DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 6 would be allowable if (#1) rewritten to overcome all pending objection(s) and all pending rejection(s) set forth in this Office action; and (#2) rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority Status
Foreign priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Preliminary Amended Claim(s) 1-15 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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.
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 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 Analysis will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) are “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for”.1, 2
Structural placeholders that do not invoke § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) are “circuit for,” “detent mechanism,” “digital detector for,” “reciprocating member,” “connector assembly,” “perforation,” “sealingly connected joints,” and “eyeglass hanger member.”3, 4
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an application configuration parameter data providing unit for” (see Claims 11 and 15. The non-structural generic placeholder “unit for” when read in light of The Original Filed Specification on page 22 in the second paragraph corresponds to “computer program”.);
“a position and/or movement data providing unit for” (see Claims 11 and 15. The non-structural generic placeholder “unit for” when read in light of The Original Filed Specification on page 22 in the second paragraph corresponds to “computer program”.);
“a product application data providing unit for” (see Claims 11 and 15. The non-structural generic placeholder “unit for” when read in light of The Original Filed Specification on page 22 in the second paragraph corresponds to “computer program”.);
“a generating unit for” (see Claims 11 and 15. The non-structural generic placeholder “unit for” when read in light of The Original Filed Specification on page 22 in the second paragraph corresponds to “computer program”.);
“a determining unit for” (see Claims 11 and 15. The non-structural generic placeholder “unit for” when read in light of The Original Filed Specification on page 22 in the second paragraph corresponds to “computer program”.); and
“a control data providing unit for” (see Claim 12. The non-structural generic placeholder “unit for” when read in light of The Original Filed Specification on page 22 in the second paragraph corresponds to “computer program”.).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
THIS SECTION IS NOT A REJECTION! The Examiner expresses that this particular section of the office action identifies and clarifies how the means-plus-function limitation(s) listed above are interpreted during examination and further acts as a formal statement on claim interpretation that is recorded into the prosecution history. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6 and 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 3 and 6 do/does not follow the convention of separating distinct elements/steps of the claims with line spacings or line indentations. MPEP 608.01(i) expressly states, “… Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.” In this particular case, Claim 3 and 6 each contain at least 2 distinct “wherein” clauses; however, the claim as presented fails to delineate these elements in accordance with MPEP 608.01(i).
As to Claims 4 and 8, both claims are missing a period.
Nonstatutory Subject Matter Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 15 fail(s) Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) Test because “A computer program element” embodiment is/are directed to a computer program per se which is identified as an example not directed to any non-statutory subject matter per MPEP § 2106.03.
Judicial Exception Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. (See MPEP § 2106.)
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claim(s) 1-12, and 15.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“providing application configuration perimeter data …” – (In this step said “providing” verb is interpreted as “collecting”; therefore, The Examiner interprets this step as collecting data/information. This/These step(s) is/are considered at least one of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper and therefore a Mental Process. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) III.)
“providing position and/or movement data …” – (In this step said “providing” verb is interpreted as “collecting”; therefore, The Examiner interprets this step as collecting data/information. This/These step(s) is/are considered at least one of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper and therefore a Mental Process. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) III.)
“providing product application data …” – (In this step said “providing” verb is interpreted as “collecting”; therefore, The Examiner interprets this step as collecting data/information. This/These step(s) is/are considered at least one of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper and therefore a Mental Process. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) III.)
“determining variable application rate data … based on the application configuration parameter data, the position and/or movement data, and the product application data” – (In this step said “determining” verb is interpreted as “calculating”; therefore, The Examiner interprets this step as calculating a variable based on 3 other pieces of data/information. This/These step(s) is/are considered a Mathematical Concept. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) I.)
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“generating a grid of application polygons” – (In this step, said “generating” is interpreted as “showing”; therefore, The Examiner interprets this step as showing polygons. This/These step(s) is/are considered Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.)
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer functions of collecting, processing, and/or displaying data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, Claim(s) 1, 11, and 15 is/are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum5 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“It is well known in the art to provide a vehicle display screen located within the vehicle.” (US 20130224721 A1)
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
“Conventionally, an in-vehicle microphone device mounted on a vehicle interior, for example, a vehicle interior ceiling, is widely known.” (JP 2016105557 A)
Claim(s) 11 and 15 contain the same limitations as Claim 1; therefore, Claim(s) 11 is/are analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claim(s) 1, 11, and 15. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claim(s) 1, 11, and 15 is/are ineligible.
As to the dependent claims: Claim 2 merely provides further details as to what content is in “the application configuration parameter data”; Claim 3 merely provides further details as to what content is in “the position and/or movement data”; Claim 4 merely contains “determining” steps which is interpreted as calculating; Claims 5-6 merely describe “the product application data”; Claim 7 merely describes “the variable application rate data”; Claims 8-9 merely describe “the application polygon”; and Claims 10 and 12 contains a “providing” step which is interpreted as collecting. As such, Claim(s) 2-10, and 12 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, Claim(s) 1-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3834612 with English translation (“NPL-U”).
