`
`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
`
`