Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this application is respectfully requested. Upon entry of the
`
`foregoing reply, claims 6—35 and 4l—l32 are pending in the application, with claims 6, 41, 79,
`
`and 93 being the independent claims. Support for the amendments can be found throughout
`
`the application as originally filed, including paragraphs [0012] and [0164]—[0167].
`
`Rejections under 35 US. C. § 112
`
`In the Office action, the Examiner rejected claims 6—35 and 4l—l32 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
`
`description requirement. The Examiner also rejected claims 41 and 93, and their dependents,
`
`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 inventors
`
`regard as the invention. Applicants respectfully traverse the Examiner’s rejections.
`
`Claims 6-35 and 41-132
`
`In rejecting claims 6—35 and 4l—l32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—
`
`AIA), first paragraph, the Examiner takes the position that the specification as originally filed
`
`does not provide support for specifying for each segment, information instructing the
`
`communication device how to communicate with each of the plurality of resources. While
`
`Applicant believes that the specification does provide support for this language (see, e. g.,
`
`paragraphs [0109]—[0112], [0148]—[015l], and [0164]—[0167]) in order to advance prosecution
`
`of the instant application, Applicants have amended each of independent claims to 6, 41, 79,
`
`and 93 as set forth above to more closely track the language in Applicant’s specification
`
`relating to the embodiments disclosed, for example, at paragraphs [0012] and [0164]—[0167].
`
`In view of the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw
`
`the rejection of claims 6—35 and 4l—l32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—
`
`AIA), first paragraph.
`
`Claims 41 and 93
`
`The Office rejected claims 41 and 93, and their dependents, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`
`or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA), second paragraph, “as being incomplete for omitting essential
`
`structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between
`
`625999161
`
`22
`
`

`

`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.” The Office found “[T]he
`
`omitted structural cooperative relationships are: it is unclear how any of the limitations of
`
`these claims relate to the "combination of hardware and software" that make up the structure
`
`of the system. It is also unclear how the hardware corresponds to the software since no
`
`relationship is established. The applicant's claims appear to cover generic computing
`
`technology that is intended to perform a specific use. Clearly generic computing technology,
`
`by itself, could not be patentable. The applicant is encouraged to claim each disclosed item
`
`that performs each claimed function and make it clear that these items cover hardware for
`
`performing the claimed functions.”
`
`It is not clear to Application why this rejection was issued. However, Applicant has
`
`attempted to amend the claims to resolve the issue, as best understood by Applicant. If
`
`Applicant has not resolved the issue, Applicant requests the Office to contact Application by
`
`phone to suggest language to resolve the issue.
`
`There appear to be two separate issues based on the Office’s comments: 1) the
`
`relationship of the hardware and software and 2) whether or not Applicant is claiming a
`
`generic computer with no other limitations.
`
`As to the first issue, it is well known that software is executed on hardware to perform
`
`one or more functions. For example, a processor executes instructions/software to perform
`
`one or more functions. As another example, a server is a combination of hardware and
`
`software in which the hardware executes the software to perform one or more functions. In
`
`the computer arts, it is well known that there must be a processor to execute software,
`
`particularly where the operations are so significant as in the disclosure of the present
`
`application. There is no other way such operations can be accomplished. That is what is
`
`covered by the present application and claims. Applicant believes the Office is requesting
`
`Applicant to expressly state this relationship to resolve the issues herein, which Applicant has
`
`done.
`
`As to the second issue, the Office’s statements are unclear to Applicant. The claims
`
`do not contain a generic computer divorced from patentable limitations. As indicated above,
`
`software executes on hardware to perform one or more functions, and those functions present
`
`patentable limitations, which is a routine procedure at the Office.
`
`625999161
`
`23
`
`

`

`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`If there is anything Applicant can do further on this issue, Applicant requests a call to
`
`the counsel identified below.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw
`
`the rejection of claims 41 and 93, and their dependents, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA), second paragraph.
`
`Conclusion
`
`All reasons for patentability of the independent and dependent claims have not
`
`necessarily been discussed herein. No implication or construction should be made therefore.
`
`This is intended to be a complete response to the Office action dated November 28,
`
`2017.
`
`Applicants have no further remarks with regard to any references cited by the
`
`Examiner and made of record, whether or not acted upon by the Examiner in the action’s
`
`rejections, even if specifically identified in the action or any other paper or written or verbal
`
`communication. No implication or construction should be drawn about any review of the
`
`same by Applicants or Applicants’ attorney.
`
`Applicants’ attorney welcomes the opportunity to discuss the case with the Examiner
`
`in the event that there are any questions or comments regarding the response or the
`
`application.
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees that may be required or
`
`credit any overpayment to Deposit Account 50—1662, referencing the docket number above.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`POLSINELLI PC
`
`/James M. Sti ek/
`
`James M. Stipek, Reg. No. 39,388
`900 w. 48‘h Place, Suite 900
`Kansas City, MO 64112
`Tel: (816) 360-4191
`
`Fax: (816) 753-1536
`
`Attorney for Applicants
`
`625999161
`
`24
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket