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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1, including claims 1-5, 12-13 and 15-16 in the reply filed on July 6, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 6-11 and 14 are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-5, 12-13 and 15-16 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are 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 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 26 December 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of application JP2023-219950 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, a certified copy of application JP2023-219950 to which priority is claimed on 26 May 2025 has failed.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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:
storage unit configured to store risk position information of claim 1 interpreted as storage unit 111, described as a RAM, ROM and/or hard disk.
acquisition unit configured to acquire peripheral vehicle information of claim 1 interpreted as acquisition unit 110a, a CPU executing the associated software program from received data from V2V communication antenna 104.
prediction unit configured to predict a possibility of collision of claim 1 interpreted as prediction unit 110b of processing unit 110, a CPU executing the associated software program.
notification unit configured to notify an occupant of the self-vehicle of claim 1 interpreted as notification device 105 that may include a multi-information display (MID) 105a, a head-up display (HUD) 105b, and [or, as interpreted] a speaker 105c.
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
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.
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 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 1-5, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to:
1. A driving assistance device comprising:
a storage unit configured to store risk position information indicating a risk position where there is a possibility that a self-vehicle mounted with the driving assistance device will collide with another vehicle; (computer memory devices are well-known and well-understood computer devices.)
an acquisition unit configured to acquire peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and a yaw rate of a peripheral vehicle existing around the self-vehicle from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication; (this limitation includes insignificant pre-solution data gathering that does not represent a practical application.)
a prediction unit configured to predict a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on self-vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and a yaw rate of the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle information; (The prediction unit is understood to be software operating on a processing device. The determination of a possibility of collision is an abstract mental process that represents a judgement decision based on data analysis performable by one of ordinary skill in the art mentally or by hand.)
and a notification unit configured to notify an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result by the prediction unit, (The notification unit is understood to merely include displaying the result of the abstract data analysis outlined above, and is therefore not considered a practical application.)
wherein in a case where the risk position is not included within a predetermined distance in a traveling direction of the self-vehicle, the prediction unit determines a predicted track of the self-vehicle based on the self-vehicle information, and determines a predicted track of the peripheral vehicle based on the peripheral vehicle information, (This limitations represents an expansion of the abstract mental processes outlined above that represent a judgement decision based on data analysis performable by one of ordinary skill in the art mentally or by hand. This also represents a mental process performable mentally by one of ordinary skill by hand, such as, for example, while manually driving a vehicle.)
the prediction unit determines an evaluation distance for evaluating an approach situation between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on the predicted track of the self-vehicle and the predicted track of the peripheral vehicle, and the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle when the evaluation distance is not included in a predetermined range. (This limitations represents an expansion of the abstract mental processes outlined above that represent a judgement decision based on data analysis performable by one of ordinary skill in the art mentally or by hand. This also represents a mental process performable mentally by one of ordinary skill by hand, such as, for example, while manually driving a vehicle.)
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mental processes). Claim 1 is directed to a generic computer that receives data regarding a remote vehicle, performs data analysis on the available data to produce a result, and displays said result. Claim 1 does not claim any steps that cannot be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art, but is merely performed on a generic computer, and therefore falls within the “mental processes” grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the data analysis steps of the abstract idea above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are the vehicle-to-vehicle communication devices performing the data gathering. However, these structures are not meaningfully changed by the abstract idea outlined above, and are therefore not considered a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any limitation that links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 1 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 1 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Independent claim 15 is the method performed by the device of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Independent claim 16 is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program of the device of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 12-13 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 and 12-13 are rejected in the same or a similar manner as claims 1, 15 and 16, above.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 20160321924 A1) herein Lewis, in view of Mudalige et al. (US 20170113683 A1) herein Mudalige and Miller et al. (US 20160362104 A1) herein Miller.
In regards to Claim 1, Lewis discloses the following:
1. A driving assistance device (see at least abstract “advanced driver assistant system”) comprising:
a storage unit configured to store risk position information indicating a risk position where there is a possibility that a self-vehicle mounted with the driving assistance device will collide with another vehicle; (see at least [0027] “vehicles 12, 16 may optionally transmit and store additional BSM data”, [0029] “road hazard identification system 20 uniquely integrates data from a navigation system, such as an ADAS module 22 employing the ADASIS protocol (discussed further below), to provide for the identification of potential road hazards.” and [0039] “BSM data is from a remote vehicle… by the identification system 20 allows for using a longitudinal acceleration and a steering angle change rate to determine if a remote vehicle within the MPZ has encountered or performed an evasive maneuver. The system is looking to determine any evasive maneuvers, e.g. sharp deceleration (or acceleration), sudden change in steering, or both, which may indicate a potential road hazard 56, such as a pothole, road debris, or other road hazard at a particular location.”)
an acquisition unit configured to acquire peripheral vehicle information (see at least Fig. 1, item 14 “V2V System” and item 20 “Road Hazard Identification System”) indicating a vehicle speed, (see at least [0026] “BSM data may also include vehicle information such as speed”) a position, (see at least [0026] “BSM data further includes positional data from a Global Positioning System (GPS)”) a traveling track, (see at least [0026] “BSM data may also include vehicle information such as… heading”) and a yaw rate of a peripheral vehicle (see at least [0026] “BSM data may also include information about vehicles controls such as… yaw rate”) existing around the self-vehicle from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication; (see at least [0026] “V2V communication”)
a prediction unit configured to predict a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0033]-[0034] “most probable path MPZ for the host vehicle 12” and [0036] “identification system 20 may also be programmed to determine a relational path or probable trajectory of any remote vehicle in range of the wireless channel 11, and utilize the BSM data if the relational or projected path crosses through or toward the MPZ of the host vehicle.”)
Lewis suggests the following:
based on self-vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and a yaw rate of the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle information; (see at least [0026] as previously cited, see also [0033] “identification system 20 calculates and predicts a main path zone that defines a most probable path for the host vehicle… identification system 20 uses the MPZ and calculates… the GPS coordinates, distance and curvature of the roadway of the MPZ”)
Lewis explicitly discloses [future GPS] position and traveling track of the self-vehicle, as claimed. Lewis does not explicitly disclose using host vehicle yaw rate or vehicle speed. However, it should be noted that host vehicle yaw rate is clearly suggested by Lewis [0033] that describes “curvature of the roadway of the MPZ”. One of ordinary skill at the time of filing would understand that a given curvature of the roadway will require a proportional yaw rate in order to travel along the host vehicle path. Further, host vehicle speed is also suggested by Lewis [0034] “the most probable path MPZ for the host vehicle 12 would be Path 2… although this can differ based on vehicle speed”. Lewis also explicitly considers remote vehicle speed during remote vehicle relational or projected path crossing information of [0036], as cited.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host vehicle speed and host vehicle yaw rates during the calculation of the remote vehicle relational or projected path crossing determinations of Lewis, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately identifying road hazard alerts to the driver of conditions affecting the MPZ 34 of the host vehicle (Lewis, [0035]) and minimize false alarms. (Lewis, [0036]) Kinematically, both vehicle speeds are required in order to accurately identify a road hazard alert and prevent said false positives. Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
In the alternative, this is more explicitly taught by Mudalige. (see at least [0044] “algorithm obtains the predicted path 88 of the host vehicle 80 using vehicle yaw rate” and [0048] “The collision assessment algorithms assess the threats of a collision… by analyzing the expected position and predicted path of the host vehicle 80… given the current location, predicted path and speed of the host vehicle 80”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Mudalige with the invention of Lewis, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of warning a vehicle driver of a host vehicle of a possible collision with other vehicles that includes providing additional analysis to limit false positive and false negative warnings. (Mudalige, [0002])
Lewis discloses the following:
and a notification unit configured to notify an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result by the prediction unit, (see at least [0030] “identification system 20 communicates with the instrument cluster 30 to warn the driver of the potential hazard.”)
