DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 03 September 2025. Claims 8-9 are canceled. Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-040571, filed on 15 March 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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:
“control means” in claim 6;
The structure of the control means is “hardware such as circuits or chips” (see para 0011 of the Specification)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the feature points” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “change the position information relating to the feature points to position information at which the feature points are located in a case where the image capturing device is installed facing a particular direction” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how feature points are located at “…information” (i.e. “at which…”). Further, it is not clear how “facing a particular direction” further limits the claim since the image capturing device is always facing some direction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the inclination is an angle formed by an imaging direction axis in a case where the image capturing device is installed facing the particular direction and an imaging direction axis in a direction in which the image capturing device performs imaging” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how “an imaging direction axis” is related to “where the image capturing device is installed facing the particular direction”, i.e. how the imaging direction axis is defined. Further, it is not clear how “an imaging direction axis” is related to “a direction in which the image capturing device performs imaging”, i.e., is the “imaging direction axis” following the “direction” in a parallel way or at a certain angle. In addition, it is not clear how “a direction in which the image capturing device performs imaging” is defined, i.e., whether the “direction” is perpendicular to the image plane or at a known angle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 5 recites “…change the position information relating to a feature point on a rectangular shape including the object to be conveyed, among the plurality of feature points, using the inclination” which is ambiguous. It is not clear what is among the plurality of feature points, i.e., a feature point or the object to be conveyed. Further, it is not clear what “including the object to be conveyed”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 6 recites “…using distance information indicating a distance from the image capturing device to a feature point in the first video…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how a distance from the image capturing device to a feature point in the first video is defined, i.e., how to determine a distance from an image capturing device to a point in the video it captures. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 are rejected for reciting similar languages as previously rejected claims.
Claims 2-7, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
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 1-7 and 10-20 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
Claim 10 is directed to a control method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 10 recites:
A control method comprising:
in accordance with an inclination of an image capturing device that has captured a first video, changing position information relating to a plurality of feature points indicating an object to be conveyed that appears in the first video;
selecting a method for identifying disposition of a surface of the object to be conveyed, using the changed position information relating to the feature points; and
controlling a moving body for conveying the object to be conveyed, in accordance with the disposition of the surface of the object to be conveyed identified in accordance with the selected method for the identifying.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “…changing position information…”; “selecting a method…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement/determination. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A control method comprising:
in accordance with an inclination of an image capturing device that has captured a first video, changing position information relating to a plurality of feature points indicating an object to be conveyed that appears in the first video;
selecting a method for identifying disposition of a surface of the object to be conveyed, using the changed position information relating to the feature points; and
controlling a moving body for conveying the object to be conveyed, in accordance with the disposition of the surface of the object to be conveyed identified in accordance with the selected method for the identifying.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “controlling a moving body…in accordance with the selected method for the identifying” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the controlling step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data transmission or displaying the result from the selecting…step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “controlling...” the examiner submits that the limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “controlling …” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the limitation is broadly recited and could be interpreted as generic post result data transmission or displaying, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 1.
Claim 1, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 10 a process claim, but adds at least one processor, at least one memory storing instructions. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 17.
Claim 17, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 10 a process claim, but adds a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-7, 11-16 and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 11-16 and 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and 17.
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 10-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas (US20180089517) in view of Zhang (US20090290032).
As to claims 1, 10 and 17, Douglas teaches a control system, a control method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program, comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (see at least Douglas para 0047); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see at least Douglas para 0047, para 0025),
select a method for identifying disposition of a surface of the object to be conveyed, using the changed position information relating to the feature points (see at least Douglas para 0034: …having identified the data points that correspond to the surfaces 131a-13lc in the XYZ coordinate system, a Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC) method may be used to construct a plane that passes relatively closely to the surfaces 131a-13lc. Other plane construction methods are also possible…; Fig. 10); and
control a moving body for conveying the object to be conveyed, in accordance with the disposition of the surface of the object to be conveyed identified in accordance with the selected method for identifying (see at least Douglas para 0034: …based on the constructed plane, the roll (R), the yaw (Y) and pitch (P) of the pallet can be calculated, therefore determining the location and the orientation of the pallet 20. For example, a unit vector that is perpendicular to the plane (e.g., the plane constructed by the RANSAC method) may be decomposed to its X, Y and Z components corresponding to the cosine of the respective angles between the unit vector and the coordinate axis X, Y and Z. In some embodiments, the SGV can use thus determined location and orientation of the pallet to orient the forks 12 against the pallet pockets 22, and to engage and manipulate the pallet; Fig. 10).
Douglas does not teach in accordance with an inclination of an image capturing device that has captured a first video, change position information relating to a plurality of feature points indicating an object to be conveyed that appears in the first video.
