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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on January 18, 2025 for the patent application 18/996,977.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 7, 9, 10 and 12 - 21 are pending in the application.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 and 10 are currently amended in the application.
Claims 12 - 21 are added in the application.
Claims 8 and 11 are cancelled in the application without prejudice or disclaimer.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on February 06, 2025 and January 04, 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 9, 10 and 12 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 7, 9, 10 and 12 - 21 are either directed to a method or system or computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to apparatus claim 9 and computer readable claim 10. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
( A ) displaying, by a first electronic device, a preview information of at least one card of a second electronic device, the preview information of the at least one card-comprises a preview information of a first card, and the first card belongs to a first application on the second electronic device;
( B ) receiving, by the first electronic device, a first operation for the preview information of the first card;
( C ) in response to the first operation, sending, by the first electronic device to the second electronic device, a first request for adding the first card;
( D ) obtaining, by the first electronic device, a card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device; and
( E ) adding, by the first electronic device, the first card based on the card information corresponding to the first card.
These limitations without the bolded limitations above, cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
More specifically, these limitations cover performance of the limitations as a fundamental economic practice.
In summary, if claim 1 limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 9 and 10 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
The use of the electronic device, or any of the bolded limitations in claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Similar arguments apply to claims 9 and 10.
Therefore, the above mentioned judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by merely applying generic computer components (bolded elements).
Furthermore, the “displaying” and “receiving” steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering/transmitting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In addition, supported by specification, the computer hardware are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component., see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer is not indicative of a practical application).
Claim 1, limitation ( A ) – ( E ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0046], which discloses “To resolve the foregoing problem, an embodiment of this application provides a cross-device card interaction method. A first electronic device displays at least one piece of preview information of a second electronic device. Pre-view information of at least one card includes preview information of a first card. The first card belongs to a first application on the second electronic device. Then, the first electronic device receives a first operation for the preview information of the first card, and in response to the first operation, sends, to the second electronic device, a first request for adding the first card. Then, the first electronic device obtains card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device. The first electronic device adds the first card based on the card information corresponding to the first card. In the method, element-level cross-device interaction can be implemented between the first electronic device and the second electronic device without installing a same application on the first electronic device and the second electronic device.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( A ), ( C ) and ( D ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0014], which discloses “According to a third aspect, this application pro-cross-device card interaction method. The method vides a includes: A first electronic device displays a first card of a first application on a second electronic device. The first electronic device receives a first operation for the first card. In response to the first operation, the first electronic device sends a card addition request to the second electronic device. The first electronic device obtains card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device. The first electronic device displays the first card. In the method, the card of the second electronic device may be displayed on the first electronic device, to implement element-level cross-device interaction. In this way, cross-device interaction can be implemented without installing the first application on the first electronic device.“. Similar arguments apply to claims 9 and 10.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims 1, 9 and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (bolded elements above) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. In conclusion, merely "applying" the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1, 9 and 10 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 7 and 12 - 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 2 – 7 and 12 - 21 are further define the abstract idea or further define the extra-solution activities that are present in independent claim 1 thus abstract idea correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity as presented above. Claims 2 – 7 and 12 - 21 clearly further define the abstract idea as stated above and further define extra-solution activities such as presenting data and transmitting/receiving data.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 7 and 12 - 21 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17, these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claim 2 states “displaying, by the first electronic device, the card information corresponding to the first card.”. These steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/analysis, which is a form of insignificant extra- solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Similar arguments can be made for claims 12 and 17.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18, these claims merely recite, "receiving, by the first electronic device, a second operation for the first card; in response to the second operation, deleting, by the first electronic device, the first card, and sending, to the second electronic device, a second request for deleting the first card; and receiving, by the first electronic device, a deletion complete message from the second electronic device.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar arguments can be made for claims 13 and 18.
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 19, these claims merely provide further detail regarding the processing the card operations, recited in claim 1. Merely stating, “receiving, by the first electronic device, a third operation for the first card; in response to the third operation, sending, by the first electronic device to the second electronic device, a third request for updating the first card; receiving, by the first electronic device, a first card update information that is used to update the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device; and updating, by the first electronic device, the first card based on the first card update information.”. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea. Similar arguments can be made for claims 14 and 19.
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 20, these claims merely recite, "receiving, by the first electronic device, a fourth operation; in response to the fourth operation, sending, by the first electronic device to the second electronic device, a fourth request for querying a card; and receiving, by the first electronic device, the preview information of the at least one card from the second electronic device.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar arguments can be made for claims 14 a5 and 20.
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 21, these claims merely provide further detail regarding the processing the card information on the same network, recited in claim 1. Merely stating “wherein the first electronic device and the second electronic device are located in a same network.". This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea. Similar arguments can be made for claims 16 and 21.
Regarding claim 7, this claim merely add further description to the process of “wherein the preview information of the first card is the same as a card information displayed on the first card, or the preview information of the first card is different from the card information displayed on the first card.”. This amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting as described in reference to claims 1, 10 and 16 (see analysis above). Merely describing the comparing the new claim information does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
As a result, such limitations do not overcome the requirements as described above. Therefore, claims 2 – 7 and 12 - 21 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 – 7, 9, 10 and 12 - 21 are not patent eligible.
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 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 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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9, 10 and 12 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Honor Device Co. (For. Pub. # CN113778574A A1 – herein referred to as HonorDevice) in view of Wooseok Jang et al. (Pub. # US 2018/0108002 A1 – herein referred to as Jang).
Re: Claim 1, HonorDevice discloses a cross-device card interaction method, comprising:
displaying, by a first electronic device, a preview information of at least one card of a second electronic device, the preview information of the at least one card-comprises a preview information of a first card, and the first card belongs to a first application on the second electronic device (HonorDevice, page. 42, lines 25 – 35 – In summary, in the present application, the attribute of the card may be set to be reconfigurable, or the attribute of the card may also be set to be non-reconfigurable, for example, the card module used for indicating lt service content of the card or the key information of the card, etc. is set to be a non-reconfigurable card module, so that the first application process, in response to the second operation of the user. may determine that the second card module and the third card module need to be displayed on the interface of the third application, or the tl1ird application may determine that tile second card module and the third card module need to the displayed on the interface of the third application base on the identifier of the first card module in the second message, and the specific implementation process may refer to fig. 3a to fig. 3d and the description explanation of the card, which is not described herein again. Thus, convenience is provided for realizing sharing of cards.);
receiving, by the first electronic device, a first operation for the preview information of the first card (HonorDevice, page. 28, lines 5 – 7 – S101, responding to a first operation of a user by a first application process, and inquiring whether a resource packet set exists in a card service module of first equipment according to a card name in a card label 1 of a first card. The resource packet set stores a first card corresponding to the card name.);;
in response to the first operation, sending, by the first electronic device to the second electronic device, a first request for adding the first card (HonorDevice, page. 28, lines 8 – 15 – It will be appreciated by those with ordinary skill in the art that after any process in tl1e electronic device is installed, the process stores broadcast information in the operating system of the electronic device, the broadcast information indicating t.11at the process is installed. Thus, the first application process may determine wl1ethe the card application process is installed by determining whether the broadcast information can be found. If the broadcast information is not found, the first application process determines that the first device does not t1ave the resource packet set corresponding to the card application process, and executes step s102. If the broadcast information is found, the first application process determines that the first device has a resource package set corresponding to the card application process, and executes steps S103 to S108.);
adding, by the first electronic device, the first card based on the card information corresponding to the first card (HonorDevice, page. 23, lines 8 – 14 – As shown in fig. 6c, the user may click, an add operation button on the first card, the display screen of the mobile pt1one displays the interface shown in fig. 6c, the first card is newly added to the added card option the interface, and an icon corresponding to the card module 2 in the first card and an icon corresponding to the card module 5 are also displayed on the interface. The user can click an option, the option is used for indicating that the adding of the card is completed, such as a check icon shown in fig. 6c, and the display screen of the mobile phone displays an interface shown in fig. 6d, so that the first card is added to the smart home application, and the user can conveniently share the first card.).
However, HonorDevice does not expressly disclose:
obtaining, by the first electronic device, a card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jang discloses:
obtaining, by the first electronic device, a card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device (Jang, [0207] – In step (2), the card payment terminal 1020 transmits a payment processor request for payment approval, which includes information on payment made by the physical card of the user, to the second server 1030. The card payment terminal 1020 may acquire the user's payment information based on the physical card, and transmit the payment information to a corresponding card company server. The second server 1030 may include the card company server, which provides various messages associated with card use and card payment approval. The payment information may include information on the amount paid using the actual card, card information (e.g., a card identification number, an expiration period, etc.) of the card used for payment, etc.).
Therefore, in light of the teachings of Jang, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of HonorDevice, motivation according to one KSR Exemplary Rationale where a known technique is used to improve similar methods and systems in the same way by provide a method and device for a user to more conveniently
register a physical card as an electronic card by minimizing and/or omitting separate input procedures for card registration in an electronic device by using a text message received based on card use by the user.
Re: Claim 2, HonorDevice in view of Jang discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein after the obtaining, by the first electronic device, the card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device, the method further comprises:
displaying, by the first electronic device, the card information corresponding to the first card (Jang, [0279] – In step 1417, the electronic device 1420 requests a user (e.g., displays an associated user interface) to input card authentication information (e.g., biometric information, a password, a PIN, etc.) through the payment application, and may acquire the card authentication information from the user.). The rationale for support of motivation, obviousness and reason to combine see claim 1 above.
Re: Claim 3, HonorDevice discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a second operation for the first card (HonorDevice, page. 6, lines 35 – 45 – In a fifth aspect, the present application provides a communication system comprising: a first device and second device; the first device is provided with a first application, and tl1e second device is provided with a third application; the first application is used for responding to a first operation of a user and displaying an interface of the first aspiration, a first card is displayed in the interface of the first application, the first card comprises first card module and a second card module, and inte1iace resources of tl1e first card are provided by the second application; the first application is further user.1 for responding to a second operation of the user and sending a second message to the third application, tile second operation is associated with the first card module, and t1·1e second message is used for indicating the first card module; ant1 the third application is use for displaying an interface of the third application, a first card module is displayed in lt1e interlace of the third application. and inte1face resources of the first care! module are provided by tl1e fourth application.);
in response to the second operation, deleting, by the first electronic device, the first card, and sending, to the second electronic device, a second request for deleting the first card (HonorDevice, page. 32, lines 29 – 37 – In some embodiments, the user may slop the si1aring of the Gard by ending the second application. The first application process can also send the sharing time length of the card to the first card service application process while sharing the card to the second application, so that the first card service application process supports the second application to display the card within tile sharing time length of the card in an address sharing mode, and tile first card service application process does not support tile second application to display the card any more outside the sharing time length online card in an address sharing stopping mode. The present application is not limited to the foregoing two implementations to stop sharing of cards. Thus, the first application can realize the recovery of tl1e service by stopping the sharing of the card. In addition, the first cards service application process can also realize the updating of the drawing result 2 in an atit1ress sharing mode.); and
receiving, by the first electronic device, a deletion complete message from the second electronic device (HonorDevice, page. 23, lines 8 – 14 – As shown in fig. 6c, the user may click, an add operation button on the first card, the display screen of the mobile phone displays the interface shown in fig. 6c, the first card is newly added to the added card option the interface, and an icon corresponding to the card module 2 in the first card and an icon corresponding to card module 5 are also displayed on the interface. The user can click an option, tt1e option is used for indicating ti1at the adding of the card is completed, such as a check icon shown in fig. 6c, and the display screen of mobile phone displays an interface shown in fig. 6d, so that the first card is added to the smart home application, and the user can conveniently share tile first card.).
Re: Claim 4, HonorDevice discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a third operation for the first card (HonorDevice, page. 5, lines 25 – 34 – In one possible design, a third message is sent to a fourth application process; receiving a second drawing result from a fourth application process, wherein the second drawing result is obtained by rendering and drawing the fourlt1 application process based on interface resources of the first card module, based on interface resources of the first card module are obtained by callin1J the fourth application process from a resource packe set based on a third message, and the resource packet set comprises the interface resources of the first card rnot1ule, tt1e second card module and the third card rnm1ule in the first card am the interface resources of the fourth card module and the fiftl1 card module in the second card; and displaying the first card module in the interface of the third application based on the second drawing result. Therefore, the cards can br1 shared different application proms in the same equipment or different equipment, am the st1aring requirements different scenes are met.);
in response to the third operation, sending, by the first electronic device to the second electronic device, a third request for updating the first card (HonorDevice, page. 23, lines 34 – 39 – One card module may be combined by a plurality of components. A component may include, but is not limited to, information, procedures, text, operating buttons, am1io-visual, links, etc. The combinec1 components are different. and the corresponding card modules display different Uls, so that different cards can realize differed UI displays !Jy including different card modules. Therefore, the storage and management of each card by the plurality of card modules are faciiit0.ted, the UI display of part or all of the card modules in each card can be supported, and the quick implementation and updating of the UI display of eacl1 care! are facilitated.);
receiving, by the first electronic device, a first card update information that is used to update the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device (HonorDevice, page. 5, lines 25 – 34 – In one possible design, a third message is sent to a fourth application process; receiving a second drawing result from a fourth application process, wherein the second drawing result is obtained by rendering and drawing the fourlt1 application process based on interface resources of the first card module, based on interface resources of the first card module are obtained by callin1J the fourth application process from a resource packs set based on a third message, and the resource packet set comprises the interface resources of the first card rnot1ule, tt1e second card module and the third card rnm1ule in the first card and the interface resources of the fourth card module and the fiftl1 card module in the second card; and displaying the first card module in the interface of the third application based on the second drawing result. Therefore, the cards can br1 shared different application proms in the same equipment or different equipment, am the st1aring requirements different scenes are met.); and
updating, by the first electronic device, the first card based on the first card update information (HonorDevice, page. 5, lines 15 – 18 – In one possible design, the first message further includes: a first address; receiving the first rendering result sent to the first address from the second application process provides a possible implementation for providing the first rendering result. In addition, through the address sharing mode, the updating of the first drawing result can be realized, and the card sharing can be stopped to recycle tl1e service.).
Re: Claim 5, HonorDevice discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein before the displaying, by the first electronic device, the preview information of the at least one card of the second electronic device, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a fourth operation (HonorDevice, page. 39, lines 24 – 31 – !n a card sharing scene among different application programs in the same device, a first application, a second application and a third application are different application programs in the first device, a first application process corresponds to the first application, a second application process corresponds to the second application, a third application process corresponds to the third application, a fourth application process corresponds to the fourth application, thro second application and the fourth application are the same application program, and tl1e second application process and the fourth application process are the same application program process,);
in response to the fourth operation, sending, by the first electronic device to the second electronic device, a fourth request for querying a card (HonorDevice, page. 41, lines 15 – 21 – Under the condition of cross-device card sharing, the first application and the second application are different application programs in the first device, the third application is different application programs in the second device, the first device is different from the second device, the first application process corresponds to the first application, the second application process corresponds to the second application, the third application process corresponds to the tl1ircl application, the fourth application process corresponds to tile fourth application, the second application and the fourth application are the same application program, and the second application process and the fourth application process are the same application program process.); and
receiving, by the first electronic device, the preview information of the at least one card from the second electronic device (HonorDevice, page. 23, lines 34 – 39 – One card module may be combined by a plurality of components. A component may include, but is not limited to, information, procedures, text, operating buttons, am1io-visual, links, etc. The combinec1 components are different and the corresponding card modules display different Uls, so that different cards can realize differed UI displays and including different card modules. Therefore, the storage and management of each card by the plurality of card modules are faciiit0.ted, the UI display of part or all of the card modules in each card can be supported, and the quick implementation and updating of the UI display of eacl1 care! are facilitated.).
Re: Claim 6, HonorDevice discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the first electronic device and the second electronic device are located in a same network (HonorDevice, page. 11, lines 27 – 36 – The wireless communication module 160 may provide a solution for wireless communication applied to the electronic device 100, including Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) (e.g., wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi networks), Bluetooth Bluetooth, BT), Global Navigation Satellite system (GNSS), Frequency Modulation (FM) Near Field Communication (NFC), Infrared (IR). and the like. The wireless communication module 160 may one or more devices integrating at least one communication processing module. The wireless communication module 160 receives electromagnetic waves via the antenna 2. performs frequency modulation and filtering processing on electromagnetic ·wave signals, and transmits t!1e processed signals to the processor 110. The wireless communication module :J.60 may also receive a signal to be transmitted from the processor perform frequency modulation and amplification on the signal. and convert tl1e signal into electromagnetic waves thn.1ugh the antenna 2 to radiate the electromagnetic waves.).
Re: Claim 7, HonorDevice discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the preview information of the first card is the same as a card information displayed on the first card, or the preview information of the first card is different from the card information displayed on the first card (HonorDevice, page. 25, lines 1 – 7 – In one aspect, the operation button may also be linked to a certain page of the application program corresponding to the operation button. For example, when the user clicks the operation button of the song name "peninsula iron box" in the first card shown in fig. 9a, the display screen of the mobile phone may jump to a lyrics page of the song name "peninsula iron box", in which a part of t11e content of lyrics of the song name "peninsula iron box", tl1e operation button of the previous icon, the operation button or the play pause icon, an the operation button of the next icon, the text "volume" and "68%" indicating the volume, the slide operation button for adjusting the volume, and the like are displayed.).
Re: Claim 9, Claim 9 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1.
Re: Claim 10, Claim 10 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1 and an apparatus claim 9. Therefore, claim 10 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9.
Re: Claim 12, Claim 12 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 2.
Re: Claim 13, Claim 13 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 3.
Re: Claim 14, Claim 14 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 4.
Re: Claim 15, Claim 15 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 5.
Re: Claim 16, Claim 16 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 6.
Re: Claim 17, Claim 17 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 2 and an apparatus claim 12. Therefore, claim 17 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 2 and 12.
Re: Claim 18, Claim 18 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 3 and an apparatus claim 13. Therefore, claim 18 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 3 and 13.
Re: Claim 19, Claim 19 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 4 and an apparatus claim 14. Therefore, claim 19 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 4 and 14.
Re: Claim 20, Claim 20 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 5 and an apparatus claim 15. Therefore, claim 20 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 5 and 15.
Re: Claim 21, Claim 21 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 6 and an apparatus claim 16. Therefore, claim 21 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 6 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H. HOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3461. The examiner can normally be reached on MON. - FRI 10 AM - 8 PM.
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, MATTHEW S. GART can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/John H. Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696