DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Restriction by Original Presentation
Newly submitted Claims 8-9 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 8-9 are directed to “a timing at which the aircraft passes each of a plurality of check positions set in the route…repeatedly for each of the plurality of check positions regardless of whether necessity of an emergency landing of the aircraft is recognized”.
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claim 8-9 is/are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10 is/are 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.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10 is/are examined in this office action. Claims 8-9 are withdrawn. See Election/Restriction section.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejections:
Applicant remarked, “Zhong does not disclose a process in which if the nearby available-for-landing port is not extracted by the nearby available-for-landing port search unit, the route of the aircraft to the destination point is changed to a route in which a nearby available-for-landing port is extracted by the nearby available-for-landing port search unit. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Zhong does not teach or suggest all of the features of claim 1, and claim 1 is not anticipated by Zhong.” In response, Applicant’s remark is directed to an “if…OR, if…” limitation and the specific limitation is the second “if” claim limitation. Zhong discloses the first “if” limitation and satisfies the “OR” limitation.
Applicant remarked, “Moreover, Zhong does not teach or suggest searching for a nearby available-for-landing port based on both distance and time information, as required by claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhong’s invention discloses in at least [0055], “When triggered, the vehicle operator JDMS engine 125 retrieves the current aircraft state parameters and runs an ‘engine out’ scenario to identify the closest reachable airports and compute the estimated time of arrival (ETA) and/or fuel required to complete the alternate airport diversion.” Thus the functions “to identify the closest reachable airport” and “to…compute the estimated time of arrival (ETA)” are distance and time variables used in finding an airport during an emergency.
Applicant remarked, “The claimed ‘route passing timing,’ coupled with a requirement that the port be able to accept a landing within a predetermined time measured from that timing, is not met by Zhong’s estimated-time-of-arrival computation.” In response, Applicant’s own claim language defined the term “route passing timing” as “which is a timing at which the aircraft flies the route” and Zhong discloses a “current aircraft state parameters” such as current location, “an estimated time of arrival (ETA)” to a destination such as “the closes reachable airport” (see at least [0055]).
Applicant remarked, “Zhong therefore does not disclose the claimed combination of distance-based and time-window-based search criteria.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhong discloses in at least [0055], four variables such as (1) “the current aircraft state parameters”; (2) “closest reachable airports”; (3) “the estimated time of arrival (ETA)” and (4) “fuel required to complete the alternate airport diversion” and thus variables (2) and (3) satisfies the “combination of distance-based and time-window-based search criteria”.
Applicant remarked, “Claim 1 does not condition the recognition of the route passing timing or the search for a nearby available-for-landing port on any detected emergency; the search is performed based on the result of recognizing the flight condition of the aircraft. Zhong’s event-gated determination does not disclose this feature.” In response, in the “if” claim limitation, Applicant claim is explicitly directed to “…accommodating an emergency landing of the aircraft”.
Applicant remarked, “Claim 1 instead recites a determination unit that, if a nearby available-for-landing port is not extracted, changes the route of the aircraft to the destination point to a route in which a nearby available-for-landing port is extracted, and then designates that port - an automated determination and route change, not the presentation of options to a person for selection. Zhong does not disclose this claimed operation.” In response, the Examiner has already addressed the “if…OR, if” claim language. See response to first remark above.
Applicant remarked, “With regard to claim 2, Zhong merely discloses presenting reroute candidates according to a failure condition and considering distance as a factor for determination. Considering distance, or even performing some kind of distance comparison, is different from changing the determination threshold distance for searching for a nearby available-for-landing port according to a level of a malfunction, as required by claim 2.” In response, Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following Three-Prong Analysis will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke § 112(f) or (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) are “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for”.1, 2
Structural placeholders that do not invoke § 112(f) or (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) are “circuit for,” “detent mechanism,” “digital detector for,” “reciprocating member,” “connector assembly,” “perforation,” “sealingly connected joints,” and “eyeglass hanger member.”3, 4
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a flight condition recognition unit configured to” (See Claims 1-4. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” and “is configured to” are alternative linking phrases in place of “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. According to The Disclosure, Processor 10 contains Fig. 1, Element 11 and thus considered software logic executed by Processor 10.);
“a nearby available-for-landing port search unit configured to” (See Claims 1-4. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” and “is configured to” are alternative linking phrases in place of “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” and/or “is configured to” are considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. According to The Disclosure, Processor 10 contains Fig. 1, Element 12 and thus considered software logic executed by Processor 10.);
“an alternative candidate port determination unit configured to” (See Claims 1-2. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” and “is configured to” are alternative linking phrases in place of “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. According to The Disclosure, Processor 10 contains Fig. 1, Element 13 and thus considered software logic executed by Processor 10.);
“a flight hindrance factor recognition unit configured to” (See Claim 5. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” and “is configured to” are alternative linking phrases in place of “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. According to The Disclosure, Processor 10 contains Fig. 1, Element 14 and thus considered software logic executed by Processor 10.);
“an emergency landing response unit configured to” (See Claim 5. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” and “is configured to” are alternative linking phrases in place of “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. According to The Disclosure, Processor 10 contains Fig. 1, Element 15 and thus considered software logic executed by Processor 10.); and
“an alternative transportation means information provision unit configured to” (See Claim 6. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” and “is configured to” are alternative linking phrases in place of “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. According to The Disclosure, Processor 10 contains Fig. 1, Element 16 and thus considered software logic executed by Processor 10.);
“a flight condition recognition step of” (See Claim 7. The Examiner takes the position “step of” is an alternative phrase in place of “step for”.);
“a nearby available-for-landing port search step of” (See Claim 7. The Examiner takes the position “step of” is an alternative phrase in place of “step for”.); and
“an alternative candidate port determination step of” (See Claim 7. The Examiner takes the position “step of” is an alternative phrase in place of “step for”.).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
THIS SECTION IS NOT A REJECTION! The Examiner expresses that this particular section of the office action identifies and clarifies how the means-plus-function limitation(s) listed above are interpreted during examination and further acts as a formal statement on claim interpretation that is recorded into the prosecution history. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220130261 A1 (“Zhong”).
As to Claim 1, Zhong discloses An aircraft management system (e.g., “joint-decision making system”), comprising (see at least Abstract):
a flight condition recognition unit configured to recognize a flight condition (e.g., “event condition indication 425” and/or “Engine Out” from Fig. 4) of an aircraft flying a route (e.g., “original flight path 420”) to a destination point (e.g., “arrival destinations”) (see at least Fig. 4, 6 with associated text, in particular, [0066] – “The joint-decision making system 400 includes a vehicle operator GUI 129 displaying a vehicle icon 301, an original flight path 420, a reroute destination 410, and an event condition indication 425” and [0074] – “ the vehicle operator GUI 610 displays route information 615 such as the departure and arrival destinations, estimated departure time, estimated arrival time, and estimated remaining travel time”. Additionally, The Examiner points to [0088]-[0089] to cover the corresponding structure invoked by the means-plus-function language.);
a nearby available-for-landing port search unit configured
to recognize a route passing timing, which is a timing at which the aircraft flies the route, based on a result of recognizing the flight condition of the aircraft by the flight condition recognition unit (see at least [0040]-[0047], [0055], [0088]-[0089], Fig. 4 with associated text. Zhong’s GUI displays “Airport Options” along with “When triggered, the vehicle operator JDMS engine 125 retrieves the current aircraft state parameters and runs an ‘engine out’ scenario to identify the closest reachable airports and compute the estimated time of arrival (ETA) and/or fuel required to complete the alternate airport diversion” from [0055].), and
to search for a nearby available-for-landing port, which is a takeoff/landing port located within a predetermined determination threshold distance (e.g., “closest”) from the route (see at least [0008], [0038], [0040], [0048], [0055], [0078], [0088]-[0089] – Zhong further discloses “For example, as shown in FIG. 13 with respect to an exemplary JDMS 1300, in response to an engine out condition, a set of possible reroute options 613 are presented on the vehicle operator GUI 610, where the reroute options are determined, as discussed above, based on distance, fuel, tail-specifications, weather, geopolitical concerns, and/or other factors relevant to the decision. ”) and
able to accept a landing within a predetermined time after the route passing timing (see at least [0008], [0038], [0040], [0048], [0055], [0078], [0088]-[0089] – Zhong discloses “In some embodiments, after detection of an emergency such as an engine out, cabin depressurization, power loss, or other equipment failure event condition, onboard systems invoke the closest airport routine using a mission manager engine, which may provide a best alternative airport based on the current situation and in light of the airliner preference and priority based on the criticality of the emergency event.”); and
an alternative candidate port determination unit configured
to, if (“IF” is conditional language.) the nearby available-for-landing port is extracted by the nearby available-for-landing port search unit, designate the extracted nearby available-for-landing port as an alternative candidate port for accommodating an emergency landing of the aircraft (see at least [0088]-[0089], Fig. 4, 6 with associated text; in particular, [0066]. Zhong demonstrates that a new destination airport is selected in Element 410, this selection becomes the designated airport. Because this “IF” condition is selected, the other “IF” is skipped.), or (Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.)
to, if (“IF” is conditional language.) the nearby available-for-landing port is not extracted by the nearby available-for-landing port search unit, change the route of the aircraft to the destination point to a route in which a nearby available-for-landing port is extracted by the nearby available-for-landing port search unit, and
then designate the nearby available-for-landing port extracted by the nearby available-for-landing port search unit for the changed route as the alternative candidate port (see at least [0088]-[0089], Fig. 6 with associated text; in particular, [0066]).
