`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/378,448
`
`12/15/2011
`
`Katsuhiko Maruo
`
`1514448.100US9
`
`1084
`
`Locke Lord LLP
`PO. BOX 55874
`BOSTON, MA 02205
`
`SIMS, JASONM
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1631
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/25/2016
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/0r attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patent @ lockelord.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/378,448 MARUO, KATSUHIKO
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`JASON SIMS its“ 1631
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/23/2014.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)|:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-21 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 2-6,8-19 and 21 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)|:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 1,7and 20 is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)|:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit z/thvvvtlsnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`h/index.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20160127
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Applicant’s election of species A (claim 20) in the reply filed on 11/2/2015 is
`
`acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the
`
`supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an
`
`election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01 (a)).
`
`Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as
`
`being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking
`
`claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/2/2015.
`
`Claims 2-6 and 8—19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable
`
`generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on
`
`12/23/2014.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/26/2015, have been fully considered. The
`
`following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They
`
`constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
`
`Applicants have amended their claims, filed 5/26/2015, and therefore rejections
`
`newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
`
`Claims 1, 7, and 20 are the current claims hereby under examination.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`Claim Objections
`
`The objection has been withdrawn because of applicant’s amendment to the
`
`claims.
`
`The following rejection has been modified, which was necessitated by
`
`amendment:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12-maintained/modified
`
`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.
`
`Claims 1 and 7 are being interpreted under 35 USC 112 Sixth Paragraph
`
`because claims 1 and 7 use non-structural phrases “a calibration model” and “a blood
`
`sugar value estimation apparatus” with regular and generic place holding functional
`
`language of “means configured to” and “configured to” where there is no specific
`
`structure identified in the specification to correspond to the claimed regular and generic
`
`place holding functional language of “means configured to” and “configured to.”
`
`Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. The non-
`
`structural phrases “a calibration model” and “a blood sugar value estimation apparatus”
`
`“configured to” are not recognized as the name of a structure but merely a substitute for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`the term “means for” because the phrases are not modified by sufficient structure,
`
`material, or acts for achieving the specified function of “create the calibration model
`
`from a plurality of calibration models,
`
`set a reference spectrum by measuring a bio-
`
`spectrum of a person,
`
`calculate a difference spectrum, make a change of the
`
`calibration model", and “estimate a blood sugar value based on the measurement
`
`spectrum and the calibration model, or in response to a change in the calibration
`
`model”, and “estimate a blood sugar value based on the measurement spectrum and
`
`the changed calibration model” respectively.
`
`A consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves
`
`the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification for such
`
`means plus function. For the instant indefiniteness analysis it is asked first whether a
`
`structure is described in the specification, and, if so, whether one skilled in the art would
`
`identify the structure from the description. The inquiry is whether one of skill
`
`in the art
`
`would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that
`
`person would be capable of implementing a structure. Accordingly, a bare statement
`
`that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure. To
`
`conclude othenNise would vitiate the language of the statute requiring “corresponding
`
`structure, material, or acts described in the specification. Therefore, it is not enough to
`
`say one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would know how to implement said means plus
`
`function, but the patentee must state a specific structure, which one of ordinary skill
`
`in
`
`the art would recognize as implementing said means.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`A review of the specification does not show what applicant considers to be the
`
`corresponding structure. The closest disclosures described in the specification for the
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
`
`.
`
`.
`
`For “a calibration model creating means" paragraph [0029] of the
`published specification discloses “comprises a reference spectrum setting
`means, a measurement spectrum setting means, a difference spectrum
`calculating means, and a calibration model changing means.”
`
`For “blood sugar estimation apparatus", paragraph [0019], [0030], [0101]
`of the specification generally states “The difference spectrum calculating
`means is configured to calculate a first difference spectrum which is
`defined by a difference between the first measurement spectrum and the
`reference spectrum. The difference spectrum calculating means is
`configured to calculate a second difference spectrum which is defined by a
`difference between the second measurement spectrum and the reference
`spectrum. The difference spectrum calculating means is configured to
`calculate a variation of a difference spectrum which is defined by a
`difference between the first difference spectrum and the second difference
`spectrum. The calibration model changing means is configured to make
`the change of the calibration model for calculating on the basis of the
`variation of the difference spectrum.”
`
`Therefore, it is unclear as to how to interpret the corresponding structures as
`
`applicant does not appear to recite what is considered to be a corresponding structure
`
`or any equivalent structures thereof in light of the specification. However, the calibration
`
`model creating means will be interpreted as any type of calibration means from using
`
`equations to algorithms, etc. Similarly, the apparatus being configured "to set a
`
`reference spectrum,
`
`calculate a difference spectrum” and “make a change of the
`
`calibration model” will be broadly interpreted as any type of modeling, programming,
`
`processing that is capable of performing the broadly claimed limitations.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s
`
`interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding
`
`structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the
`
`drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
`
`If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites
`
`sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude
`
`application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for
`
`Determining Compliance with 35 U. S. C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in
`
`Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
`
`Regarding claims 1, 7, and 20 the following means/step (or configured to) plus
`
`function limitations are vague and indefinite:
`
`.
`
`“calibration model creating means configured to create the calibration
`
`model”
`
`.
`
`“ apparatus configured to "to set a reference spectrum,
`
`calculate a
`
`difference spectrum” and “make a change of the calibration model”
`
`The specification as filed does not set forth specific structures for
`
`performing the means recited. The recited “configured to” language lacks specific
`
`related structures in the specification. See MPEP § 2181 for guidance in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`determining whether an applicant has complied with the requirements of 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, when 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph states that a claim limitation expressed in means-
`
`plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding
`
`structure...described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`If one
`
`employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the
`
`specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If
`
`an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect
`
`failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the
`
`second paragraph of section 112.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29
`
`USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc).
`
`Claims 1 (and all claims dependent therefrom...7 and 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.
`
`Claims 1 (and all claims dependent therefrom) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
`
`second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and
`
`bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant. The preamble
`
`states “apparatus for non-invasively calculate a blood sugar value with time on the basis
`
`of an optical spectrum” while the method steps recite a calibration model means to
`
`create a calibration model, an apparatus configured to set a reference spectrum,
`
`calculate a difference spectrum and make a change to the calibration model. The
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`metes and bounds of claim 1
`
`is not clear because it is not clear whether the preamble
`
`reciting “apparatus for non-invasively calculate a blood sugar value with time on the
`
`basis of an optical spectrum”, or the method steps control the metes and bounds of said
`
`claim 1.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2015 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues that particular claim wording such as a calibration model cannot
`
`invoke 112 Sixth.
`
`In addition, applicant argues that the amended claim wording “using a
`
`processor” should satisfy the 112 Sixth requirements.
`
`Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. As stated in the Non-Final
`
`Office Action, the claims “use non-structural phrases “a calibration model” and “a blood
`
`sugar value estimation apparatus” with regular and generic place holding functional
`
`language of “means configured to” and “configured to” where there is no specific
`
`structure identified in the specification to correspond to the claimed regular and generic
`
`place holding functional language of “means configured to” and “configured to.” The
`
`claims fail to satisfy the 112 Sixth requirements because the phrases are not modified
`
`by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function of “create the
`
`calibration model from a plurality of calibration models,
`
`set a reference spectrum by
`
`measuring a bio-spectrum of a person,
`
`calculate a difference spectrum," and "make a
`
`change of the calibration model" respectively. When claims recite functional language
`
`without reciting sufficient structural limitations (e.g. in the instantly claimed method the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`required structural limitations are the specific algorithmic steps) or explicitly define the
`
`algorithm and its equivalents in the specification, the claims fail to satisfy the 112 Sixth
`
`requirements.
`
`The specification does not specifically define what is meant by "equivalents" to
`
`the disclosed embodiments for the purpose of the claimed means or step plus function.
`
`Therefore, the disclosure is so broad as to encompass any and all structure, material or
`
`acts for performing the claimed function, the claims must be read accordingly when
`
`determining patentability. When this happens the limitation otherwise provided by
`
`"equivalents" ceases to be a limitation on the scope of the claim in that an equivalent
`
`would be any structure, material or act other than the ones described in the specification
`
`that perform the claimed function. For example, Fig. 2 appears to be disclosing a
`
`normal desk top computer for performing the claimed function. Therefore, any prior art
`
`claiming the same capable functionality, another computer, is interpreted as being an
`
`equivalent and used as prior art ...... this situation will often be found in cases where (1)
`
`the claimed invention is a combination of elements, one or more of which are selected
`
`from elements that are old per se, or (2) apparatus claims are treated as
`
`indistinguishable from method claims. (13)
`
`No specific [computer, apparatus, system] structures for performing these means are
`disclosed. See MPEP 2181: 35 U. S. C. 112, sixth paragraph states that a claim limitation
`expressed in means-plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure...described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” “If one
`employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification
`an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to
`set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out
`and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112”
`(see In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
`(in banc)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`A consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves
`
`the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification for such
`
`means plus function. For the instant indefiniteness analysis it is asked first whether a
`
`structure is described in the specification, and, if so, whether one skilled in the art would
`
`identify the structure from the description. The inquiry is whether one of skill
`
`in the art
`
`would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that
`
`person would be capable of implementing a structure. Accordingly, a bare statement
`
`that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure nor does a
`
`general purpose computer or processor. To conclude otherwise would vitiate the
`
`language of the statute requiring “corresponding structure, material, or acts described in
`
`the specification. Therefore, it is not enough to say one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`know how to implement said means plus function or "using the processor”, but the
`
`patentee must state a specific structure, which one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would
`
`recognize as implementing said means.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101-Maintained
`
`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 20 (also being interpreted as essentially method claims
`
`implemented on a system) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
`
`invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon an analysis with respect to the
`
`claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-6 do not recite something significantly different than a
`
`judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
`
`The instant claims are directed towards a apparatus for non-invasively calculate
`
`a blood sugar value with time on the basis of an optical spectrum. According to the
`
`2014 interim Eligibility Guidance an initial two step analysis is required for determining
`
`statutory eligibility. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed
`
`to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
`
`In the instant case the
`
`Step 1 requirement is satisfied as the claims are directed towards a
`
`system/process/machine. The Step 2 analysis is a two-part analysis, Step 2A and Step
`
`28, with the first part Step 2A requiring a determination of whether the claims are
`
`directed towards ajudicial exception, Le. a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an
`
`abstract idea.
`
`In the instant case, the claims as being interpreted under 35 USC 101 state an
`
`apparatus for performing the method without any structural limitations being recited.
`
`Therefore under 35 USC 101, these claims are being interpreted essentially as method
`
`claims but being implemented on a system, i.e. computer. The recited process involves
`
`the abstract and computational steps creating a calibration model, setting a reference
`
`spectrum, calculating a difference spectrum and adjusting the calibration model. As
`
`such, the instant claims are drawn only to an abstract process that only manipulates
`
`data and, therefore, are not directed to statutory subject matter. Therefore the result of
`
`Step 2A analysis is that the claims are directed towards a judicial exception. With
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`regards to the claims being directed to a process implemented on a computer system or
`
`embedded on a computer readable medium comprising instructions for carrying out the
`
`method, it is the underlying invention that is analyzed to determine subject matter
`
`eligibility, not just the use of a computer system or computer program product.
`
`In the
`
`instant case, the claims are directed to only the manipulation of data as described
`
`above. The method steps themselves are considered to be an abstract idea because
`
`they do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, there is no specific
`
`or limitation recitation of improved computer technology, nor do they effect an
`
`improvement in any other technology or technical field.
`
`The second part, Step 28 of the two step analysis is to determine whether any
`
`element or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim as
`
`a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. No additional steps
`
`are recited in the instantly claimed invention that would amount to significantly more
`
`than the judicial exception. Without additional limitations, a process that employs
`
`mathematical algorithms te manipulate existing intei‘mation te generate additional
`
`information ie not patent eligible, Furthermere, ii a claim is; directed essentially ta a
`
`method oi calculating, tieing a mathematical fermula, even if the aelntion is let“ a Specific
`
`purpcae, the claimed method is non—statutory.
`
`in other words, patenting abstract ideas
`
`cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the uee [the idea} to a particular
`
`teehnelogicai environment. in the inetant claims, the cemputer andi'cr pregram/prcduct
`
`antcunt to mere instruction to implement an abstract idea. The hardware recited by the
`
`eyetem claims do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking “the use of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`the method to a particuiat teehneiegieai environment,’ that is, impiemehtatien via
`
`cempntere.” see Aiica Carp v. CLS Bent: int’i 573 US. {Emil}.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2015 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues that the amended recitation of “wherein the blood sugar value
`
`estimation apparatus includes an input port configured to be in communication with a
`
`measurement output member, the measurement output member configured to receive a
`
`signal from a measurement probe” causes said claims to read on statutory subject
`
`matter.
`
`Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as the amended limitation
`
`merely enables communication between the measurement devices and the processor.
`
`The claimed invention remains focused on a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea.
`
`The claimed invention is essentially a series of generically recited algorithms without an
`
`inventive application being claimed. The processor being configured to create the
`
`models and calculate the blood sugar value using the algorithms is mere instruction to
`
`implement an abstract idea or tie the abstract idea to a technological environment. No
`
`additional steps are recited in the instantly claimed invention that would amount to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception. Withbut additional limitations, a precass
`
`that empieya mathematical algci’ithme to manipulate existing intci’ihatien te generate
`
`additicnai inletmatien ie not patent eiigible. Fai'thermere, it a claim ie directed essentially
`
`ti) 3 method ei caicniating, using a matiteinaticai formuia, even if the scintien is let a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`spesiiic purpose, the eiaimed meiiied is; non—statutory.
`
`in ether wards, patenting
`
`abstract ideas cannei be circumvented by attempting is iimit the use [the idea] it) a
`
`particuiar techneiegicai environment.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/26/2015, with respect to the rejections of claims
`
`under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of
`
`applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims. Therefore the rejections have
`
`been withdrawn.
`
`No claim is allowed.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`CFR1.136(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
`extension fee 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 date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`examiner should be directed to Jason Sims, whose telephone number is (571 )-272—
`7540.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/378,448
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 1631
`
`If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s
`supervisor, Marjorie Moran can be reached via telephone (571 )-272—0720.
`
`Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by
`facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the
`Central PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform with the notices
`published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61
`(November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)).
`The Central PTO Fax Center number 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 http2/1’pair—direct.usptogov. Should
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`/Jason Sims/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631
`
`