it describes in a manner that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy 112a. (See Applicant’s Spec. [0060], [0083], [0085], [0240]-[0241]); using a processor coupled with memory, a computing system, virtual settings and layers, e.g., merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of environment. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merzenich et al. (US 2016/0155355).
Regarding claim 1, Merzenich discloses a method of presenting interactive sessions to address functional impairment in users, comprising:
identifying, by a computing system, a plurality of sessions to address an impairment associated with a condition of a user, each session of the plurality of sessions comprising a corresponding layer of a plurality of layers for the user; (Merzenich [0260] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a multi-faceted, web-deliverable, browser-playable and game-based neurological training system 1 configured to treat a cognitive deficit [0261] The training program 2 comprises a plurality of games or exercises 4 targeting a plurality of cognitive domains and sensory modalities. Each training program 2 is customized and configured to address cognitive deficits that are associated with a neurological condition, such as addiction, depression, ADHD, or ASD, and its co-morbidities. [0263] In most embodiments, the game stimuli comprise images 23 displayed on a display device such as a computer monitor or digital screen and/or sounds 24 played through a speaker, ear buds or other auditory equipment. In other embodiments, the game stimuli comprise smells, tastes, or tactile (e.g., haptic) stimulation 25. The training program's stimulus set is designed to span the relevant dimensions of real-world stimuli to ensure that learning is never stimulus specific. [0264] Early in training, the games use highly salient, emphasized (e.g., high contrast, temporally deliberate) stimuli 21 to drive strongly synchronized brain responses requisite for rapidly driving brain changes in a corrective way. The games then progressively move to more ecologically-relevant and valid stimuli 22 (e.g., real speech, complex realistic social stimuli with people showing emotions in context, social scenes, social interactions) to ensure generalization to real-world situations)
providing, by the computing system, a first session for a cognitive training layer by displaying one or more first images with which the user is to recognize one or more of a plurality of social cues associated with a social skill; (Merzenich Table 6 and corresponding text; [0373] SocialVille aims to treat social cognition deficits using the principles of neuroplasticity-based learning, by targeting the impaired brain systems underlying social cognition rather than the impaired social behaviors per-se that are targeted by molar social skills training approaches. The SocialVille exercises aim to improve efficiency of stimulus representation and processing speed in the specific neural systems that underlie social cognition, and have been shown to function abnormally in schizophrenia [0374] Table 6 below lists 19 computerized SocialVille exercises, most of which are described in further detail later in the specification. These exercises target speed and accuracy of neural functions dedicated to processing of social information. Specifically, the SocialVille exercises target the social cognitive domains of affect perception (both visual and vocal), social cue perception, ToM and self-referential processing. Using a computerized setting and speeded tasks, the participant is required to make hundreds of speeded, accurate, and increasingly more challenging discriminations of socially-relevant information (e.g., emotional faces, eye gazes, voices, social situations) [0555] The goal of this game is to improve the subject's implicit ability to focus attention on the region of the eyes, which has been shown to convey key social information. Individuals with ASD are known to have severe difficulties focusing on the eye region or in inferring information from the eyes. In this game, Looky Lou presents images of individuals looking in various directions, and prompts participants to select the individual that looks in the same direction as the target individual)
providing, by the computing system, a second session for a virtual functional training layer for the user to apply the social skill in virtual social settings, comprising: (i) displaying a second image of a social setting with (a) a first prompt identifying a query associated with a character displaying one of the plurality of social cues and (b) a set of interactive elements identifying a corresponding plurality of responses to the character, (Merzenich [0629] FIGS. 129-131 illustrate screenshots 490, 493 and 496 of one embodiment of a vocal affect theory of mind game called “Say What?” which challenges game participants to apprehend a social situation and the meanings conveyed by voice inflection. [0630] Subjects are presented with social scenarios, and are asked to decide how the characters should sound given the information a) that they have about that scenario, and b) given the knowledge that the characters have about the scenario. [0631] With each trial, Say What? plays a short script describing a person's circumstances in a social situation. Say What? then prompts 494 the participant with a theory-of-mind question… with longer sentences being played if the participant makes mistakes)
(ii) receiving a first response from the plurality of responses selected by the user via at least one of the set of interactive elements, and (Merzenich Fig. 69 step 306 and corresponding text; [0631] Say What? prompts 497 the participant to select the sentence with the prosody that best fits the person's circumstances related in the script)
(iii) providing a feedback to the user based on the query for the social setting and the response; and (Merzenich [0372] The training program 110 provides participants continuous feedback about treatment progress, expressed directly and symbolically in the engaging meta-game 116 called "Socia/Ville." Frequent reward screens are presented, with game-like rewards marking the achievement of training benchmarks)
providing, by the computing system, a third session for a functional training layer for the user to apply the social skill, comprising (i) displaying a second prompt to direct the user to perform an activity and (ii) receiving a second response associated with performance of the activity. (Merzenich [0644] FIGS. 147-149 illustrate screenshots of one embodiment of a theory of mind game called “What's Joe Thinking?” which challenges game participants to follow the direction of different people's eye gazes and interpret those gazes as denoting their thoughts. [0646] In a first challenge, What's Joe Thinking? prompts 571 the game participant to select the object choice 572 that matches the target object 546, 556. After receiving the participant's response to the first challenge, What's Joe Thinking? prompts the game participant to indicate whether the second person's eyes were directed toward or away from the target object 546, 556 [0647] What's Joe Thinking? provides an indication of whether the game participant's responses were correct along with an indication or measure of a length of the first time interval. What's Joe Thinking? also progressively reduces the first time interval as the game participant's accuracy improves. In a typical trial, What's Joe Thinking? presents the target facial image 568 in the middle of a matrix of facial images 560-568 and objects 552-559, challenging the game participant to identify one of eight possible directions in which the target image's gaze is directed).
Regarding claim 2, Merzenich discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a performance metric for the user based on the first response received from the user during the second session at a first time instance; modifying, by the computing system, based on the performance metric, at least one of a plurality of parameters defining presentation of at least one of images, prompts, and interactive elements for the virtual functional training layer; and providing, by the computing system, the second session for the virtual functional training layer at a second time instance, comprising displaying a third image of a second social setting with (i) a third prompt identifying a second query of a second character in the second social setting and (ii) a second set of interactive elements identifying a corresponding plurality of responses to the second character in accordance with the plurality of parameters. (Merzenich [0271] Between blocks 16 of trials 15, the program manager adapts one or more parameters—such as the salience, duration, and number of target stimuli 20, the salience, duration, and number of distractor stimuli, and the time period between which the target stimuli are presented and the program manager 7 prompts the participant to answer questions that relate to the target stimuli—affecting a difficulty of the game 4 in response to the game participant's input. [0274] The performance threshold provides performance and improvement data on the individual games. Game-based assessments, which are designated blocks 16 with medium difficulty of the specific games 4, are performed at various time points in the intervention to check progress. [0276] they decrease in difficulty when the participant's performance drops below another threshold. Many of the games 4 enable a participant to “unlock” a new level merely by beating the participant's previous best score. By measuring success in metrics of personal improvement rather than fixed performance requirements, both participants with relatively high cognitive abilities and participants with relatively significant cognitive deficits can progress through the entire training program).
Regarding claim 3, Merzenich discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises at least one of: (i) a type of modality for content, (ii) a context for social settings in images, (iii) a number of characters in social settings, (iv) a type of prompt, (v) a difficulty level for responses, (vi) a type of response, or (vii) a number of responses. (Merzenich [0274] The performance threshold provides performance and improvement data on the individual games. Game-based assessments, which are designated blocks 16 with medium difficulty of the specific games 4, are performed at various time points in the intervention to check progress. [0276] they decrease in difficulty when the participant's performance drops below another threshold. Many of the games 4 enable a participant to “unlock” a new level merely by beating the participant's previous best score. By measuring success in metrics of personal improvement rather than fixed performance requirements, both participants with relatively high cognitive abilities and participants with relatively significant cognitive deficits can progress through the entire training program).
Regarding claim 4, Merzenich discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a performance metric for the user based on a rate of correct selections in one or more sessions for the cognitive training layer; and determining, by the computing system, responsive to the performance metric satisfying a threshold, to transition the user from the cognitive training layer to the virtual functional training layer. (Merzenich [0357] Another aspect of the program 100 trains patients in ways designed to re-normalize impulse control, to assure that this key distortion in the brains of alcoholics and addicts is corrected. These games renormalize reward processing by having the user focus more on rewards normally considered rewarding, e.g., family, friends, helping others, symbols of happiness and success. The participant not only focuses on such rewards during the games, but also discovers through implicit training that these rewards lead them to the correct responses. [0375] The participant learns through tasks that involve many socially-relevant stimulus examples while given feedback on correct and incorrect discriminations. These neuroplasticity-based principles provided the basis for the construction of SocialVille [0385] To evaluate SocialVille's treatment effectiveness, performance levels on the SocialVille exercises… allow the creation of composite scores by summing assessment scores across domains, and to more easily visually depict test scores across a variety of scales (e.g. reaction time in ms, number of correct items, % correct, etc.). [0276] they decrease in difficulty when the participant's performance drops below another threshold. Many of the games 4 enable a participant to “unlock” a new level merely by beating the participant's previous best score).
Regarding claim 5, Merzenich discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a performance metric for the user based on a rate of correct responses in one or more sessions for the virtual functional training layer; and determining, by the computing system, responsive to the performance metric satisfying a threshold, to transition the user from the virtual functional training layer to the functional training layer. (Merzenich [0357] Another aspect of the program 100 trains patients in ways designed to re-normalize impulse control, to assure that this key distortion in the brains of alcoholics and addicts is corrected. These games renormalize reward processing by having the user focus more on rewards normally considered rewarding, e.g., family, friends, helping others, symbols of happiness and success. The participant not only focuses on such rewards during the games, but also discovers through implicit training that these rewards lead them to the correct responses. [0375] The participant learns through tasks that involve many socially-relevant stimulus examples while given feedback on correct and incorrect discriminations. These neuroplasticity-based principles provided the basis for the construction of SocialVille [0385] To evaluate SocialVille's treatment effectiveness, performance levels on the SocialVille exercises… allow the creation of composite scores by summing assessment scores across domains, and to more easily visually depict test scores across a variety of scales (e.g. reaction time in ms, number of correct items, % correct, etc.). [0276] they decrease in difficulty when the participant's performance drops below another threshold. Many of the games 4 enable a participant to “unlock” a new level merely by beating the participant's previous best score).
Regarding claim 6, Merzenich discloses the method of claim 1, wherein providing the first session further comprises (i) displaying a first image of a social cue with a set of interactive elements identifying the corresponding plurality of types of social cues associated with the first image and (ii) receiving a selection of one of the plurality of social cues by the user via at least one of the set of interactive elements, wherein the plurality of social cues for the first image in the first session for the cognitive training layer further comprises at least one of (a) a head movement, (b) a body language, (c) a gesticulation, or (d) an eye contact. (Merzenich [0374] Table 6 below lists 19 computerized SocialVille exercises, most of which are described in further detail later in the specification. These exercises target speed and accuracy of neural functions dedicated to processing of social information. Specifically, the SocialVille exercises target the social cognitive domains of affect perception (both visual and vocal), social cue perception, ToM and self-referential processing. Using a computerized setting and speeded tasks, the participant is required to make hundreds of speeded, accurate, and increasingly more challenging discriminations of socially-relevant information (e.g., emotional faces, eye gazes, voices, social situations) [0555] The goal of this game is to improve the subject's implicit ability to focus attention on the region of the eyes, which has been shown to convey key social information. Individuals with ASD are known to have severe difficulties focusing on the eye region or in inferring information from the eyes. In this game, Looky Lou presents images of individuals looking in various directions, and prompts participants to select the individual that looks in the same direction as the target individual [0613] For each trial, Face Facts presents pictures of persons along with three facts about each person. For example, FIG. 118 illustrates a picture 449 of a first person looking into the camera and simulating eye contact with the game participant. Below the picture 449, Face Facts presents three facts 450, 451 and 452 about the first person. Similarly, FIG. 119 illustrates a picture 455 of a second person looking into the camera, also simulating eye contact with the game participant. Below the picture 455, Face Facts presents three facts 456, 457 and 458 about the second person).
Regarding claim 7, Merzenich discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second session for the virtual functional training layer further comprises displaying a plurality of images of the social setting with the characters in accordance with a defined sequence. (Merzenich [0495] After the game participant selects “Start,” Category Click displays a sequence of stimuli on the screen).
Regarding claim 8, Merzenich discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the third session for the functional training layer further comprises displaying a third prompt for the user to select a time at which to provide a message prompting the user to perform the activity. (Merzenich [0527] FIG. 68 illustrates a screenshot 294 of one embodiment of a time tracking game called “Tick Tock,” which displays one or more objects and challenges the game participant to select the object(s) after the indicated time interval(s). Tick Tock is a time tracking task with n-back and dual-n-back working memory components. [0532] Tick Tock provides the participant with visual and auditory feedback, so the participant knows if they clicked too soon or too late, or if they clicked within a given buffer of time around the target time. [0533] As the Tick Tock game progresses into more advanced stages, the number of time intervals the game participant is required to track increases, as does the set of possible time intervals. Tick Tock advances in difficulty in other dimensions, too, including the number of distractors (images that do not require time tracking), the similarity of distractors to target images, the salience of the target images compared to the background, and the number of possible locations at which the target images appear (thus expanding the field of view to which the participant must pay attention). Also, as the participant becomes more accurate in tracking time intervals, the buffer of time (bounds of allowed temporal error) around the target time decreases).
Regarding claim 9, Merzenich discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying, by the computing system, a time at which to provide one of the plurality of sessions to the user in accordance with a session schedule. (Merzenich [0273] The program manager 7 administers a schedule that ensures that a participant progress through the games 4 in a defined order, generally moving from more simple (early sensory processing) games 4 to more complex (multimodal, working memory, memory span) games 4 over the course of a multi-week experience).
Regarding claim 10, Merzenich discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the condition of the user includes schizophrenia, wherein the user is receiving a treatment, at least in partial concurrence with at least one of the first session, the second session, or the third session, wherein the treatment comprises at least one of a psychosocial intervention or a medication to address schizophrenia, wherein the medication comprises at least one of: haloperidol, chlorpromazine, fluphenazine, perphenazine, loxitane, thioridazine, trifluoperazine, aripiprazole, risperidone, clozapine, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, lurasidone, paliperidone, or iclepertin. (Merzenich [0019] Apart from sufferers of ASD, a subpopulation of normal humans is socially undeveloped in ways that negatively impact their entire lives. For example, social cognition deficits are a near-universal aspect of normal aging, and are especially impactful in pathological aging. Special and more profound social cognition deficits also limit the lives and personal success of 1) other children and adults with a history of pervasive developmental disability; 2) patients with schizophrenia, where there is a severe degradation of social cognition and control; [0260] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a multi-faceted, web-deliverable, browser-playable and game-based neurological training system 1 configured to treat a cognitive deficit [0261] The training program 2 comprises a plurality of games or exercises 4 targeting a plurality of cognitive domains and sensory modalities. Each training program 2 is customized and configured to address cognitive deficits that are associated with a neurological condition, such as addiction, depression, ADHD, or ASD, and its co-morbidities).
Regarding claim 11, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 12, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 13, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 3, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 14, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 4, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 15, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 5, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 16, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 6, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 17, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 7, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 18, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 8, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 19, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 9, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 10, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA R COVINGTON whose telephone number is (303)297-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 5 MT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/AMANDA R. COVINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686