DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation “wherein the temperature condition is a temperature of the at least one weather condition” renders the claim indefinite. Based on Claims 13 and 14, from which Claim 16 depends, the temperature condition is one of “internal vehicle state conditions.” However temperature of the weather condition as recited in Claim 16 would appear to be an external condition the vehicle experiences as opposed to an internal condition such as cabin temperature. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as any temperature condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1-20, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites a method comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices, at least one weather condition at a pickup or drop off location for an autonomous vehicle;
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of priorities for pickup or drop off, one or more priorities corresponding to the at least one weather condition, at least one of the one or more priorities relating to inconveniencing other road users;
determining, by the one or more processors, an alternate pickup or drop off location based on the one or more priorities and the pickup or drop off location; and
providing, by the one or more processors to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to control the autonomous vehicle to arrive at the alternate pickup or drop off location.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing a method comprising:
identifying at least one weather condition at a pickup or drop off location for an autonomous vehicle (for example a person who is an observer or vehicle passenger or dispatcher receiving written weather information or observing and mentally thinking of a weather condition at a particular location intended for a pickup or drop off by an autonomous vehicle);
identifying, from a plurality of priorities for pickup or drop off, one or more priorities corresponding to the at least one weather condition, at least one of the one or more priorities relating to inconveniencing other road users (the person thinking of, or manually looking up a set of rules for parking which are specific to a weather condition, such as rules for rain as opposed to sunny conditions);
determining an alternate pickup or drop off location based on the one or more priorities and the pickup or drop off location (the person thinking of a parking spot that is a certain proximity to the pickup or dropoff location and that complies with the set of rules); and
providing instructions (the person thinking of or manually writing the location of the parking spot) to control the autonomous vehicle to arrive at the alternate pickup or drop off location (the location being intended as a destination for the autonomous vehicle. It is noted that “to control…” only recites intended use).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are the functions done by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices.
These elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and evaluation and output of data to/from a processor at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the functions done by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices.
For the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination merely recites a multi-step abstract idea applied by generic computer components and does not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, the claim recites the same abstract idea. The additional elements are the system comprising one or more processors of one or more server computing devices, configured to perform the functions. These additional elements are all generic computer components recited at a high level of generality and therefore the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons recited above with respect to Claim 1, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 2 and 12 further narrow the weather condition and one or more priorities, which are further details of the abstract idea which a person can consider. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 3 and 13 recite further functions to identify at least one vehicle state condition and providing instructions to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle. These are further functions of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can identify, for example, a temperature by manually receiving weather forecast data and can think of, or manually write an instruction based on the temperature such as a setting to heat or cool the vehicle or open or close the windows. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 4-8 and 14-18 further detail the vehicle state condition and instruction which are further details of the abstract idea of a mental process which a person can consider or manually write or output. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 further narrow the claims to a rainy condition and window instruction. These are further details of the abstract idea of a mental process which a person can consider or manually write or output. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Publication US2019/0332123A1 (Donnelly et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Donnelly et al. discloses a method (see Figure 12) comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices (see [0155] method 1200 can be performed by any system/computing devices and see [0177, 0186] operations computing system 106 as processors in server), at least one weather condition (see [0086] weather for area 200) at a pickup or drop off location (see Figure 2, area 200 includes location 202, which [0079] location at which the user 110 would like to be picked-up by the vehicle 104, or retrieve an item from vehicle) for an autonomous vehicle (see [0061]);
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of priorities for pickup or drop off, one or more priorities corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0158] acceptable walking distance in step 1204 [0086] is based on weather data, may be short distance or greater distance (plural possible priorities)), at least one of the one or more priorities relating to inconveniencing other road users (see [0161] determination of traffic impact which is based on vicinity 206 which [0158] is based on acceptable walking distance (i.e. related to priority));
determining, by the one or more processors, an alternate pickup or drop off location (see [0164] at 1218, determination of action of stopping at least partially in travel way in the vicinity (and see Figure 2, travel ways in the vicinity being different/alternate than position 202)) based on the one or more priorities and the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 12 based on 1202, 1204); and
providing, by the one or more processors to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to control the autonomous vehicle to arrive at the alternate pickup or drop off location (see [0165] step 1220).
Regarding Claim 11: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Claim 11 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 1. Claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
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, 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 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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0332123A1 (Donnelly et al.) in view of Publication US2019/0188610A1 (Ogden et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Donnelly et al. discloses the method further comprising identifying the at least one weather condition as including a rainy condition (see [0086]).
Donnelly et al. further discloses a configurable threshold related to traffic congestion (see [0014]) but does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1,
wherein at least one of the one or more priorities relates to avoiding congested areas.
However, Ogden et al. teaches a technique to adjust a pickup location (see [0089]),
wherein at least one of the one or more priorities relates to avoiding congested areas (see [0089] recommended pick-up location may be determined based on traffic to avoid streets with heavy traffic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the priorities which are related to traffic in Donnelly et al. to further be related to avoiding congested areas as taught by Ogden et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving time and cost savings (see Ogden et al., [0089]).
Regarding Claim 12: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 2. Claim 12 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 2. Claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 2, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0332123A1 (Donnelly et al.) in view of Publication CN112810400A (Zhou) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 3, Donnelly et al. further discloses the method further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0086] e.g. travel in rain or clear conditions being vehicle state conditions) and additionally discloses implementation of vehicle settings such as temperature (see e.g. [0123]).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition; and
providing, by the one or more processors to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition.
However, Zhou teaches a technique in a vehicle (see e.g. [0006-0008]), comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors (see [0041]) from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition (see [0043] identify temperature corresponding to city being visited [0059] from plural cities) corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0043] as weather data); and
providing, by the one or more processors to the vehicle, instructions to adjust a state of the vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition (see [0043] adjust target temperature of air conditioning according to temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the use of weather data in Donnelly et al. to further control air conditioning as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the vehicle to provide additional autonomy features while improving user experience and efficiency (see Zhou, [0002, 0043]).
Regarding Claim 4, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the vehicle (see [0043] temperature corresponding to city being visited is temperature state of vehicle travel).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 4, further comprising providing, by the one or more processors to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to adjust a temperature of the autonomous vehicle based on the temperature condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
comprising providing, by the one or more processors to the vehicle, instructions to adjust a temperature of the autonomous vehicle based on the temperature condition (see [0043] adjust the target temperature of the air conditioning unit according to the weather temperature of the city).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 6, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 4, wherein the temperature condition includes a temperature of the at least one weather condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the temperature condition includes a temperature of the at least one weather condition (see [0043] temperature is part of weather).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 7, Donnelly et al. further discloses identifying weather of a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 2, [0086] regional weather of area 200).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 3, wherein identifying the at least one vehicle state condition includes determining a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle based on a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein identifying the at least one vehicle state condition includes determining a temperature condition for the vehicle based on a geographic area (see [0043] temperature of a city).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 8, Donnelly et al. further discloses identifying weather of a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 2, [0086] regional weather of area 200).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 7, wherein determining the temperature condition includes identifying the geographic area of the pickup or drop off location from a plurality of different geographic areas, each of the plurality of different geographic areas being associated with a respective temperature condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein determining the temperature condition includes identifying the geographic area of travel (see [0043] city being visited) from a plurality of different geographic areas (see [0059] plural cities), each of the plurality of different geographic areas being associated with a respective temperature condition (see [0058-0059]).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite: the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
identify, from a plurality of internal vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition; and
provide, to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition.
However, Zhou teaches a technique in a vehicle (see e.g. [0006-0008]), wherein the one or more processors (see [0041]) are configured to:
identify, from a plurality of internal vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0043] target temperature of air condition as internal state condition, which is based on weather temperature [0055, 0059] from plural); and
provide, to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition (see [0076] automatic temperature control, i.e. instructing to adjust air conditioning unit to match target temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the use of weather data in Donnelly et al. to further control air conditioning as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the vehicle to provide additional autonomy features while improving user experience and efficiency (see Zhou, [0002, 0043]).
Regarding Claim 14, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle (see [0043] target temperature of air condition as internal state condition).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide, to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to adjust a temperature of the autonomous vehicle based on the temperature condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide, to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to adjust a temperature of the autonomous vehicle based on the temperature condition (see [0076] automatic temperature control, i.e. instructing to adjust air conditioning unit to match target temperature).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 14, wherein the temperature condition is a temperature of the at least one weather condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the temperature condition is a temperature of the at least one weather condition (see [0043] target temperature of air condition as internal state condition, see also rejection under 112(b) and interpretation).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 17, Donnelly et al. further discloses identifying weather of a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 2, [0086] regional weather of area 200).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle corresponding to a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the vehicle corresponding to a geographic area (see [0043] target temperature is for vehicle and corresponds to city).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 18, Donnelly et al. further discloses identifying weather of a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 2, [0086] regional weather of area 200).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify, from a plurality of different geographic areas, the geographic area of the pickup or drop off location, each of the plurality of different geographic areas being associated with a respective temperature condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify, from a plurality of different geographic areas, the geographic area of travel (see [0043] city being visited), each of the plurality of different geographic areas being associated with a respective temperature condition (see [0058-0059]).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Claims 3, 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected (in the alternative, for Claims 3 and 13) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0332123A1 (Donnelly et al.) in view of Publication US2019/0047497A1 (Sham).
Regarding Claim 3, Donnelly et al. further discloses the method further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0086] e.g. travel in rain or clear conditions being vehicle state conditions).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition; and
providing, by the one or more processors to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition.
However, Sham teaches a technique in a vehicle (see e.g. [0021]), comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors (see [0032]) from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition (see [0026] rain condition, out of plural conditions) corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0004, 0018] rain being part of a weather condition); and
providing, by the one or more processors to the autonomous vehicle, instructions to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition (see [0026] real-time system 104 may be configured to close an open window of the driving apparatus 102 when a rain condition is detected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the determination of a rainy weather condition of Donnelly et al. to further be used to adjust a vehicle state as taught by Sham, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing convenience by automatic vehicle functionality and avoiding water damage.
Regarding Claim 9, Donnelly et al. discloses the method further comprising identifying the at least one weather condition as including a rainy condition (see [0086]).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 3,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle being in a closed state.
However, Sham teaches the technique as above,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle being in a closed state (see [0026]).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Sham was provided above in the alternative rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 9, further comprising providing, by the one or more processors to the autonomous vehicle, instructions for the one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle to be in the closed state.
However, Sham teaches the technique as above,
further comprising providing, by the one or more processors to the autonomous vehicle, instructions for the one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle to be in the closed state (see [0026] and [0032] system 104 can be remote server).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Sham was provided above in the alternative rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 13, 19, and 20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 3, 9, and 10, respectively. Claims 13, 19, and 20 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 3, 9, and 10. Claims 13, 19 and 20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 3, 9 and 10, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669