Zhang is directed to a system and method for calibrating a camera on a vehicle. Zhang teaches …calibrating a camera depending on…camera’s height…and the camera’s orientation in vehicle coordinates…stationary points on the ground are tracked in successive video frames… (see at least Zhang para 0029-0035) ...the algorithm identifies the camera rotation in the vehicle coordinates…the rotation matrix between the camera coordinates and the vehicle coordinates is given as… (see at least Zhang para 0042-0045) …distance between the cameras 32 when the images are taken. The rotation matrix between the camera coordinates and the vehicle coordinates is determined by equation (4) … (see at least Zhang para 0054; also see Fig. 7, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Douglas so as to include in accordance with an inclination of an image capturing device that has captured a first video, change position information relating to a plurality of feature points indicating an object to be conveyed that appears in the first video in view of Zhang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the determined rotation matrix between the camera coordinates and the vehicle coordinates of Zhang can used in Douglas, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Douglas and Zhang because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to accurately calibrate the position and orientation of the camera with respect to the vehicle so that the images/videos captured by the camera could accurately and precisely reflect the locations and dimensions of surrounding objects (see at least Zhang para 0004).
As to claims 2, 11 and 18, Douglas in view of Zhang teaches the control system according to claim 1, the control method according to claim 10 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 17.
Zhang further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to change the position information relating to the feature points to position information at which the feature points are located in a case where the image capturing device is installed facing a particular direction (see at least Zhang para 0042-0054: …rotation matrix…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Douglas so as to include the above limitation in view of Zhang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Douglas and Zhang because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to accurately calibrate the position and orientation of the camera with respect to the vehicle so that the images/videos captured by the camera could accurately and precisely reflect the locations and dimensions of surrounding objects (see at least Zhang para 0004).
As to claims 3, 12 and 19, Douglas in view of Zhang teaches the control system according to claim 2, the control method according to claim 11 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 17.
Zhang further teaches wherein the inclination is an angle formed by an imaging direction axis in a case where the image capturing device is installed facing the particular direction and an imaging direction axis in a direction in which the image capturing device performs imaging (see at least Zhang para 0042-0054: …where a the pitch down of the camera and g is the yaw of the camera…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Douglas so as to include the above limitation in view of Zhang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Douglas and Zhang because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to accurately calibrate the position and orientation of the camera with respect to the vehicle so that the images/videos captured by the camera could accurately and precisely reflect the locations and dimensions of surrounding objects (see at least Zhang para 0004).
As to claims 4, 13 and 20, Douglas in view of Zhang teaches the control system according to claim 1, the control method according to claim 10 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 17.
Douglas further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select the method for the identifying, in accordance with a region including the changed position information relating to the feature points, among regions obtained by dividing a measurement range of the image capturing device installed facing the particular direction into a plurality of regions (see at least Douglas para 0034: … having identified the data points that correspond to the surfaces 131a-13lc in the XYZ coordinate system; also see Fig. 4, Fig. 5).
As to claims 5 and 14, Douglas in view of Zhang teaches the control system according to claim 1 and the control method according to claim 10.
Douglas further teaches change the position information relating to a feature point on a rectangular shape including the object to be conveyed, among the plurality of feature points, using the inclination (see at least Douglas Fig. 2, Fig. 4 and related text).
As to claims 6 and 15, Douglas in view of Zhang teaches the control system according to claim 1 and the control method according to claim 10.
Douglas further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to identify a location where the object to be conveyed is supported by the moving body, using distance information indicating a distance from the image capturing device to a feature point in the first video and the disposition of a surface of the object to be conveyed (see at least Douglas para 0043: …If the plane was found, in step 1130 the localization results are produced. The localization results may specify X, Y, Z location of parts of the pallet (e.g., the pockets), and/or the R, Y, P angles of the pallet with respect to the 3D camera. Since the position of the 3D camera with respect to the forks of the SGV is generally known, the SGV can also know its position with respect to the pallet…the SGV can set position of the forks 12 to properly engage the pockets of the pallet; Fig. 10),
wherein the control means controls the moving body in accordance with the identified location where the object to be conveyed is supported and the identified disposition of the surface of the object to be conveyed (see at least Douglas para 0043: …the SGV can set position of the forks 12 to properly engage the pockets of the pallet; Fig. 10).
As to claims 7 and 16, Douglas in view of Zhang teaches the control system according to claim 6 and the control method according to claim 15.
Douglas further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to identify the location where the object to be conveyed is supported, further using a distance from the image capturing device to an intersection of an imaging direction axis in a direction in which the image capturing device performs imaging and a plane horizontal at a height of the location where the object to be conveyed is supported (see at least Douglas para 0043: …The localization results may specify X, Y, Z location of parts of the pallet (e.g., the pockets), and/or the R, Y, P angles of the pallet with respect to the 3D camera. Since the position of the 3D camera with respect to the forks of the SGV is generally known, the SGV can also know its position with respect to the pallet…the SGV can set position of the forks 12 to properly engage the pockets of the pallet; para 0024:…time of flight…; also see Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and related text).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights