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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
As per instant Amendment, Claims 45-47 were canceled; Claims 21, 39, and 44 are independent claims. Claims 21 and 28-44 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/12/2026 with respect to claims 28, 30, 40, 42 and 44 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The new reference Norum et al. (US 9900659) used to address the limitations.
The claims 21 and 28-44 have been addressed in rejection below.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21, 31-37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harb (US 2017 /0228550) in view of KHALSA (“Khalsa,” US 2015/0379617) and Grumer et al. (“Grumer,” US 2019/0082229).
Regarding claim 21: Harb discloses an approval screen generation method comprising:
generating a first approval screen for approving a use restriction removal request made by a first user for a processing target (Harb: par. 0040 control circuitry 904 [] may be used to generate a display 100; par. 0056 display 200 may represent an interface with parental control module 202 of a media guidance application used by a user to approve access to the blocked media asset; par. 0057 display 200 includes parental control module 202 of the media guidance application indicating that a user is requesting media asset 206, be unblocked), the first approval screen comprising a name of the processing target (Harb: par. 0072 the media guidance application generates for display on display 400 the notification that the first user wishes to access blocked media asset 412. For example, the media guidance application generates for display that user John would like to access, "Game of Thrones"); and
generating a second approval screen for approving the use restriction removal request (Harb: fig. 5; par. 0081 the media guidance application may generate for display an option to unblock the media asset 522 for access by the first user on the first user equipment device [i.e., second approval screen]).
Harb does not explicitly disclose generating a second approval screen after generating the first approval screen and wherein the second approval screen is generated in response to a second user performing a predetermined operation on the first approval screen.
However, Khalsa discloses generating a second approval screen after generating the first approval screen (Khalsa: par. 0015 a message is sent to a parent [] which asks whether or not the parent approves of the programming selection; par. 0016 when a parent is asked about whether or not they approve of the selection, a trailer of the program can be presented to the parent that shows whether or not the program would be appropriate for a child as shown in FIG. 2); and
wherein the second approval screen is generated in response to a second user performing a predetermined operation on the first approval screen (Khalsa: par. 0021 at 505 the parental control system of a media service transmits a notification to a parent on their preselected notification medium responsive to receiving a request to purchase content (a program) from the media service [] at 515, the parental control system of the media service asks the authorized user (parent) if the parent wants to display other parents' comments in order to help make an approval/disapproval decision. If the authorized user wants to display other parents' comments in order to help make an approval/disapproval decision then at 520, a screen like that shown in FIG. 3 is generated and displayed by the parental control system of the media service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khalsa with the system/method of Harb to include generate the second approval screen in response to a first user performing a predetermined operation on the first approval screen. One would have been motivated to provide a parent with the ability to approve or disapprove the content that their child can watch (Khalsa: par. 0005).
Harb in view of Khalsa does not explicitly discloses the second approval screen comprising a graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target and information for verifying content of the processing target.
However, Grumer discloses the second approval screen comprising a graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target and information for verifying content of the processing target (Grumer: fig. 4; par. 0080 each row of the approval history table 450 stores data for a previous request for authorization to view a media content item. The format 455 of the approval history table 450 includes [] Boolean approved value that indicates whether authorization was granted, [NOTE: the “approval history table” can be understood not only as the underlying data store of past approval records, but also as a logical entity that provides the information displayed to the user, for example, when rendered on a device as a visual list, chart, or timeline of approvals. In other words, the “table” represents the same historical information, whether in database form (rows/columns) or visual form (graphical representation); the approval history table provides a record of prior approval events, which may be displayed on a user device as a graphical representation of past approvals]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Grumer with the system/method of Harb and Khalsa to include the second approval screen comprising a graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target and information for verifying content of the processing target. One would have been motivated to provide notification including a recommendation to approve or deny the authorization request based on prior responses associated with accounts of other users that have one or more attributes in common with the account of the user (Grumer: par. 0042).
Regarding claim 31: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 21.
Grumer further discloses wherein the first approval screen comprises a date and time at which the use restriction removal request was generated (Grumer: par. 0080 the format 455 of the approval history table 450 includes [] a timestamp indicating when the authorization was requested).
The motivation is the same that of claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 32: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 21.
Harb further discloses wherein the predetermined operation comprises selecting a first user interface element for requesting additional information regarding the processing target (Harb: fig. 5; par. display 500 [i.e., second approval screen] may represent an interface with parental control module 502 of the media guidance application used by a user to receive a request to approve access to the blocked media asset with additional information that may help the user decide whether to approve the request).
Regarding claim 33: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 21.
Harb further discloses wherein the second approval screen comprises a second user interface element for approving the use restriction removal request and a third user interface element for denying the use restriction removal request (Harb: fig. 5; par. 0081 the media guidance application may generate for display an option to unblock the media asset 522 for access by the first user on the first user equipment device and an option to deny the notification 532 and leave the media asset blocked; par. 0077the media guidance application may present a selectable option to transmit a message 524 to the first user. Upon selection of selectable option 524 by the second user using a user input interface; fig. 5 items 522, 524, 526, 528, etc.).
Regarding claim 34: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 21.
Harb further discloses wherein the information for verifying content of the processing target comprises a video representing the processing target (Harb: par. 0076 the media guidance application may generate for display on display 500 as a portion of the notification a preview 514 associated with the media asset).
Regarding claim 35: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 21.
Harb further discloses wherein the information for verifying content of the processing target comprises a fourth user interface element for requesting a text description of the processing target (Harb: par. 0103 in display 800 the listings may provide graphical images [] from the content, or other types of content that indicate to a user the content being described by the media guidance data in the listing. Each of the graphical listings may also be accompanied by text to provide further information about the content associated with the listing).
Regarding claim 36: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 21.
Harb further discloses wherein the first approval screen comprises an area for displaying a plurality of pending use restriction removal requests made by the first user for a plurality of processing targets (Harb: par. 0095 the UI 700 of FIG. 7 displays only preapproved media content items for selection by the parent as replacement media content, the same criteria may be used in the UI 700 and the UI 900; par. 0096 program information region 712).
Regarding claim 37: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 36.
Grumer further discloses wherein the first approval screen comprises a user interface element for selecting the use restriction removal request from the plurality of pending use restriction removal requests (Grumer: par. 0083 the selectable option 545 is operable to authorize viewing of a different media content item (e.g., to cause display of a user interface 700 of FIG. 7 that facilitates selection of a particular replacement media content item)).
The motivation is the same that of claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 39: Harb discloses a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
generating a first approval screen for approving a use restriction removal request made by a first
user for a processing target (Harb: par. 0040 control circuitry 904 [] may be used to generate a display 100; par. 0056 display 200 may represent an interface with parental control module 202 of a media guidance application used by a user to approve access to the blocked media asset; par. 0057 display 200 includes parental control module 202 of the media guidance application indicating that a user is requesting media asset 206, be unblocked), the first approval screen comprising a name of the processing target (Harb: par. 0072 the media guidance application generates for display on display 400 the notification that the first user wishes to access blocked media asset 412. For example, the media guidance application generates for display that user John would like to access, "Game of Thrones"); and
generating a second approval screen for approving the use restriction removal request (Harb: fig. 5; par. 0081 the media guidance application may generate for display an option to unblock the media asset 522 for access by the first user on the first user equipment device [i.e., second approval screen]).
Harb does not explicitly disclose generating a second approval screen after generating the first approval screen and wherein the second approval screen is generated in response to a second user performing a predetermined operation on the first approval screen.
However, Khalsa discloses generating a second approval screen after generating the first approval screen (Khalsa: par. 0015 a message is sent to a parent [] which asks whether or not the parent approves of the programming selection; par. 0016 when a parent is asked about whether or not they approve of the selection, a trailer of the program can be presented to the parent that shows whether or not the program would be appropriate for a child as shown in FIG. 2); and
wherein the second approval screen is generated in response to a second user performing a predetermined operation on the first approval screen (Khalsa: par. 0021 at 505 the parental control system of a media service transmits a notification to a parent on their preselected notification medium responsive to receiving a request to purchase content (a program) from the media service [] at 515, the parental control system of the media service asks the authorized user (parent) if the parent wants to display other parents' comments in order to help make an approval/disapproval decision. If the authorized user wants to display other parents' comments in order to help make an approval/disapproval decision then at 520, a screen like that shown in FIG. 3 is generated and displayed by the parental control system of the media service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khalsa with the system/method of Harb to include generate the second approval screen in response to a first user performing a predetermined operation on the first approval screen. One would have been motivated to provide a parent with the ability to approve or disapprove the content that their child can watch (Khalsa: par. 0005).
Harb in view of Khalsa does not explicitly discloses the second approval screen comprising a graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target and information for verifying content of the processing target.
However, Grumer discloses the second approval screen comprising a graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target and information for verifying content of the processing target (Grumer: fig. 4; par. 0080 each row of the approval history table 450 stores data for a previous request for authorization to view a media content item. The format 455 of the approval history table 450 includes [] Boolean approved value that indicates whether authorization was granted, [NOTE: the “approval history table” can be understood not only as the underlying data store of past approval records, but also as a logical entity that provides the information displayed to the user, for example, when rendered on a device as a visual list, chart, or timeline of approvals. In other words, the “table” represents the same historical information, whether in database form (rows/columns) or visual form (graphical representation); the approval history table provides a record of prior approval events, which may be displayed on a user device as a graphical representation of past approvals.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Grumer with the system/method of Harb and Khalsa to include the second approval screen comprising a graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target and information for verifying content of the processing target. One would have been motivated to provide notification including a recommendation to approve or deny the authorization request based on prior responses associated with accounts of other users that have one or more attributes in common with the account of the user (Grumer: par. 0042).
Claims 28-30, 40-42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harb (US 2017 /0228550) in view of KHALSA (“Khalsa,” US 2015/0379617), Grumer et al. (“Grumer,” US 2019/0082229) and Norum et al. (“Norum,” US 9900659).
Regarding claim 28: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 21.
Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer does not explicitly disclose determining a first approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of a same age as the first user were approved in the past and displaying information regarding the first approval rate on the second approval screen.
However, Norum discloses determining a first approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of a same age as the first user were approved in the past (Norum: col. 7 lines 50-54 identify the user into one or more groups of users that have similar appropriateness ratings information [i.e., same age] for the consumed media works, and generate recommended media works based on the group member's appropriateness ratings information; col. 12 lines 14-17 the user may be provided with age group selections [] for determining the user's appropriateness ratings information); and
displaying information regarding the first approval rate on the second approval screen (Norum: col. 3 lines 18-34 In FIG. 1 the network document 102 may be provided or displayed via a web browser 104 configured to run on a user device [] the recommended movies 108-112 recommended for the user and displayed via the network document 102 may provide descriptive information indicating whether a particular content category type meets or does not meet their personal age-to-content type ratings included in their appropriateness ratings information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Norum with the system/method of Harb, Khalsa and Grumer to include determining a first approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of a same age as the first user were approved in the past. One would have been motivated for providing content appropriate ratings information include an age-to-content type rating metric for a number of content categories that may be consumed by a user associated with a media work (Norum: col.1 line 67 through col. 2 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 29: Harb in view of Khalsa, Grumer and Norum discloses the method of claim 28.
Grumer further discloses wherein the second approval screen comprises an age specific graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by the other users of the same age as the first user (Grumer: fig. 6; par. 0087 as can be seen in the user interface diagram, the user interface 600 includes [] an explanation area 620; par. 0088 the explanation area 620 includes one or more reasons to support the recommendation to allow viewing of the requested media content item. As shown in FIG. 6, the reasons include previous approvals [] majority approval by other parents for other accounts to view the requested media content item, wherein the other accounts have the same age attribute as the requesting account).
The motivation is the same that of claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 30: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 21.
Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer does not explicitly disclose determining a second approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of any age were approved in the past and displaying information regarding the second approval rate on the second approval screen.
However, Norum discloses determining a second approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of any age were approved in the past (Norum: col. 11 lines 55-58 a user may select Movie E 414 with the input selector 422 and be presented with information describing what a user's social networking contacts have specified as the appropriateness ratings information for Movie E 414 [i.e., rating coming from other users/any users]; col. 12 lines 23-25 maintaining appropriateness ratings information for a plurality of media works on behalf of a user at 502 [i.e., wide database of rating regarding all users]); and displaying information regarding the second approval rate on the second approval screen (Norum: col. 3 lines 18-34 In FIG. 1 the network document 102 may be provided or displayed via a web browser 104 configured to run on a user device [] the recommended movies 108-112 recommended for the user and displayed via the network document 102 may provide descriptive information indicating whether a particular content category type meets or does not meet their personal age-to-content type ratings included in their appropriateness ratings information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Norum with the system/method of Harb, Khalsa and Grumer to include determining a second approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of any age were approved in the past and providing. One would have been motivated for providing content appropriate ratings information include an age-to-content type rating metric for a number of content categories that may be consumed by a user associated with a media work (Norum: col.1 line 67 through col. 2 lines 6-8).
Regarding claims 40-42: Claims 40-42 are similar in scope to claims 28-30, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 44: Harb discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more computer programs configured to cause a processor-based system to execute operations comprising:
generating a first approval screen for approving a use restriction removal request made by a first user for a processing target (Harb: par. 0040 control circuitry 904 [] may be used to generate a display 100; par. 0056 display 200 may represent an interface with parental control module 202 of a media guidance application used by a user to approve access to the blocked media asset; par. 0057 display 200 includes parental control module 202 of the media guidance application indicating that a user is requesting media asset 206, be unblocked), the first approval screen comprising a name of the processing target (Harb: par. 0072 the media guidance application generates for display on display 400 the notification that the first user wishes to access blocked media asset 412. For example, the media guidance application generates for display that user John would like to access, "Game of Thrones"); and
generating a second approval screen for approving the use restriction removal request (Harb: fig. 5; par. 0081 the media guidance application may generate for display an option to unblock the media asset 522 for access by the first user on the first user equipment device [i.e., second approval screen]).
Harb does not explicitly disclose generating a second approval screen after generating the first approval screen and wherein the second approval screen is generated in response to a second user performing a predetermined operation on the first approval screen.
However, Khalsa discloses generating a second approval screen after generating the first approval screen (Khalsa: par. 0015 a message is sent to a parent [] which asks whether or not the parent approves of the programming selection; par. 0016 when a parent is asked about whether or not they approve of the selection, a trailer of the program can be presented to the parent that shows whether or not the program would be appropriate for a child as shown in FIG. 2); and
wherein the second approval screen is generated in response to a second user performing a predetermined operation on the first approval screen (Khalsa: par. 0021 at 505 the parental control system of a media service transmits a notification to a parent on their preselected notification medium responsive to receiving a request to purchase content (a program) from the media service [] at 515, the parental control system of the media service asks the authorized user (parent) if the parent wants to display other parents' comments in order to help make an approval/disapproval decision. If the authorized user wants to display other parents' comments in order to help make an approval/disapproval decision then at 520, a screen like that shown in FIG. 3 is generated and displayed by the parental control system of the media service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khalsa with the system/method of Harb to include generate the second approval screen in response to a first user performing a predetermined operation on the first approval screen. One would have been motivated to provide a parent with the ability to approve or disapprove the content that their child can watch (Khalsa: par. 0005).
Harb in view of Khalsa does not explicitly discloses the second approval screen comprising a graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target and information for verifying content of the processing target.
However, Grumer discloses the second approval screen comprising a graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target and information for verifying content of the processing target (Grumer: fig. 4; par. 0080 each row of the approval history table 450 stores data for a previous request for authorization to view a media content item. The format 455 of the approval history table 450 includes [] Boolean approved value that indicates whether authorization was granted, [NOTE: the “approval history table” can be understood not only as the underlying data store of past approval records, but also as a logical entity that provides the information displayed to the user, for example, when rendered on a device as a visual list, chart, or timeline of approvals. In other words, the “table” represents the same historical information, whether in database form (rows/columns) or visual form (graphical representation); the approval history table provides a record of prior approval events, which may be displayed on a user device as a graphical representation of past approvals.]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Grumer with the system/method of Harb and Khalsa to include the second approval screen comprising a graphical representation of a past record of approvals of use restriction removal requests for the processing target and information for verifying content of the processing target. One would have been motivated to provide notification including a recommendation to approve or deny the authorization request based on prior responses associated with accounts of other users that have one or more attributes in common with the account of the user (Grumer: par. 0042).
Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer does not explicitly disclose wherein generating the second approval screen comprises: determining a first approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of a same age as the first user were approved in the past; determining a second approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of any age were approved in the past and providing, for display, information regarding the first approval rate; and information regarding the second approval rate on the second approval screen.
However, Norum discloses wherein generating the second approval screen comprises:
determining a first approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of a same age as the first user were approved in the past (Norum: col. 7 lines 50-54 identify the user into one or more groups of users that have similar appropriateness ratings information [i.e., same age] for the consumed media works, and generate recommended media works based on the group member's appropriateness ratings information; col. 12 lines 14-17 the user may be provided with age group selections [] for determining the user's appropriateness ratings information);
determining a second approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of any age were approved in the past and providing, for display, information regarding the first approval rate (Norum: col. 11 lines 55-58 a user may select Movie E 414 with the input selector 422 and be presented with information describing what a user's social networking contacts have specified as the appropriateness ratings information for Movie E 414 [i.e., rating coming from other users/any users]; col. 12 lines 23-25 maintaining appropriateness ratings information for a plurality of media works on behalf of a user at 502 [i.e., wide database of rating regarding all users]); and
information regarding the second approval rate on the second approval screen (Norum: col. 3 lines 18-34 In FIG. 1 the network document 102 may be provided or displayed via a web browser 104 configured to run on a user device [] the recommended movies 108-112 recommended for the user and displayed via the network document 102 may provide descriptive information indicating whether a particular content category type meets or does not meet their personal age-to-content type ratings included in their appropriateness ratings information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Norum with the system/method of Harb, Khalsa and Grumer to include determining a first approval rate at which use restriction removal requests for the processing target that were generated by other users of a same age as the first user were approved in the past. One would have been motivated for providing content appropriate ratings information include an age-to-content type rating metric for a number of content categories that may be consumed by a user associated with a media work (Norum: col.1 line 67 through col. 2 lines 6-8).
Claims 38 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harb (US 2017 /0228550) in view of KHALSA (“Khalsa,” US 2015/0379617), Grumer et al. (“Grumer,” US 2019/0082229) and Hafertepen (US 2020/0401299).
Regarding claim 38: Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer discloses the method of claim 21.
Harb in view of Khalsa and Grumer does not explicitly disclose wherein the graphical representation and the age specific graphical representation are pie charts.
However, Hafertepen discloses wherein the graphical representation and the age specific graphical representation are pie charts (Hafertepen : par. 0042 the chart type determination module 252 can determine a chart type for particular data [] as an example, [] if a user specifies age as data to be displayed in a chart; par. 0033 the chart type module 204 can provide various types of charts for displaying data. A chart type can indicate any chart that can provide a visualization of data. Examples of chart types can include a bar chart, a line chart, a pie chart [NOTE: the type of chart displayed is a design choice and may be determined as desired by the content provider or based on user preferences or system settings]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hafertepen with the system/method of Harb, Khalsa and Grumer to include the graphical representation and the age specific graphical representation are pie charts. One would have been motivated to determine a chart type for particular data based on a data type associated with the particular data (Hafertepen: par. 0006).
Regarding claim 43: Claim 43 is similar in scope to claim 38, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fahimeh Mohammadi whose telephone number is (571)270-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 5712705002. 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.
/FAHIMEH MOHAMMADI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439