Case 6:20-cv-01131-ADA Document 57-9 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`Exhibit I
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01131-ADA Document 57-9 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 3
`2 of 3
`Case 6:20-cv-01131-ADA Document 57-9 Filed 09/20/21 Page
`
`Application/Control
`Art Unit: 2421
`
`Number: 15/404,075
`
`2
`
`Page
`
`DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`2.
`
`The information disclosure statement
`
`submitted on 5/25/2017 is
`
`in
`
`(IDS)
`
`compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR1.97 and is being considered by the
`
`examiner.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`3.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word
`
`“module” but are nonetheless not
`
`being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
`
`or
`
`pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s)
`
`recite(s) sufficient
`
`structure, materials,
`
`or acts to
`
`entirely perform
`
`the recited function. Such claim
`
`limitation(s) is/are: “stream scanner module” in system claims 2-3, 9. The claims are
`
`interpreted
`
`as the module being stored in a
`
`storage device.
`
`In this case, the module is
`
`not a
`
`generic placeholder for a structural element since the module is stored in a
`
`storage device, and a structural element cannot be stored in storage device and the
`
`term module is being used to represent only
`
`a non-structural element. The term is
`
`handled in accordance with MPEP 2161.01.
`
`Because this/these claim limitation(s)
`
`is/are not being interpreted under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f)
`
`or
`
`pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`it/they
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01131-ADA Document 57-9 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 3
`Case 6:20-cv-01131-ADA Document 57-9 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`Application/Control
`Art Unit: 2421
`
`Number: 15/404,075
`
`Page
`
`3
`
`interpreted
`
`to cover
`
`only the corresponding structure, material,
`
`or acts described in the
`
`specification
`
`as
`
`performing
`
`the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`If
`
`applicant
`
`intends 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 remove
`
`the structure, materials,
`
`or acts that
`
`performs
`
`the claimed function;
`
`or
`
`(2) present
`
`a
`
`sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure,
`
`materials,
`
`or acts to
`
`perform
`
`the claimed function.
`
`4.
`
`In claim 9, with respect to the term "WiFi", the examiner conducted a search for "
`
`"
`
`as
`
`WiFi
`
`registered marks by using the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
`
`which is available on the USPTO website to determine whether an apparent or identified
`
`mark in the patent application is a
`
`registered mark. While WiFi is a
`
`trademark, it is also
`
`being interpreted
`
`as an
`
`interoperability standard. See Ex Parte Paul Regen, Peter
`
`Garrett, & Everett Hale, Appeal 2011-005683, 2013 WL 6253158, at *1
`
`(Dec. 2, 2013)
`
`(the examiner in
`
`Regen rejected the use of the term "Bluetooth" in claim language
`
`because "the claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be
`
`used properly
`
`to
`
`identify any particular material or
`
`product." The PTAB reversed stating:
`
`"the term "Bluetooth" identifies a source of interoperability standards. MPEP 608.01
`
`states that where the use of
`
`the term which is a trade name or a mark used in
`
`commerce, has been noted in this application.
`
`It should be capitalized wherever it
`
`appears and be accompanied by the generic terminology. Although the use of trade
`
`names and marks used in commerce
`
`(i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification
`
`marks, and collective marks)
`
`are
`
`permissible
`
`in patent applications,
`
`the proprietary
`
`