`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 162-5 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 14456
`
`(cid:3)
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:3)
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 162-5 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 14457
`
`Docket No. : MOC-005
`(PATENT)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`First Named Inventor:
`Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr.
`
`Application No.: 14/633,804
`
`Confirmation No.: 8573
`
`Filed : February 27, 2015
`
`Art Unit: 2646
`
`For: METHOD TO PROVIDE AD HOC AND
`PASSWORD PROTECTED DIGIT AL AND
`VOICE NETWORKS
`
`Examiner: 0. Obayanju
`
`AMENDMENT FILED WITH REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION {RCE)
`
`Mail Stop RCE
`Commissioner for Patents
`P .O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
`
`In response to the Final Office Action dated December 10, 2015, please amend the
`
`above-identified US patent application as follows :
`
`Amendments to the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims which begins on
`
`page 2 of this paper.
`
`Remarks/Arguments begin on page 8 of this paper.
`
`ACT!VE/84854759.1
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 162-5 Filed 02/13/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 14458
`
`Application No. 14/633,804
`Reply to Office Action of December 10, 2015
`
`8
`
`Docket No.: MOC--005
`
`Administrative Overview
`
`REMARKS
`
`Prior to the Office Action ofDecember 10, 2015, claims 1-2, 5, 8-14, 17, 20-24, and 31-
`
`42 were pending. In the Office Action :
`
`•
`
`claims 9, 12, 21, 24, 35, and 41 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as purportedly
`
`faili ng to comply with the written description requirement;
`
`•
`
`claims l, 2, 9, 13, 14, 21, 31, 32, 34-38, and 40-42 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 as purportedly being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0148090 ("Melen");
`
`•
`
`claims 8, 11, 20, and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as purportedly being
`
`obvious over Melen in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0047825 ("Steenstra");
`
`•
`
`claims 5, 10, 17, and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as purportedly being
`
`obvious over Melen in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,014,763 ("Hymes");
`
`•
`
`claims 12 and 24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as purportedly being obvious
`
`over Melen in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0252050 ("Tengler"); and
`
`•
`
`claims 33 and 39 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as purportedly being obvious
`
`over Melen in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0130666 ("Levy").
`
`In the present Amendment, claims 5, 10, 17, and 22 are canceled without prejudice or
`
`disclaimer. Claims 1 and 13 are amended to recite the subject matter of previously-pending
`
`claims 10 and 22, respectively, and are further amended to recite "using an Internet Protocol to
`
`send data." Claims 43 and 44 are added.
`
`No new matter is added. Support for the claim amendments can be found
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7 630 724 e.g. in col. 10:57 - col. 11 :15 col. 12:63 - col. 13:26· and col. 16:42-
`
`59). S@ ort for the new claims can be found for exam le in the ' 724 atent (e.g. in col. 4:52-
`
`65). It is noted that the '724 patent was incorporated by reference into the present application at
`
`the time of the present application's filing.
`
`Applicability of Post-AIA Provisions of the Patent Laws to the Present Application
`
`The Office Action (p. 2) states that " [t]he present application is being examined under the
`
`pre-AIA first to invent provisions" of the patent laws. For the reasons stated in the Response
`
`ACTIVE/84854759.1
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 162-5 Filed 02/13/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 14459
`
`Application No. 14/633,804
`Reply to Office Action of December 10, 2015
`
`9
`
`Docket No.: MOC--005
`
`filed on November 13, 2015, it is understood that the present application will be examined under
`
`the post-AIA, first-to-file provisions of the patent laws.
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Applicant thanks Examiner Obayanju for conducting a telephonic interview on January
`
`21 , 2016. The participants included Examiner Obayanju, Applicant's undersigned representative
`
`(Daniel J. Burns), and Applicant' s attorney (Samuel S. Stone). The interview was held pursuant
`
`to a Proposed Interview Agenda that was emailed to the Examiner on January 21, 2016. Copies
`
`of the Interview Agenda and the email message are submitted herewith. A summary of the
`
`interview is provided below.
`
`During the interview, the participants discussed the rejections of claims 1 and 32 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 as purportedly being anticipated by Melen. Applicant's representatives referred
`
`to the portions of Melen identified in the Proposed Interview Agenda, and pointed out that those
`
`portions of Melen do not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1, nor the limitations of claim
`
`32. No agreement was reached with respect to claim 1. Regarding claim 32, the Examiner agreed
`
`that the claim was not anticipated by Melen.
`
`Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`Claims 9, 12, 21, 24, 35, and 41 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as purportedly
`
`failing to comply with the written description requirement. Reconsideration is respectfully
`
`requested. Since the application describes the subject matter of each of the claims in sufficient
`
`detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventors had
`
`possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the application's filing, each of the claims
`
`satisfies the written description requirement.
`
`In particular, the Office Action alleges that there is insufficient written description
`
`support for sending "a request for a second map, wherein the request specifies a map location,"
`
`as recited in claims 9 and 21 . Sugport for the sub· ect matter of claims 9 and 21 is found for
`
`example, in U.S. Patent No. 7,630 724, which was incorporated by reference into the present
`
`application at the time of the present application's filing. For example, the ' 724 patent states that
`
`"[t]he cell phone device application software, however, can also provide the user the ability to
`
`ACTIVE/84854759.1
`
`