As to Claim 1, NPL-U discloses A computer-implemented method for providing variable application rate data (e.g., “adjustable target application rate”) for at least two application means (e.g., “linkage (100)” and “plurality of nozzle holders (10)”) of an application system (e.g., “agricultural field sprayer”) of an application device for applying a treatment product onto an agricultural field (e.g., “agricultural area (N)”) (see at least Abstract, [0001] – “method”, [0010]-[0011], Fig. 1-2 with associated text; in particular, [0026]. D1 discloses “at least one control unit, which is designed to activate and/or control the nozzle holders (10) as a function of a speed and/or rotation rate and/or an adjustable target application rate in such a way that each nozzle holder (10), in particular nozzle, has, along the linkage (100), a discharge rate of the spray liquid,” therefore the method is computer implemented.), comprising:
providing application configuration parameter data for the at least two application means of the application system of the application device (see at least Abstract, [0022] – “the invention, at least one nozzle holder, in particular a nozzle, is activated and/or controlled taking into account at least one parameter The parameter can be the web speed of the nozzle holder, in particular of the nozzle Alternatively or additionally, the parameter comprises the spray properties of the nozzles within the nozzle holder Alternatively or additionally, the parameter comprises the spray properties and/or the discharge rate of at least one adjacent nozzle holder, in particular at least one nozzle within the adjacent nozzle holder”);
providing position (e.g., “The position of the at least one nozzle holder, in particular nozzle, is determined here by means of a sensor, in particular a GPS receiver, and/or alternatively calculated taking into account geometric data of the spraying device.”) and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) movement data (e.g., “direction of travel F”) of the application device (see at least see at least Fig. 1-2 with associated text; in particular, [0022] [0024], and [0030]);
providing product application data (e.g., “application map”) comprising spatial information (e.g., “sub areas T1-T7”) about the target application amount (e.g., “target application amounts”) for the treatment product to be applied onto the agricultural field (see at least Abstract, Fig. 2 with associated text; in particular, [0032]);
generating a grid of application polygons (see at least Fig. 2 with associated text. Observe the shapes of T1-T7 in Fig. 2); and
determining variable application rate data for each of the at least two application means of the application system of the application device based on the application configuration parameter data, the position and/or movement data, and the product application data (see at least Abstract, Fig. 1-2 with associated text),
wherein the variable application rate data is determined for each application polygon in the generated grid (see at least Abstract, Fig. 1-2 with associated text; in particular, [0032]).
As to Claim 3, NPL-U discloses:
wherein the position and/or movement data are Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), GPS data (see at least [0022]) and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) Real Time Kinematic, RTK, system data and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) accelerometer data and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) gyroscope data of the application device and/or of the application means, and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.)
wherein the position and/or movement data comprises information about the geographical position of the application device (see at least [0022]), the geographical position of the application means (see at least [0022]), the speed of the application device (see at least [0026]) and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) the movement direction of the application device (see at least Fig. 1 with associated text; in particular, [0024] – “direction of travel F”).
As to Claim 5, NPL-U discloses wherein the product application data 1s provided as an application map with polygons, preferably with an optimized polygon size for the treatment product to be applied onto the agricultural field (see at least Fig. 2 with associated text).
As to Claim 7, NPL-U discloses wherein the variable application rate data is determined during a treatment of the agricultural field (see at least Abstract, [0013], Fig. 1-2 with associated text) and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) at the beginning of a treatment of the agricultural field and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) prior to a treatment of the agricultural field.
As to Claim 8, NPL-U discloses wherein the size, the location and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) the shape of the application polygon is based on the product application data (see at least Fig. 2 with associated text) and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) position and/or movement data and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) provided tramlines of the application device and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) the application configuration parameter data as well as the properties of the treatment product.
As to Claim 10, NPL-U discloses providing control data for at least one application means for a variable rate application of a treatment product onto the agricultural field based on the variable application rate data provided as a high resolution polygon grid (see at least Abstract, [0013]-[0022] and Fig. 1-2 with associated text).
Claim 11 is directed to the same invention Claim 1 and also repeats the subject matter; therefore, Claims 11 is rejected in like manner.
Claim 12 repeats the subject matter Claim 10; therefore, Claim 12 is rejected in like manner.
As to Claim 13, NPL-U discloses An application device for a variable rate application of treatment products onto an agricultural field controlled according to control data according to claim 10 (see at least Abstract, [0013]-[0022] and Fig. 1-2 with associated text),
wherein the application device is a sprayer (see at least Abstract, Fig. 1 with associated text) comprising single nozzle control means (see at least [0026]), section control means (see at least Fig. 1 with associated text), pulse width modulation (PWM) nozzles or (Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) automatized switches of multi nozzle heads, a spreader with single outlet control and/or section control and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) a planter/drill with single and/or (The “and/or” is treated as “or”. Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) section seed coulter control.
Claim 14 is directed to the same invention Claim 13 and also repeats the subject matter; therefore, Claim 14 is rejected in like manner.
Claim 15 is directed to the same invention Claim 1 and also repeats the subject matter; therefore, Claims 15 is rejected in like manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over NPL-U and further in view of US 20080105177 A1 (“Dix”).
As to Claim 9, NPL-U discloses a sprayer in an agricultural field (see at least Abstract).
NPL-U does not directly disclose tramlines provided in an agricultural field.
However, Dix teaches tramlines provided in an agricultural field (see at least [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NPL-U’s invention by incorporating the pathways stored in computer memory as taught by Dix in order to guided paths for farm vehicles (see at least [0007]).
Communications via The Internet and Authorization
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the office and the applicant including applicant’s representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION MAY BE SUBMITTED VIA EFS-WEB, MAIL, OR FAX. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is typically reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, HELAL ALGAHAIM, is available at telephone number (571) 270-5227.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666
1 Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 27 /Wednesday, February 9, 2011 /Notices located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf, center column, page 6 of 14.
2 MPEP § 2181 (I)(A), first paragraph
3 Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 27 /Wednesday, February 9, 2011 /Notices located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf, center column, page 6 of 14.
4 MPEP § 2181 (I)(A), second paragraph
5 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF