Serial No. 13/358,620
`Responseto Action Dated May 18, 2012
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 1516.15.RE
`Examiner Hiep V. Nguyen
`
`REMARKS
`
`1.
`
`Applicant notes claims 1-26 have been examined as claims 1-6 were found
`allowable and claims 7-26 currently stand rejected.
`
`2. Claims 7-26 stand objected to on two informalities:
`
`a. Claims 7-26 stand objected to as they are not underlined per 37 C.F.R. 1.173.
`Applicant has underlined claims 7-26.
`
`b. Claim 7 stands objectedto as its steps are not separated bya line indentation
`per 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i). Applicant has rewritten the claim in proper form.
`
`3. Claims 7-11 and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory subject
`matter. Applicant has amended the claimsto recite a computereffecting the steps of
`the claimed invention.
`
`4. Claims 7-8, 11-13, 16-18, 12-23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
`anticipated by USS. Patent No. 7,434,729 to Cracchiolo (herein Cracchiolo).
`
`5. Applicant gratefully thanks Examinerfor his time on June 28, 2012 discussing the
`teachings of Cracchiolo with undersignedin view of Applicants’ claimed invention.
`It is undersigned belief the rejection is withdrawn.
`
`6. Responsive to the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understoodthat the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respectto claim 8.
`
`7. Responsive to the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understoodthat the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 11.
`
`8. Responsive to the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understoodthat the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 12.
`
`9. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 13.
`
`10. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 16.
`
`11. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 17.
`
`12. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 18.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Serial No. 13/358,620
`Responseto Action Dated May 18, 2012
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 1516.15.RE
`Examiner Hiep V. Nguyen
`
`13. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 21.
`
`14. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 22.
`
`15. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 23.
`
`16. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo is withdrawn with respect to claim 26.
`
`17. Claims 9, 14, 19 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Cracchiolo in
`view of DiRienzo (US 6343310).
`
`18. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo in view of DiRienzo is withdrawn with respectto claim 9.
`
`19. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo in view of DiRienzo is withdrawn with respect to claim 14.
`
`20. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understoodthat the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo in view of DiRienzo is withdrawnwith respect to claim 19.
`
`21. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understoodthat the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo in view of DiRienzo is withdrawnwith respect to claim 24.
`
`22.Claims 10, 15, 20 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Cracchiolo in
`view of DiRienzo and furtherin view of LLic (US 20050122953).
`
`23. Responsive to the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understoodthat the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo in view of DiRienzo and further in view of LLic is withdrawn with
`
`respectto claim 10.
`
`24. Responsive to the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understoodthat the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo in view of DiRienzo and further in view of LLic is withdrawn with
`
`respect to claim 15.
`
`25. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understoodthat the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo in view of DiRienzo and further in view of LLic is withdrawn with
`
`respect to claim 20.
`
`

`

`Serial No. 13/358,620
`Responseto Action Dated May 18, 2012
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 1516.15.RE
`Examiner Hiep V. Nguyen
`
`26. Responsiveto the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo in view of DiRienzo and further in view of LLic is withdrawn with
`
`respect to claim 25.
`
`27. Responsive to the June 28, 2012 interview,it is understood that the rejection based
`on Cracchiolo in view of DiRienzo and further in view of LLic is withdrawn with
`
`respect to claim 10, 15, 20 and 25.
`
`28. Applicant gratefully thanks Examinerfor finding original claims 1-6 allowable.
`
`29. Applicant appreciates Examiner’s availability for further discussion.
`
`30. Applicant acknowledges the contact information for his supervisor.
`
`31. Applicant acknowledges the availability of case status information through PAIR.
`
`32. Applicant acknowledges the availability of the electronic filing system.
`
`33. Applicant acknowledges alternative submission systems.
`
`In conclusion, Applicant thanks examiner Nyuyen, MorganandSoreyfortheir time
`
`today and advancing this important case to allowance.
`
`Very respectfully,
`SMITH & HOPEN
`
`j;
`
`
`
`Anton J. Hopen
`
`By:
`
`Dated: June 28, 2012
`Reg. No. 41,849
`180 Pine Avenue North
`Oldsmar, Florida 34677
`(813) 925-8505 telephone
`(813) 925-8525 fax
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`
`