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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 1/5/2026. Claims 1 and 18-19 have been amended. Claims 2-3 have been previously canceled. Claims 20-21 has been added. Claims 1, 4-21 are pending in the case.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “determining a suggested mating between a plurality of the first component surfaces” where “a plurality of the first component surfaces” should be “the plurality of the first component surfaces”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-21 have been considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that 1) Wildgrube does not disclose “identifying a second component” limitation; 2) Wildgrube does not disclose the amended limitation; 3) Beri does not supply the limitations missing from Wildgrube and Beri does not teach CAD system and Wildgrube is not related to computer aided drafting and therefore there is no need to compare surfaces.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues the because Wildgrube specifies a drop location for the dragged bearing to match a component to mate, therefore Wildgrube is not relevant to “identifying a second component”. Here, page 3 of Wildgrube, “the user can create assembly specifications by simply dragging and dropping parts in a graphical user interface. Parts that provide compatible connection types are highlighted and snap into the correct position and orientation as soon as they are dragged close to a target area.” And further page 6 of Wildgrube, “The highlighting of potential locations on the target part is then based on the union of compatible variants of the bearings’ Semantic Mates. When the bearing is dropped onto a specific Semantic Mate location on the target part, the matching variant is automatically identified (Fig. 10) and added to the assembly specification” hence, the second component is identified within a mate location from the first component in order to automatically mate.
Applicant argues that Wildgrube discloses a semantic mate involves pre-defining universal connection points and therefore Wildgrube does not disclose “identifying a plurality of first component surfaces and a plurality of second component surfaces.” Even though Wildgrube discloses that a plurality of first components surfaces and a plurality of second component surfaces can be “pre-defined”, but that does not mean the first and second component surfaces are not “identified” as claimed. Even the ”pre-defined” matable components can be “identified” and “determined”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Even though Beri does not specifically disclose a CAD system, but Wildgrube discloses a CAD system and Beri is used to teach the user pause limitation. The combination of both references disclosed the cited limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 15-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Semantic Mates: Intuitive Geometric Constraints for Efficient Assembly Specifications”, Wildgrube et al, 2019 in view of Beri et al (US 20210333960 A1).
Referring to claims 1, 18 and 19, Wildgrube discloses a computer based method comprising:
detecting a first user drag of a first component for a modeled assembly in a computer-aided design (CAD) application from a first location on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the CAD application to a second location on the GUI of the CAD application, wherein the second location on the GUI is different than the first location on the GUI; (as shown in Fig. 1, page 2 of Wildgrube, “In particular, SolidWorks offers interesting features regarding the intuitive specification of geometric constraints. Its smart mates offer built-in drag-and-drop snapping of single faces or edges of two parts based on matching their geometric parameters” and page 3 of Wildgrube, “the user can create assembly specifications by simply dragging and dropping parts in a graphical user interface. Parts that provide compatible connection types are highlighted and snap into the correct position and orientation as soon as they are dragged close to a target area.” Here, the user can drag and drop a first component from one location on GUI to a second location on GUI)
identifying a second component for the modeled assembly within a predetermined proximity of the second location on the GUI; (page 3 of Wildgrube, “the user can create assembly specifications by simply dragging and dropping parts in a graphical user interface. Parts that provide compatible connection types are highlighted and snap into the correct position and orientation as soon as they are dragged close to a target area.” And further page 6 of Wildgrube, “The highlighting of potential locations on the target part is then based on the union of compatible variants of the bearings’ Semantic Mates. When the bearing is dropped onto a specific Semantic Mate location on the target part, the matching variant is automatically identified (Fig. 10) and added to the assembly specification” hence, the second component is identified within a mate location from the first component in order to automatically mate)
identifying a plurality of first component surfaces and a plurality of second component surfaces; (page 2 of Wildgrube, “SolidWorks offers interesting features regarding the intuitive specification of geometric constraints. Its smart mates offer built-in drag-and-drop snapping of single faces or edges of two parts based on matching their geometric parameters. Magnetic mates let the user define universal connection points for a part that can snap to connection points defined in another part. As these connection points do not have types, there is no way to add any further meaning to them. With mate references, SolidWorks offers a way to encode custom connection types for parts, which are then used to snap them together in an assembly. Mate references need to be preconfigured on single parts by giving each mate reference a name and specifying up to three related geometric entities (i.e., vertices, edges, or faces) of the part. For each entity, a constraint type and its alignment are defined” hence there are multiple surfaces of the first and second components identified); and
comparing the plurality of first component surfaces with the plurality of second component surfaces; (page 5 of Wildgrube, “As soon as the user drags a part from the part library in the GUI (Fig. 6), the SPARQL query from Fig. 7 is used to obtain the information on all provided Semantic Mates of that part, i.e., all SemanticMate individuals that are referenced from its semantic object model. For each of its SemanticMates all associated geometric entities are retrieved from the knowledge base using the SPARQL query from Fig. 8. The OWL object properties bound to the ?role and ?constraint variables serve as identifiers for the role of referenced geometries within a connection type. The OWL class bound to variable ?ctype represents the type of constraint the linked geometry shall be used for. The corresponding geometries of identified Semantic Mates are then highlighted, in order to inform the user that Semantic Mates are available for the part currently being dragged. All objects that have already been placed in the virtual assembly area are checked for matching Semantic Mates, i.e., SemanticMate individuals of the same type and with a compatible gender. Relevant subgeometries of these parts are highlighted as well, as can be seen in Fig. 6. Thus, the user is presented with potential target poses for the new part. Once the part is dragged close to a potential target pose, it will snap into place” here, different variables associated with the parts are compared with in order to find a good mate)
determining a suggested mating between a plurality of the first component surfaces and a corresponding plurality of the second component surfaces; (as shown in Fig. 1 and pages 4 and 5 of Wildgrude, “When two Semantic Mates are connected in the GUI, a BallBearingMatesLink individual is created and all relevant constraints between the respective faces are established.” And page 5 of Wildgrude, “The OWL class bound to variable ?ctype represents the type of constraint the linked geometry shall be used for. The corresponding geometries of identified Semantic Mates are then highlighted, in order to inform the user that Semantic Mates are available for the part currently being dragged. All objects that have already been placed in the virtual assembly area are checked for matching Semantic Mates, i.e., SemanticMate individuals of the same type and with a compatible gender.” Hence when evaluating mating a plurality of “faces” are compared and matched, faces being certain component surfaces) and
graphically presenting the suggested mating on the GUI in a context of the modeled assembly. (Fig. 6 and pages 4 and 5 of Wildgrude, graphically display suggested mate-able surfaces with components)
Wildgrude does not specifically disclose “detecting a user pause of the first user drag of the first component” of the modeled assembly from the first location on the GUI of the CAD application to the second location on the GUI of the CAD application (see citation above in Wildgrude) “for a predetermined interval at the second location on the GUI” and “upon detecting the user pause…” identifying a second component.
However, Beri discloses “detecting a user pause of the first user drag of the first component”… “for a predetermined interval at the second location on the GUI” and “upon detecting the user pause” identify another components. ([0047] of Beri, where the user pauses during a drag operation and that pause in dragging gesture in an indication of intent to interact/mating the dragged object and a recipient object)
Wildgrude and Beri are analogous art because both references concern using computer aid to mating components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wildgrude’s auto detect mate-able components with user pause to see if components can be interacted as taught by Beri. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user the freedom to drag towards and drag away to see any recommendations on component mating.
Regarding to claim 4, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1, wherein graphically representing the suggested mating further comprises the step of graphically representing the first component paired with the second component. (page 4 of Wildgrude, “When two Semantic Mates are connected in the GUI, a BallBearingMatesLink individual is created and all relevant constraints between the respective faces are established.” And page 5 of Wildgrude, “The OWL class bound to variable ?ctype represents the type of constraint the linked geometry shall be used for. The corresponding geometries of identified Semantic Mates are then highlighted, in order to inform the user that Semantic Mates are available for the part currently being dragged. All objects that have already been placed in the virtual assembly area are checked for matching Semantic Mates, i.e., SemanticMate individuals of the same type and with a compatible gender.” Hence when evaluating mating a plurality of “faces” are compared and matched, faces being certain component surfaces. And Figs 1-6 and pages 4 and 5 of Wildgrude, graphically display suggested mate-able surfaces with components)
Regarding to claim 5, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: detecting a release by the user of the first component; and presenting a mate confirmation user interface object. (Figs. 1-3 and page 3 of Wildgrude, “the user can create assembly specifications by simply dragging and dropping parts in a graphical user interface. Parts that provide compatible connection types are highlighted and snap into the correct position and orientation as soon as they are dragged close to a target area.” Hence, the user has released the first dragged component and the highlighted areas are the confirmation of mated components)
Referring to claim 15, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second component surfaces are within the predetermined proximity of the second location on the GUI. (page 6 of Wildgrube, “The highlighting of potential locations on the target part is then based on the union of compatible variants of the bearings’ Semantic Mates. When the bearing is dropped onto a specific Semantic Mate location on the target part, the matching variant is automatically identified (Fig. 10) and added to the assembly specification” hence, the second component is identified within a mate location from the first component in order to automatically mate)
Referring to claim 16, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1, wherein graphically presenting the suggested mating on the GUI in a context of the modeled assembly comprises: snapping a depiction of the first component to a position associated with the second component to represent the suggested mating. (page 2 of Wildgrube, “SolidWorks offers interesting features regarding the intuitive specification of geometric constraints. Its smart mates offer built-in drag-and-drop snapping of single faces or edges of two parts based on matching their geometric parameters. Magnetic mates let the user define universal connection points for a part that can snap to connection points defined in another part. As these connection points do not have types, there is no way to add any further meaning to them. With mate references, SolidWorks offers a way to encode custom connection types for parts, which are then used to snap them together in an assembly. Mate references need to be preconfigured on single parts by giving each mate reference a name and specifying up to three related geometric entities (i.e., vertices, edges, or faces) of the part. For each entity, a constraint type and its alignment are defined” hence there are multiple surfaces of the first and second components identified)
Referring to claim 20, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the suggested mating pairing comprises a concentric constraint. (as shown in Fig. 2 and page 3 of Wildgrude, concentric constraint)
Referring to claim 21, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the suggested mating pairing comprises a coincident constraint. (as shown in Fig. 2 and page 3 of Wildgrude, coincident constraint)
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Semantic Mates: Intuitive Geometric Constraints for Efficient Assembly Specifications”, Wildgrube et al, 2019 in view of Beri et al (US 20210333960 A1) and in further view of Leedom et al (US 10311169 B1).
Regarding to claim 6, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1. Wildgrude and Beri do not specifically disclose “further comprising the steps of: detecting a second drag by the user of the first component; and removing the graphical presentation of the suggested mating.”
However, Leedom discloses detecting a second drag by the user of the first component; and removing the graphical presentation of the suggested mating (col. 6, lines 41-55 of Leedom, “The snap tolerance system 117 may implement various edge behaviors discussed herein. For example, when dragging an edge, if the input device gets within snap tolerance region to any edge, then the edge may be highlighted and the edge will snap onto a surface or another edge. As long as the input device remains within the snap tolerance region of an edge, the edge will stay along the curve of the surface while following the movement of the input device. If the input device is moved away from the snap tolerance region of the edge, then the dragged edge snap back to the input device position. Once an edge is snapped to another edge or surface, and the edge is dragged near another edge or surface, but the edge is still within the snap tolerance region of the current edge, the edge will stay snapped to the currently snapped edge.”)
Wildgrude and Beri and Leedom are analogous art because both references concern using computer aid to mating components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wildgrude and Beri’s user drag and drop components to be mated with remove suggestion when user moves component away as taught by Leedom. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user the freedom to drag towards and drag away to see any recommendations on component mating.
Regarding to claim 7, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1. Wildgrude and Beri do not specifically disclose “further comprising the step of restricting a degree of freedom of a plurality of degrees of freedom of the first component.”
However, Leedom discloses restricting a degree of freedom of a plurality of degrees of freedom of the first component (col. 5, line 51-col. 6, line 13 of Leedom, “T The snap tolerance system 117 may establish the range of the snap tolerances for each vertex, edge, object or groups of objects in the model. The snap tolerance for any object may be a region of drawing space that surrounds each object. For example, the snap tolerance region of an edge may be a square region surrounding and encompassing the edge. The snap tolerance region for an edge may be a rectangle surrounding and encompassing the edge. The snap tolerance region for a surface may be a region surrounding the surface and shaped similar to the surface. In one implementation, the snap tolerance region is a predefined distance away from the shape of the object. In one implementation, the snap tolerance system 117 may detect that the user is moving a vertex, edge or object in the snap tolerance region of another vertex, edge or object. Upon detecting that a vertex, edge, surface or object is within the snap tolerance of another vertex, edge, surface or object, the snap tolerance system 117 may generate a constraint such that the object within the snap tolerance is automatically moved, without any further input from the user, to the other vertex, edge or object. For example, if a first edge enters the snap tolerance region of a second edge, then the snap tolerance system 117 moves the first edge to be on top of the same location as the second edge. In this example, the user may not want to snap the first edge on top of the second edge and the user may move the first edge away from the second edge to unsnap the two edges.”)
Wildgrude and Beri and Leedom are analogous art because both references concern using computer aid to mating components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wildgrude and Beri’s user drag and drop components to be mated with remove suggestion when user moves component away as taught by Leedom. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user the freedom to drag towards and drag away to see any recommendations on component mating.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Semantic Mates: Intuitive Geometric Constraints for Efficient Assembly Specifications”, Wildgrube et al, 2019 in view of Beri et al (US 20210333960 A1) and in further view of Hare et al (US 11030813 B2).
Regarding to claim 8, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1. Wildgrude and Beri do not specifically disclose “wherein the predetermined interval is at least 500 ms.”
However, Hare discloses predetermined interval is at least 500 ms (col. 21, line 62 – col. 22, line 34 of Hare, dragging time is within a threshold of 0.5 second/500ms).
Wildgrude and Beri and Hare are analogous art because both references concern using computer aid to mating components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wildgrude and Beri’s user drag and drop components to be mated with threshold time for dragging as taught by Hare. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user change way of input with a limited threshold period of time to prevent wrong input by the user right away without time to change minds.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Semantic Mates: Intuitive Geometric Constraints for Efficient Assembly Specifications”, Wildgrube et al, 2019 in view of Beri et al (US 20210333960 A1) and in further view of Zuffante et al (US 6219049 B1).
Regarding to claim 9, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1. Wildgrude and Beri do not specifically disclose “further comprising the step of creating a first list of mateable pairs, wherein each mateable pair comprises a surface of the first component paired with a surface of the second component.”
However, Zuffante discloses creating a first list of mateable pairs, wherein each mateable pair comprises a surface of the first component paired with a surface of the second component (Fig. 31 and col. 20 and lines 1-14 of Zuffante, a list of components that can be mated together in different mating scenarios)
Wildgrude and Beri and Zuffante are analogous art because both references concern using computer aid to mating components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wildgrude and Beri’s user drag and drop components to be mated with having a list of components that is matchable with another list of components as taught by Zuffante. The motivation for doing so would have been to easily allow the user to determine where to drop off components to be mated with another components.
Regarding to claim 10, Wildgrude and Beri and Zuffante disclose the method of claim 9, further comprising the step of determining a plurality of groupings of the mateable pairs. (Fig. 31 and col. 20 and lines 1-14 of Zuffante, a list of components that can be mated together in different mating scenarios)
Regarding to claim 11, Wildgrude and Beri and Zuffante disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising the step of filtering the plurality of groupings to produce a filtered grouping list. (col. 9, lines 14-22 of Zuffante, “Highlighting allows the user to correlate faces or portions of the model 66 with specific features in the feature list 68. In addition, the user can move the cursor 76 over a particular feature in the feature list 68, click the left button of the mouse 34 one time, and cause both the selected feature in the feature list 68 and the associated edges in the model 66 to be highlighted. In this way, the user can correlate particular features from the feature list 68 with specific portions of the model 66.”)
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Semantic Mates: Intuitive Geometric Constraints for Efficient Assembly Specifications”, Wildgrube et al, 2019 in view of Beri et al (US 20210333960 A1) and in further view of Zuffante et al (US 6219049 B1) and in further view of Lang (US 11348257 B2).
Regarding to claim 12, Wildgrude and Beri and Zuffante disclose the method of claim 11. Wildgrude and Beri and Zuffante do not specifically disclose “wherein the filtering further comprises comparing a rotation of a mateable pair of a grouping of the plurality of groupings to a rotation threshold.”
However, Lang discloses comparing a rotation of a mateable pair of a grouping of the plurality of groupings to a rotation threshold (col. 45, lines 54-59 of Lang, “virtual data of a patient can be superimposed onto live data seen through the optical head mounted display. The virtual data can be raw data in unprocessed form, e.g. preoperative images of a patient, or they can be processed data, e.g. filtered data or segmented data” and further, col. 471, line 53- col. 472, line 12 of Lang, rotation threshold of a virtual component)
Wildgrude and Beri and Zuffante and Lang are analogous art because both references concern using computer aid to mating components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wildgrude and Beri’s user drag and drop components to be mated with having a list of components that is matchable with another list of components as taught by Zuffante and having a rotation threshold of a virtual component as taught by Lang. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to filter certain characteristic of the component for component mating purposes.
Regarding to claim 13, Wildgrude and Beri and Zuffante disclose the method of claim 11. Wildgrude and Beri and Zuffante do not specifically disclose “further comprising the step of sorting the filtered grouping list in order of a translation distance.”
However, Lang discloses sorting the filtered grouping list in order of a translation distance (col. 45, lines 54-59 of Lang, “virtual data of a patient can be superimposed onto live data seen through the optical head mounted display. The virtual data can be raw data in unprocessed form, e.g. preoperative images of a patient, or they can be processed data, e.g. filtered data or segmented data” and further, col. 471, line 53- col. 472, line 12 of Lang, translation distance of a virtual component)
Wildgrude and Beri and Zuffante and Lang are analogous art because both references concern using computer aid to mating components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wildgrude and Beri’s user drag and drop components to be mated with having a list of components that is matchable with another list of components as taught by Zuffante and having a rotation threshold of a virtual component as taught by Lang. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to filter certain characteristic of the component for component mating purposes.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Semantic Mates: Intuitive Geometric Constraints for Efficient Assembly Specifications”, Wildgrube et al, 2019 in view of Beri et al (US 20210333960 A1) and in further view of Jackson et al (US 20130055125 A1).
Regarding to claim 14, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 1. Wildgrude and Beri do not specifically disclose wherein if a suggested mate for the dragged component is not found within the predetermined proximity of the second location of the modeled assembly, no suggested mate is presented to the user.
However, Jackson discloses wherein if a suggested mate for the dragged component is not found within the predetermined proximity of the second location of the modeled assembly, no suggested mate is presented to the user. ([0047]-[0050] of Jackson, when the user can move an object within a specified distance to snap in place an object. It is also obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to understand when a predetermined snap distance is created, if the object is within the specified/predetermined snap distance, then the object will snap in position, but if the object is outside of the specified snap distance, then nothing will happen since “snap” function is not called upon just yet)
Wildgrude and Beri and Jackson are analogous art because both references concern using computer aid to mating components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wildgrude and Beri’s user drag and drop components to be mated with enabling snap to place only within a predetermined proximity taught by Jackson. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to filter certain characteristic of the component for component mating purposes.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Semantic Mates: Intuitive Geometric Constraints for Efficient Assembly Specifications”, Wildgrube et al, 2019 in view of Beri et al (US 20210333960 A1) and in further view of Kumar et al (US 20200019649 A1).
Referring to claim 17, Wildgrude and Beri disclose the method of claim 16. Wildgrude and Beri do not specifically disclose further comprising: receiving a user input to commit the first component to the position associated with the second component; and presenting a user dialog box to enable the user to accept the suggested mating.
However, Kumar discloses receiving a user input to commit the first component to the position associated with the second component; and presenting a user dialog box to enable the user to accept the suggested mating ([0057] of Kumar).
Wildgrude and Beri and Kumar are analogous art because both references concern using computer aid to mating components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wildgrude and Beri’s user drag and drop components to be mated with allow the user to confirm the drag and drop components taught by Kumar. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to filter certain characteristic of the component for component mating purposes.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kohls et al (US 20030076356 A1): One or more embodiments of the invention provide a method, apparatus, and article of manufacture for positioning a graphical component in a computer-implemented drawing program. A selection of a graphical component displayed on a display device is received. Thereafter, a first feature of the graphical component is inferred. The display of the graphical component is moved (e.g., by a user using a cursor control device). Underlying geometry is then analyzed to determine one or more second features of the underlying geometry that can mate with the first feature. Feedback is then displayed that indicates placement potential for the graphical component based on the first feature mating with one of the second features.
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 HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142