wherein in a case where the risk position is not included within a predetermined distance in a traveling direction of the self-vehicle, (see at least [0033] “identification system 20 uses the MPZ and calculates by mathematical methods along with the ADAS road data to determine the GPS coordinates, distance and curvature of the roadway of the MPZ. As discussed further below, the identification system 20 uses the MPZ to determine if the remote vehicle transmitting the BSM data is within the MPZ of the host vehicle,”, see also [0045] “distance to the potential road hazard 56”)
the prediction unit determines a predicted track of the self-vehicle based on the self-vehicle information, and determines a predicted track of the peripheral vehicle based on the peripheral vehicle information, (see at least previous citations)
Lewis does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Miller:
the prediction unit determines an evaluation distance for evaluating an approach situation between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on the predicted track of the self-vehicle and the predicted track of the peripheral vehicle, (see at least [0026] “computer 110 may determine predicted paths for the corner points of the host vehicle 101”, [0051] “computing device 110 may then determine the predicted path of the target vehicle 101”, [0057] “computing device 110 can determine whether the host vehicle 101 will collide with the target vehicle 101”, [0062] “minimum distances d*, an absolute minimum distance from the host path to the target path” and associated equations, and [0063] “With the minimum distance d**, the computing device 110 may calculate whether the host vehicle 101 will potentially collide with the target vehicle 101”)
and the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle when the evaluation distance is not included in a predetermined range. (see at least [0057] “computing device 110 may use a predetermined collision distance threshold d.sub.th=V.sub.maxΔT, where v.sub.max is a predetermined speed threshold. The collision distance threshold d.sub.th defines the distance beyond which the computing device 110 determines that a potential collision is not imminent.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Miller with the invention of Lewis, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing Vehicle-to-vehicle communication that enables occluded sensing field of view, such as when a second target vehicle is in front of the target vehicle out of view of the host vehicle (Miller, [0022]) and/or with the motivation of providing integration of collected data that provides for situational awareness of a host vehicle state with respect to a target vehicle and/or other potential target objects (Miller, [0092]) which advantageously allow for more accurate lateral target tracking and selection (Miller, [0093])
In regards to claim 12, Lewis discloses the following:
12. The driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit notifies the occupant using a predetermined notification sound when it is predicted that there is a possibility that the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle will collide with each other (see at least claim 6)
Lewis does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Mudalige:
and the self-vehicle performs a starting operation, (see at least [0053] “algorithm instead detects the start of the left turn of the host vehicle 80 by the release of the vehicle brakes, considers the closeness between the predicted path 142 based on road wheel angle and the likely path 108 of the host vehicle 80 during the left turn” and [0050] “algorithm provides a warning, such as a chime or haptic seat, and if T.sub.REM indicates an immediate collision threat”)
Lewis discloses the following:
the self-vehicle includes a first display unit and a second display unit provided at a position different from a position of the first display unit, (see at least [0030] The host vehicle 12 further includes an instrument cluster 30… to warn the driver of the potential hazard. Other types of indicators may also be used, such as those in the navigation system, radio, heads-up displays, center stack, console or other locations visible to the driver. It is appreciated that the instrument cluster may include various visual displays, audio or tactile feedback to warn the driver.”)
See also Mudalige [0004] “warning can be a visual indication on the vehicles instrument panel or in a head-up display (HUD)”.
Lewis discloses the following:
and the notification unit displays approach information including calling attention to the occupant on the first display unit, (see at least [0030] The host vehicle 12 further includes an instrument cluster 30… to warn the driver of the potential hazard.)
and when it is predicted that there is a possibility that the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle will collide with each other, the notification unit displays an approach direction of the peripheral vehicle on the second display unit. (see at least [0045] “The remote vehicle's change of direction, relative to the host vehicle 12, and distance to the potential road hazard 56 may also be indicated to the driver.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Mudalige with the invention of Lewis, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of warning a vehicle driver of a host vehicle of a possible collision with other vehicles that includes providing additional analysis to limit false positive and false negative warnings. (Mudalige, [0002])
In regards to claim 13, Lewis discloses the following:
13. The driving assistance device according to claim 12, wherein the prediction unit determines the approach direction of the peripheral vehicle based on a direction of the peripheral vehicle with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least [0045] “The remote vehicle's change of direction, relative to the host vehicle 12, and distance to the potential road hazard 56 may also be indicated to the driver.”)
Lewis does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Miller:
and a rotation angle of a course of the peripheral vehicle with respect to a course of the self-vehicle. (see at least [0031] “target vehicle 101 may define an azimuth angle θ.sup.tg, defined as the angle between the position of the host vehicle 101 and the target vehicle 101 relative to the Y axis” and [0032] “azimuth angle θ.sup.tg(t)”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Miller with the invention of Lewis, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing Vehicle-to-vehicle communication that enables occluded sensing field of view, such as when a second target vehicle is in front of the target vehicle out of view of the host vehicle (Miller, [0022]) and/or with the motivation of providing integration of collected data that provides for situational awareness of a host vehicle state with respect to a target vehicle and/or other potential target objects (Miller, [0092]) which advantageously allow for more accurate lateral target tracking and selection (Miller, [0093])
Independent claim 15 is the method performed by the device of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Independent claim 16 is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program of the device of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant should note that this is in view of the prior art only. All claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as outlined above.
Dependent claims 3-5 depend on claim 2, and are therefore also objected to at least due to dependency on claim 2, outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
September 18, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights