Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
Claims 1-5 and 8-15 are presented for examination based on the amendment filed 09/14/2025. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are amended. Claim 15 is newly added.
The 35 USC 101 rejections have been withdrawn in view of amendments presented by the applicant. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections are maintained since the claims still state indefiniteness in a plurality of limitations, as also provided with examples in the previous Office Action. Some amendments were made. However, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections were not overcome.
The 35 USC 102 rejections have been withdrawn in view of amendments presented by the applicant. A new ground of rejections is made using a secondary prior art, resulting in 35 USC 103 rejections as seen below.
The 35 USC 103 rejections are therefore modified using the additional secondary prior art, addressing the amended claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-15 rejected 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 reads “A method of useful for digitizing and controlling a physical infrastructure asset a physical of assets comprising:”
The term “of useful” is indefinite. Also, it is not clear what is meant by “a physical infrastructure asset a physical of assets”. For examination purpose, Examiner is interpreting this to be “a physical infrastructure asset”.
Claim 1 further reads “generating a logical model of the infrastructure of assets, wherein the logical model comprises of connections between elements in the physical model or a connection between an element in the physical model to an element in the logical model or connections between two logical elements;”
For examination purpose, Examiner is interpreting this as “generating a logical model of the infrastructure of assets, wherein the logical model comprises [of] connections between elements in the physical model or a connection between an element in the physical model to an element in the logical model or connections between two logical elements;”
Correction is therefore required.
Claim 14 needs to be similarly amended.
Claim 2 states “the physical of assets” which is unclear as to the meaning. Examiner is interpreting it as “the physical assets”. Correction is required.
Claim 8 states “wherein the attached data comprises a data types comprises a set of time series data, a processing information, a digitized version an agreement, a digitized component of a data sheet, a digitized warranty documents, a digitized legal document.” The term “the attached data comprises a data types comprises” is indefinite. Also, for the remaining terms separated by “,”, it is not clear whether these terms should all be used with an “and” or with an “or” in front of the last term. Examiner found prior art to teach all of these, and therefore, interpreted the claim as having all of the terms. However, as the claim reads, it could be interpreted as having one of these terms. Correction is required.
Claim 12 states “the physical of assets”. It is not clear what is meant by this term. Examiner is interpreting this as “the physical assets”. Correction is required.
Claims 2-13 do not resolve the issues of claim 1 and are thus are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on the rejected independent claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the plant including PV tables”. It is unclear what PV tables are referring to. For examination purpose, Examiner is interpreting the PV tables as photo voltaic efficiency table, in view of the applicant’s specification. Correction is required to clarify the term in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, and 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettinger et al. US 11216663 (Ettinger) in view of Schultz et al. US 20180053054 (Schultz) in further view of Thompson et al., US 2009/0320827 Al (Thompson)
Claim 1.
A method of useful for digitizing and controlling a physical infrastructure asset a physical of assets comprising: (Ettinger [Section 2 Lines 23-25] “Moreover, the ability to capture and store data can also generate a more durable record of the cellular tower to allow review, analysis, and improvements 25 to be provided for relevant aspects of the cellular tower ( e.g., installation, performance/function, inspection, etc.))
with a processor of a mobile device, (Ettinger [Section 62 Lines 33-35] “which includes at least one processor circuit”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Discussing the processor of a UAV (mobile device)}
obtaining a set of information from an infrastructure of assets; (Ettinger [Field of disclosure] “(e.g., 2D and 3D information obtained from or derived from sensors) for objects, components, or features of interest in a scene.”)
from the set of information, generating a physical model of the infrastructure of assets, wherein the physical model comprises a set of the vectors representing each of the individual physical elements within each asset; (Ettinger [29 Lines 35-38] “ at a location on a base viewport presented on his display that is a 3D rendering of the object, feature, scene, or location of interest, a first set of one or more 2D images associated with a user intent inferred from the scene camera navigation and positioning can be identified and concurrently displayed to the user in real time.” [Section 29 Lines 49-55] “By way of explanation, the inference of user intent can be represented as a multi-objective optimization problem which intends to determine a vector of design variables x that are within the feasible region to optimize a vector of objective functions and can be mathematically illustrated”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Describing an exemplary implementation of the disclosure which is a physical model comprising vectors}
generating a logical model of the infrastructure of assets, wherein the logical model comprises of connections between elements in the physical model or a connection between an element in the physical model to an element in the logical model or connections between two logical elements; mapping each element of the logical model to at least one element of the physical model; acquiring and attaching data from a physical element to a corresponding element of the logical mode; (Ettinger [Section 10 Lines 8-11] “A "digital twin" is a virtual representation of a physical object or system across its life cycle. In the context of the present disclosure, a digital twin is digital duplicate of one or a collection of physical assets of interest in a scene or a location.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: A digital twin is a logical model its data is mapped from the physical model}
creating a workflow and associating the workflow with least one element of the physical model or the logical model; (Ettinger [Section 29 Lines 16-19] “A workflow can be generated that is associated with the user activity expressly identified by the user, and the attendant sensor data viewport.”)
providing an infrastructure-asset information with a map-based interface, wherein the infrastructure-asset information comprises information about each asset of the infrastructure of assets; (Ettinger [Section 50 lines 59-65] “Yet further, the systems and methods herein simplify the 60 workflow for accepting input data from a user via a common application-design pattern such as "wizards," "assistants" and/or "forms." As non-limiting examples, a wizard, assistant, or form interface can be used to accept input information from a user for the object, feature, scene, or location of 65 interest such cell tower metrics)
and creating a set of views, wherein the set of views is combined with any data associated with a relevant element of the physical model or logical model, and wherein the set of views is viewable via a computerized dashboard application. (Ettinger [29 Lines 35-38] “ at a location on a base viewport presented on his display that is a 3D rendering of the object, feature, scene, or location of 35 interest, a first set of one or more 2D images associated with a user intent inferred from the scene camera navigation and positioning can be identified and concurrently displayed to the user in real time.”){EXAMINERS NOTE: Discussing views of a location where relevant data is viewable through some kind of device.}
wherein the logical model further comprises a sub-component level. (Ettinger col 53 Lines 24-27) “This allows simultaneously extracting geometry, topology, and semantics for an object, component, or feature of interest or a collection of objects, components, or features of interest from the scene data.”
Ettinger does not explicitly teach, but Schultz teaches are used to generate a hyperlink to the object, (Schultz 0021) “Such mechanism may be implemented with computer executable code executed by one or more processors, for example, with a button, a hyperlink, an icon, a clickable symbol, and/or combinations thereof”
Ettinger and Schultz analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing sensor data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ettinger and Schultz before him or her, to modify the inspection methods of Ettinger with the hyperlink of Schultz to more quickly access information of an object of interest. As suggested in 0021 of Schultz.
Ettinger and Schultz do not explicitly teach, but Thompson teaches controlling an actuator associated with at least one element of the physical model by transmitting control signals determined from the logical model, wherein the control signals are obtained by a system controller querying an irradiance optimizer and transmitting optimized tracker angles to the corresponding actuators wherein the specific set of properties (Thompson 0039) “The processor is programmed to calculate the precise location of the sun relative to the array, and then to control the motors based on local data, either input by an operator or by a GPS sensor connected to the processor to place the array panels in an optimal angle of incidence in relation to the sun's rays.”
Ettinger, Schultz, and Thompson analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing sensor data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ettinger, Schultz, and Thompson before him or her, to modify the inspection methods of Ettinger with the hyperlink of Schultz and the irradiance optimization of Thompson “to achieve the optimal positioning.” (0002)
Claim 2.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the physical of assets comprises a photo-voltaic installation. (Ettinger Section 8 [Lines 57-60] “and poles, transformers, power lines, power poles, insulators, switches, arrestors, generators, solar panels/components mounted on roofs, wind turbines”)
Claim 3.
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein each element comprises a specific set of properties. (Ettinger [Section 30 Lines 13-16] “processing steps can then be configured to derive intrinsic, extrinsic, visual, etc. properties of each and every image from an available 2D image set in order to identify a single image or a sorted list of 2D images”)
Claim 4.
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the specific set of properties comprises an element location value. (Ettinger [Section 12 Lines 11-24] “acquired sensor data can be generated from a scene or location associated with baseline ( or "a priori") information. Such library of information may exist for the scene or location from the point of design or installation as baseline information. In this example, the design and installation specifications for a building (e.g., commercial roof area including equipment, electrical, plumbing etc.) or infrastructure elements ( e.g., cellular towers, power lines, pipelines, oil storage tanks, etc.) can be incorporated into the library of information for use to determine the presence or absence of those same objects in sensor data acquired in a subsequent sensor data acquisition event for that same location.”)
Claim 5.
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the specific set of properties comprises a title of the element and list of subcomponents of the element. (Ettinger [Section 6 Lines 33-38] “It would further be desirable to be able to automatically analyze previously captured image or sensor data for one or more objects of interest in a scene or location to generate useful information relevant thereto.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Describing generating automated predictions associated with condition, maintenance needs, and lifecycle analysis for facilities and infrastructure, or componentry associated therewith. Under BRI it would be obvious to include the name of element along with its descriptors.}
Claim 9.
The computerized method of claim 1 further comprising: creating a digital conversation functionality connected to each work element. (Ettinger [Section 45 Lines 35-38] “In a further implementation, instructions can be provided to direct a subsequent in-person inspections for the location of interest and any objects therein.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: The instructions described here under BRI is a digital conversation.}
Claim 10.
The computerized method of claim 1 further comprising: connecting a sensor and performance monitoring systems in the installation of assets; and integrating a sensor and a performance data from the sensor and performance monitoring systems into the infrastructure-asset information with a map-based interface. (Ettinger [Abstract] “The improved display of information to a user for visualization and information generation therefrom provides significant benefits over prior art display methodologies and exhibits notable utility for user activities such as, inspection, condition assessment, performance assessment, insurance applications, construction, inventorying, building information modeling, asset management and the like. Information derivable from the methodologies herein can be used for machine learning libraries and digital twin processes.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: This is inherently describing a sensor for performance assessments.}
Claim 12.
The computerized method of claim 1 further comprising: using a set of one or more 3D models of a portion of the physical of assets to determine an optimum tracker angle. (Ettinger [Section 39-40 Lines 56-1] “In general, this can be referred to as an "intelligent and interactive recommendation engine" …. The "best outcome" could refer to the solution with the …. highest accuracy and recall in predictions, minimum number of user input data, minimum occlusion, or optimum geometry, topology, and semantics.”)
Claim 13.
The computerized method of claim 1 further comprising: providing an automated method to traverse the logical and physical model to find related elements and associate actions with related elements based on an action related to one or more elements in the model (Ettinger [Section 25 Lines 3-7] “In a further implementation, the system can dynamically generate a user display based on the positioning of the scene camera to provide the user with the ability to virtually travel through and among the 3D rendering irrespective of whether sensor data exists for the positioning of the scene camera at the selected areas.”)
Claim 14.
A computerized system useful for digitizing and controlling a physical of asset, comprising: (Ettinger Section 11 [23-25] “In various implementations, the present disclosure provides systems and methods to process sensor data acquired from a scene or location of interest
at least one processor configured to execute instructions; (Ettinger Section 62 Lines 33-35] “which includes at least one processor circuit”)
a memory containing instructions when executed on the processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations that: Ettinger [Section 62 Lines 33-34] “which includes at least one processor circuit, for example, having a processor 1606 and a memory 1609”)
obtaining a set of information from an infrastructure of assets; (Ettinger [Field of disclosure] “(e.g., 2D and 3D information obtained from or derived from sensors) for objects, components, or features of interest in a scene.”)
from the set of information, generating a physical model of the infrastructure of assets, wherein the physical model comprises a set of the vectors representing each of the individual physical elements within each asset; (Ettinger [29 Lines 35-38] “ at a location on a base viewport presented on his display that is a 3D rendering of the object, feature, scene, or location of interest, a first set of one or more 2D images associated with a user intent inferred from the scene camera navigation and positioning can be identified and concurrently displayed to the user in real time.” and [Section 29 Lines 49-55] “By way of explanation, the inference of user intent can be represented as a multi-objective optimization problem which intends to determine a vector of design variables x that are within the feasible region to optimize a vector of objective functions and can be mathematically illustrated”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Describing an exemplary implementation of the disclosure which is a physical model comprising vectors}
generating a logical model of the infrastructure of assets, wherein the logical model comprises of connections between elements in the physical model or a connection between an element in the physical model to an element in the logical model or connections between two logical elements; mapping each element of the logical model to at least one element of the physical model; acquiring and attaching data to an element of the logical model to an element of the physical model; (Ettinger [Section 10 Lines 8-11] “A "digital twin" is a virtual representation of a physical object or system across its life cycle. In the context of the present disclosure, a digital twin is digital duplicate of one or a collection of physical assets of interest in a scene or a location.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: A digital twin is a logical model its data is mapped from the physical model}
creating a workflow and associating the workflow at least one element of the physical model or the logical model; (Ettinger [Section 29 Lines 16-19] “A workflow can be generated that is associated with the user activity expressly identified by the user, and the attendant sensor data viewport.”)
providing an infrastructure-asset information with a map-based interface, wherein the infrastructure-asset information comprises information about each asset of the infrastructure of assets; (Ettinger [Section 50 lines 59-65] “Yet further, the systems and methods herein simplify the 60 workflow for accepting input data from a user via a common application-design pattern such as "wizards," "assistants" and/or "forms." As non-limiting examples, a wizard, assistant, or form interface can be used to accept input information from a user for the object, feature, scene, or location of 65 interest such cell tower metrics)
and creating a set of views, wherein the set of views is combined with any data associated with a relevant element of the physical model or logical model, and wherein the set of views is viewable via a computerized dashboard application. (Ettinger [29 Lines 35-38] “ at a location on a base viewport presented on his display that is a 3D rendering of the object, feature, scene, or location of 35 interest, a first set of one or more 2D images associated with a user intent inferred from the scene camera navigation and positioning can be identified and concurrently displayed to the user in real time.”){EXAMINERS NOTE: Discussing views of a location where relevant data is viewable through some kind of device.}
wherein the logical model further comprises a sub-component level. (Ettinger col 53 Lines 24-27) “This allows simultaneously extracting geometry, topology, and semantics for an object, component, or feature of interest or a collection of objects, components, or features of interest from the scene data.”
Ettinger does not explicitly teach, but Schultz teaches are used to generate a hyperlink to the object, (Schultz 0021) “Such mechanism may be implemented with computer executable code executed by one or more processors, for example, with a button, a hyperlink, an icon, a clickable symbol, and/or combinations thereof”
Ettinger and Schultz analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing sensor data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ettinger and Schultz before him or her, to modify the inspection methods of Ettinger with the hyperlink of Schultz to more quickly access information of an object of interest. As suggested in 0021 of Schultz.
Ettinger and Schultz do not explicitly teach, but Thompson teaches controlling an actuator associated with at least one element of the physical model by transmitting control signals determined from the logical model, wherein the control signals are obtained by a system controller querying an irradiance optimizer and transmitting optimized tracker angles to the corresponding actuators wherein the specific set of properties (Thompson 0039) “The processor is programmed to calculate the precise location of the sun relative to the array, and then to control the motors based on local data, either input by an operator or by a GPS sensor connected to the processor to place the array panels in an optimal angle of incidence in relation to the sun's rays.”
Ettinger, Schultz, and Thompson analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing sensor data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ettinger, Schultz, and Thompson before him or her, to modify the inspection methods of Ettinger with the hyperlink of Schultz and the irradiance optimization of Thompson “to achieve the optimal positioning.” (0002)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettinger et al. US 11216663 (Ettinger) in view of Schultz et al. US 20180053054 (Schultz) in further view of Thompson et al., US 2009/0320827 Al (Thompson)
in further view of Blackburn et al. US 20210004813 (Blackburn).
Claim 8.
Modified Ettinger teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the attached data comprises a data types comprises a set of time series data, a processing information(Ettinger [Section 58 Lines 34-36] “To monitor such changes, the object of interest-here a commercial roof and/or the components or equipment thereon can be imaged in a time series to updating of its condition profile to identify the changes as a function of time.”)
Modified Ettinger does not explicitly teach but Blackburn teaches a digitized version an agreement, (Blackburn [0074] “converting the physical document into a digital representation and storing the digital representation on the computer readable medium or the distributed ledger”)
Blackburn also teaches a digitized warranty documents, a digitized legal document. (Blackburn [Abstract] “creating a warranty record including the set of warranty requirements,”)
Ettinger, Schultz, Thompson, and Blackburn are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing sensor data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ettinger, Schultz, Thompson, and Blackburn before him or her, to modify the inspection methods of Ettinger with the hyperlink of Schultz and the irradiance optimization of Thompson with the warranty records of Blackburn to have records tied into the digital data.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettinger et al. US 11216663 (Ettinger) in view of Schultz et al. US 20180053054 (Schultz) in further view of Thompson et al., US 2009/0320827 Al (Thompson) in view of Rosca et al., US 20240404203 (Rosca).
Claim 11.
Modified Ettinger with Schultz teaches The computerized method of claim 1 further comprising: implementing an altitude extractor by: obtaining a set of extreme points of a table; (Schultz [0088] “The flying altitude for the Flight Path would be determined by adding the vertical offset V OFFSET distance to the height of the Target Path and then adding that to the ground elevation for the starting point of the flight path. So in the example of the 28' house, the flight altitude would be the sum of the 14' Target Path height over ground, the 66.8' vertical offset V OFFSET for the desired resolution, and the base elevation at the start, which for this example will be 280' above ellipsoid. Thus, the resulting flight height would be 360.8' above ellipsoid.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Both methods determine altitude}
Modified Ettinger with Schultz does not explicitly teach but Rosca teaches fetching a set of altitudes at the set of extreme points from a Digital surface model (DSM); and extending the set of extreme points by a specified distance, wherein the specified distance comprises a parameter defined by a user so as to make the set of extreme points be on an exact edge of the table. (Rosca [0026] “[0026] For the global planner, the geometry of the low resolution 3D mesh is processed using a passthrough filter to generate a set of rough perimeters stacked across several altitudes of the target object. Applying curve fitting, a stack of cross section curves is generated based on the rough perimeters. Next, each cross section curve is expanded to provide a safety margin for the camera drone. For example, an algorithm may add a fixed marginal distance to the stacked perimeters that permits high resolution image capture while keeping a safe distance from the target object (e.g., 1-5 meters). In an embodiment, a second low resolution 3D mesh is generated by adding the marginal distance onto the first low resolution 3D mesh. The expanded curves or mesh represent boundaries for camera drone orbit of the target object, from which virtual waypoints surrounding the target object for a global route are generated.”)
Ettinger, Schultz, Thompson, and Rosca analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of processing sensor data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ettinger, Schultz, Thompson, and Rosca before him or her, to modify the inspection methods of Ettinger with the hyperlink of Schultz and the irradiance optimization of Thompson with the altitude adjustments of Rosca to more efficiently plan UAV routes.
Claim 15 is directed to a different inventive method stated as, “A computer-implemented method for commissioning and optimizing a tracker-based photovoltaic (PV) plant, the plant including PV tables, tracker actuators, and tracker controllers exposing logical control nodes, the method comprising: commanding, by a controller, a plurality of the logical control nodes to set respective connected trackers to different angles; acquiring, by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) equipped with a camera, overlapping images of at least one row of the PV plant while the trackers remain at the different commanded angles; generating, from the images, an orthomosaic and a digital surface model (DSM) of the row; using the orthomosaic and the DSM to determine tilt angles of the trackers; mapping, based on the determined tilt angles, each logical control node to a corresponding physical tracker; generating a three-dimensional model of the PV plant using the orthomosaic and the DSM; estimating bifacial irradiance on the PV tables using an albedo model and a plant geometry; optimizing tracker angles using an irradiance optimizer to increase energy yield; querying, by a system controller, the irradiance optimizer to obtain optimized tracker angles for each tracker and transmitting the obtained tracker angles to the corresponding tracker actuators in the PV plant to set the tracker angles; actuating the tracker actuators in response to the transmitted optimized tracker angles to physically set the orientation of the trackers.” The method claim 15 does not correspond to the previously presented method claim 1.
Newly submitted claim 15 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 1 is directed to “a method for digitizing and controlling a physical infrastructure asset” with details of the steps addressing the same. On the other hand, claim 15 is directed to “a method for commissioning and optimizing a tracker-based photovoltaic plant” with details of steps unrelated to the claim 1 steps.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DAVID HAGLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am- 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 5712723676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN DAVID HAGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189