As to Claim 2, Zong discloses wherein
the flight condition recognition unit is configured to repeatedly perform a process of recognizing the flight condition of the aircraft during a flight of the aircraft (see at least [0088]-[0089], Fig. 4, 6, 15 with associated text; in particular, [0081] – “At step 1565, the vehicle operator JDMS engine 125 may transmit, over a network, the trigger event condition, vehicle information, and the suggested response or course of action to a dispatcher JDMS engine 115. In this manner, both the vehicle operator JDMS engine 125 and the dispatcher JDMS engine 115 may generate and display information based on real-time data in a consistent manner.”),
the nearby available-for-landing port search unit is configured to repeatedly perform a process of searching for a nearby available-for-landing port based on a result of recognizing the flight condition of the aircraft by the flight condition recognition unit (see at least [0088]-[0089], Fig. 4, 6, 15 with associated text; in particular, [0081]), and
the alternative candidate port determination unit is configured to repeatedly perform a process of determining the alternative candidate port based on whether or not the nearby available-for-landing port is extracted by the nearby available-for-landing port search unit (see at least [0088]-[0089], Fig. 4, 6, 15 with associated text; in particular, [0081]).
As to Claim 3, Zhong discloses wherein
the flight condition recognition unit is configured to recognize the flight condition including a level of a malfunction occurring in the aircraft (see at least [0078] – “the color of the vehicle icon 301 may change to a different color”), and
the nearby available-for-landing port search unit is configured to change the determination threshold distance according to the level of the malfunction occurring in the aircraft recognized by the flight condition recognition unit (see at least [0078]).
As to Claim 5, Zhong discloses:
a flight hindrance factor recognition unit configured to recognize presence or (Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) absence of a flight hindrance factor that hinders a flight of the aircraft to the destination point (see at least [0040]-[0047], [0078], [0088]-[0089]); and
an emergency landing response unit configured to change the route of the aircraft to an emergency route to the alternative candidate port when the presence of the flight hindrance factor is recognized by the flight hindrance factor recognition unit (see at least [0040]-[0047], [0078], [0088]-[0089]).
Claim 7 rejects the subject matter of Claim 1 and rejected in like manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong and further in view of US 20220204180 A1 (“Sellmann”).
As to Claim 4, Zhong discloses wherein
the flight condition recognition unit is configured to recognize the flight condition of the aircraft (see at least [0088]-[0089], Fig. 4, 6 with associated text) including a remaining flyable range, and
the nearby available-for-landing port search unit is configured to change the determination threshold distance according to the condition of the aircraft recognized by the flight condition recognition unit (see at least [0088]-[0089], Fig. 4, 6 with associated text).
Zhong does not directly disclose a remaining flyable range.
However, Sellmann teaches a remaining flyable range (see at least [0099]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhong’s invention by incorporating a function to determine an acceptable emergency flying radius as taught by Sellmann in order to provide real-time emergency event modeling, and to evaluating different potential safe landing options, to support an aircraft pilot who is responding to a flight emergency (see at least [0001]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong and further in view of US 20220024582 A1 (“Nakazawa”).
As to Claim 6, Zhong discloses the alternative candidate port to a predetermined area in which the destination point is located, if the route of the aircraft is changed to the emergency route by the emergency landing response unit (see at least [0088]-[0089], Fig. 4, 6, 15 with associated text).
Zhong does not directly disclose an alternative transportation means information provision unit configured to provide information on alternative transportation means to travel from the alternative candidate port.
However, Nakazawa teaches an alternative transportation means information provision unit configured to provide information on alternative transportation means to travel from the alternative candidate port (see at least [0011], [0062]-[0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhong’s invention by incorporating a route candidate identifying unit as taught by Nakazawa in order to determine a level of difficulty for rescue/recovery access to the emergency landing area.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Written Authorization Required for Internet Communication
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is best reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, ERIN PIATESKI, is available at telephone number (571) 270-7429.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
1 Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 27 /Wednesday, February 9, 2011 /Notices located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf, center column, page 6 of 14.
2 MPEP § 2181 (I)(A), first paragraph
3 Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 27 /Wednesday, February 9, 2011 /Notices located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf, center column, page 6 of 14.
4 MPEP § 2181 (I)(A), second paragraph
Prosecution Insights