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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As per claim 1, the claim only recites functional steps/results (“outputting a plurality of questions… acquiring … classifying… generating… outputting…” without positively reciting what structure within the driving assistance device performs these operations. Although the specification discloses execution by processor 100 within mobile terminal 1 or server 5 (see Para 163-165), claim 1 does not recite a processor, controller, circuitry, or other structural element capable of executing the recited functions.
The language “driving assistance device that executes” is in the preamble and interpreted as purely functional without structural or software support. As written, claim 1 fails to provide reasonable certainty as to the scope of the “driving assistance device,” rendering the claim indefinite. As per claim 2-14, they are rejected based on the dependency of claim 1.
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 test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the phase “a driving assistance device that executes” followed exclusively by functions in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea of providing driving assistance without significantly more.
The independent claim 1 recite(s) the following limitations:
-outputting a plurality of questions for acquiring a plurality of pieces of driver information related to a life of a driver of a moving object;
-acquiring the plurality of pieces of driver information on the basis of answers of the driver to the plurality of respective questions;
-classifying a driver state related to at least one of a psychological state and a physical state of the driver on the basis of the plurality of pieces of driver information;
-generating assistance information including advice regarding driving on the basis of a classification result of the driver state; and
-outputting the assistance information.
Theses claim limitations are drawn to collecting information, analyzing and classifying information and providing advices or guidance based on the analysis.
Such limitations corresponding to mental process, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and further correspond to methods of organizing human activity, such as managing or influencing human behavior. These categories are recognized abstract ideas.
The limitation of “outputting a plurality of questions for acquiring a plurality of pieces of driver information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, such as verbally asking oneself or another person questions, but for the recitation of generic computer component.
Nothing in the claim precludes this limitation from being particularly performed mentally.
Similarly, the limitation of “classifying a driver state related to at least one of a psychological state and a physical state of the driver”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental evaluation and judgment, such as a human assessing their own or another’s emotional or physical condition.
For example, the classification may be performed by a human based on subjective judgment without the user of any specialized technology.
Similarly, the limitation of “generating assistance information including advice regarding driving”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a human mentally determining advice based on perceived driver condition.
Similarly, the limitation of “outputting the assistance information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a human providing advice verbally, in writing, or through visual symbols.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim only recites generic components such as a driving assistance device, a communication unit, and a display unit, which are recited in a high level of generality and perform their conventional functions of information input, processing and output.
The claims do not recite:
A technological improvement to the functioning of the device itself;
A specific improvement to vehicle operation or control; or
Any specialized hardware or unconventional processing.
The combination of the additional elements amounts to one more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, and to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use, namely driving assistance.
Mere instruction to apply an abstract idea using generic computing components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 recite additional limitations relating to communication with another device, categorization schemes, prediction of future driver states, visual metaphors, and presentation of advice.
These limitation further elaborate on how the abstract idea is performed, but do not alter the fundamental abstract nature of the claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claims 15 and 16; they correspond to claim 1; they are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
Independent claim 15 recites limitation including:
outputting a plurality of questions for acquiring a plurality of pieces of driver information related to a life of a driver of a moving object;
-acquiring the plurality of pieces of driver information on the basis of answers of the driver to the plurality of respective questions;
classifying a driver state related to at least one of a psychological state and a physical state of the driver on the basis of the plurality of pieces of driver information;
generating assistance information including advice regarding driving on the basis of a classification result of the driver state; and
outputting the assistance information.
These limitations correspond to collecting information, analyzing and classifying information, and providing advice based on the analysis, which constitute mental process and method of organizing human activity.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of these steps can be performed mentally by a human, such as by asking questions, evaluating responses, judging driver condition, and offering advice.
Independent claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, that when executed, cause a computer to perform the same limitation recited in claim 1 and 15.
The instructions stored on the storage medium are directed to the same abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and providing advice regarding driver condition.
According, claims 15 and 16 recites an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5,7,13,15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusayanagi et al. (US 2024/0270268) in view of Adiththan et al. (US 2025/0065896) and further in view of Alexander et al. (US 2023/0192100).
As per claim 1, Kusayanagi discloses a driving assistance device that executes:
outputting a plurality of questions for acquiring a plurality of pieces of driver information related to a life of a driver of a moving object (Para. 33-34, 40-41; Fig. 2,5-7: generation and output of messages/questions to acquire driver information related to the driver’s psychological state and experience. Kusayanagi does not explicitly disclose acquisition of driver physical state. Adiththan (Para. 28-30) discloses monitoring physical state of driver (e.g. heart rate, posture) to acquire driver information. Alexander (Para 45-46) discloses driver physical state monitoring in combination with interaction with the vehicle system. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine Adiththan’s or Alexander’s physical state monitoring with Kusayanagi’s question-based acquisition because integrating physical state measurements with driver input improves safety and driver support, as suggested in Alexander (Para 45-46). It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.);
acquiring the plurality of pieces of driver information on the basis of answers of the driver to the plurality of respective questions (Kusayanagi (Para 34,48) acquisition via speech input and storage in user database 31; Adiththan (Para. 31) further reinforces data acquisition from driver responses and sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine Kusayanagi and Adiththan ensures both psychological and physical information is captured, enhancing classification reliability. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.);
classifying a driver state related to at least one of a psychological state and a physical state of the driver on the basis of the plurality of pieces of driver information (Kusayanagi (Para 34-36,55-56) classification of psychological state based on responses. Kusayanagi does not teach physical state classification. Adiththan (Para 28-30) and Alexander (Para 45-46) shows classification based on physical measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to classify driver physical state in combination with psychological state to improve driver assistance, as explicitly taught by Adiththan (Para 28-30) and Alexander (Para 45-46).);
generating assistance information including advice regarding driving on the basis of a classification result of the driver state (Kusayanagi (Para 35,42,61) shows system generates driving support or advise based on driver psychological state. Kusayanagi does not teach advice based on physical state. Adiththan (Para 28-30) and Alexander (Para 45-46) discloses advice generation based on combined driver psychological and physical state. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine references allows generation of more accurate assistance information, which would have been a predictable modification); and
outputting the assistance information (Kusayanagi (Para 33,36-37,41-42) shows output via display and speaker. Adiththan (Para 31-32) and Alexander (Para 46-47) confirms output format can include physical state. Output of enhanced information would have been routine and obvious).
As per claim 2, Kusayanagi discloses a communication unit that executes communication with another device (Kusayanagi (Para. 33-34,40-41; Fig. 2, 5-7) discloses a driving assistance device that interacts with a user through a microphone and display interface, but does not explicitly disclose a communication unit that communicates with an external device to acquire driver information. Adiththan (Para 22-28) discloses a communication module that receives driver data from external devices or sensors. Alexander (Para 73-74) discloses EU 800 is configured to communicate with other vehicle systems and external modules via electronic bus or wireless network. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to equip the Kusayanagi system with a communication unit to acquire driver information from external sources, because external driver monitoring devices (smartphone, wearable, other vehicles) were conventional in driving assistance system.);
wherein the communication unit attempts to acquire the driver information (Kusayanagi (Para.34,38) discloses speech acquisition unit acquires driver answers from the user via microphone. Kusayanagi does not disclose attempting to acquire driver information from another device, only locally from the driver. Adiththan (Para 24,27) discloses communication unit polls or receives information from external sensors. Alexander (Para 73-74) discloses EU 800 can request or subscribe to signals from other module (DMS 94, environmental monitoring system 98) and acquire data. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine Kusayanagi with Adiththan or Alexander to allow the communication unit to attempt acquisition of driver information externally, because integrating multiple data sources to improve driver state estimation was conventional in the art. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.) and
in a case where the communication unit has acquired any one or more of the plurality of pieces of driver information, the question related to the driver information acquired by the communication unit is not output (Kusayanagi (Para 33-34, 40-41) discloses output questions to acquire driver information, but does not disclose suppressing a question if that information has already been acquired. Adiththan (Para 25-28) suggests data management logic where the system avoids redundantly requesting information already received form wearable sensors. Alexander (Para 66-67) discloses awareness checker 114 dynamically selects questions based on environmental or driver state information; it can skip irrelevant or already known questions. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include logic that prevents outputting a question for information alredy acquired, to reduce redundant questioning and improve driver interaction efficiency, as suggested by conventional adaptive HMI designs in Adiththan and Alexander).
As per claim 3, the combined invention of Kusayanagi in view of Adiththan and Alexander discloses wherein the driver state is classified as one of a positive state, a negative state, and an intermediate state between the positive state and the negative state.
Kusayanagi (Para. 34-36, 55-56) discloses controller 20 interprets driver answers and classifies the psychological state (e.g. anxiety, safe perception, positive/negative feelings about event). Fig. 2, 5-7 show the system uses a multi-level classification of the driver’s state. Therefore, Kusayanagi discloses classification into discrete states based on drive’s psychological responses. Kusayanagi does not explicitly disclose classification into three specific state labeled as positive, negative, and intermediate, nor a defined intermediate state between positive and negative. It generally focuses on detecting “positive/negative perception” without explicitly stating a three tiered categorization.
Adiththan (Para 30-33) teachyes driver monitoring with multi-level state classification, where driver conditions (physical or emotional) can be mapped into gradations (e.g. relaxed, neutral, stressed). It suggests intermediate state between positive and negative for monitoring driver fatigue or stress levels.
Alexander (Para. 61-62,64-70): HMIM 112 and awareness checker 114 track driver attention and mind-on-task levels with escalation schemes (e.g. happiness (green), concern (yellow), heightened concern (red)). It provides explicit multi-level escalation representing positive, intermediate, and negative states for attentiveness. It shows a driver state metric can be converted into multiple discrete levels with a clear intermediate between “good’ and “problematic” attentiveness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement the driver state classification of Kusayanagi using a three level scheme as taught in Adiththan and/or Alexander to improve driver monitoring and assistance decisions. Using multiple level (positive, intermediate, negative) improves decision making for assistance system, aligns with conventional HMI escalation logic (Alexander), and is a predictable adaptation of the state classification already discloses in Kusayanagi.
As per claim 4, the combined invention of Kusayanagi in view of Adiththan and Alexander discloses wherein the driver state is classified as one of four or more stages including a positive state, a negative state, and an intermediate state.
Kusayanagi discloses driver state classification and provides multi-level driver state classification based on driver answers (Para. 34-36,55-56; Fig. 2, 5-7), but does not explicitly teach four or more stages.
Alexander provides a clear escalation/multi-stage scheme, which can be adapted to classify driver state into four or more levels including positive, intermediate, and negative. It teaches multi-level escalation schemes (Para 61-70) suitable to implement four or more stages.
Adiththan confirms the conventionality of mapping driver state into multiple levels based on physical/psychological monitoring (Para. 30-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to extend the multi-level classification in Kusayanagi to four or more stages, incorporating teachings from Adiththan or Alexander, to improve driving monitoring and assistance. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 5, the combined invention of Kusayanagi in view of Adiththan and Alexander discloses wherein, in a process of classifying the driver state, the driver state at a first time point is classified, and the assistance information including a classification result of the driver state at the first time point is generated.
Kusayanagi discloses classification to driver state and generation of assistance information and provides general classification and assistance generation (Para 34-36,35,42,61), but does not explicitly teaches discrete first time point classification or associating output with that first time point and not emphasize discrete first time point.
Alexander teaches temporal classification at discrete steps with corresponding generation of status/assistance information (Para. 63-70) and discrete -time classification and output.
Adiththan confirms conventionality of discrete-time monitoring and output of assistance information (Para. 30-33) and support conventional of generating assistance based on discret temporal measurement (Para. 30-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify Kusayanagi to classify driver state at discrete time point (e.g. first time point) and generate assistance information immediately based on that classification, as a straightforward adaption using teachings from Alexander or Adiththan. Thus it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify Kusayanagi to classify driver state at a first time point and generate assistance information accordingly, a predictable modification in driver monitoring system. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
As per claim 7, the combined invention of Kusayanagi in view of Adiththan and Alexander discloses wherein in a process of classifying the driver state, the driver state at a first time point is classified, the driver state at a second time point after a predetermined time has elapsed from the first time point is predicted and classified, and the assistance information including a classification result of the driver state at the first time point and a classification result of the driver state at the second time point is generated.
Kusayanagi discloses wherein in a process of classifying the driver state, the driver state at a first time point is classified (Para. 34-36), but does not disclose the driver state at a second time point after a predetermined time has elapsed from the first time point is predicted and classified, and the assistance information including a classification result of the driver state at the first time point and a classification result of the driver state at the second time point is generated.
Alexander (Para. 66-71; 76) discloses: machine learning algorithm predicts probability of unsafe driver status; uses historical data and current session data; explicit future-oriented prediction and classification; prediction od driver status after a time delay; classification at later time point based on probability exceeding threshold; explicitly time-dependent. In addition, Alexander (Para. 76,77) discloses system provides responses based on current assessment and predict unsafe status; escalation logic inherently depends on comparison across time points wherein combining both states to generate assistance is explicitly taught.
Adiththan (Para. 66-67) discloses: supports temporal evaluation of driver state; reinforces expectation of future driver condition assessment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to incorporate predictive driver-state classification into Kusayanagi because: predicting future driver impairment enhances safety; machine learning based forecasting was well known at the time; combining real time classification (Kusayanagi) with predictive modeling (Alexander) is a logical system improvement.
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine Kusayanagi with Alexander to meet “the assistance information including a classification result of the driver state at the first time point and a classification result of the driver state at the second time point is generated” because presenting both current and predicted driver states enable better decision making; proactive warnings are a standard design goal in driver assistance systems; combining outputs from present and future classification is a routine safety optimization.
As per claim 13, the combined invention of Kusayanagi in view of Adiththan and Alexander discloses the assistance information includes information indicating driving tricks or TIPS that the driver is to keep in mind in driving the moving object.
Kusayanagi discloses advice-related assistance intended to influence driver behavior (Para. 35,42,61), but does not explicitly characterize the assistance information as driving tricks or TIPS and explicit framing of assistance information as driver tips or driving tricks, rather than system-driven operation adjustments or function proposals.
Adiththan supports the concept of human-centric advice, not limited to automated system control (Para. 75-78).
Alexander explicitly supports tips/reminders-system assistance information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the driving assistance device of Kusayanagi to including driving tips or tricks as part of the assistance information, as taught by Adiththan and Alexander in order to improve driver understanding and safety. Driver assistance systems routinely provide behavioral advice in addition to system control adjustments. It also provides tips complements automated assistance by improving driver understanding, confidence and safety.
As per claims 15 and 16, they correspond to claim 1; they are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
Kusayanagi (Para. 33-36,40-42,48,55-56) teaches method of question, acquiring answers, classifying, generating, and outputting assistance. Kusayanagi does not teach physical state integration which is taught by Adiththan (Para. 28-30) and Alexander (Para. 45-46).
Combining Kusayanagi with Adiththan and Alexander to integrate physical state data in method or program format is obvious to improve driver assistance.
The limitation “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program executable by a computer, the program causing the computer to execute” is shown by Kusayanagi (Para. 34-36,48,61) and Adiththan (Para. 28-31) and Alexander (Para. 45-46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,8-12,14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689