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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 11 March 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-12, 15, and 16 are amended.
Claims 13 and 14 are cancelled.
All rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn and necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-16 are pending. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the title filed on 3/11/26 has been entered.
However, the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The current title 1) is broad and 2) doesn’t include subject matter being claimed within Applicant’s invention. The title does not involve the subject matter of dealing with a mobile device displaying data corresponding to a specific area on a travel route. The current title merely only discloses displaying data. The following title is suggested: “Controlling a Display of Data in a Mobile Device Corresponding to a Specific Area on a Travel Route”
The amendment to the abstract on 3/11/26 has been entered. However, the abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because the abstract involves language that is not in narrative form since it (similarly) repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “perform, based on the determination that the mobile device has passed through the specific area, an erasure process to erase the second display data on the display unit.” In other words, the language is stating that the second display data, which was displayed in response to the user being bored with the first display data, is erased from the display (no longer displayed) after the mobile device has passed through the specific area. Applicant indicated support can be found in Paragraphs 0227, 0238-0245, 0257-0259. However, after review of Applicant's specification, the Examiner is unable to find support of the subject matter of the displayed second display data (in response to the user being bored) is erased after the mobile device has passed through the specific area. However, neither 0238 or any other paragraph discloses erasing the second display data after the mobile device has passed through the specific area. Paragraph 0238 discloses “In a case where it is determined that the occupant is not bored, current display data is displayed as is. Note that processing of displaying the display data acquired from the characteristic-information corresponding display data storage DB ends after the vehicle passes through the area for which the characteristic information is set. This end timing is performed according to a predetermined algorithm. For example, erasure processing is executed according to a predetermined algorithm to perform erasure 10 seconds after the vehicle passes the area for which the characteristic information is set, or to perform erasure after traveling 10 also from the area for which the characteristic information is set. ” 0238 discloses that the current (first) display data is the only display data is erased when the mobile device has passed through the specific area when it was determined the user is not bored. 0238 does not discloses that the second (switched) display data is also erased when the mobile device has passed through the specific area when it was determined the user is not bored. While 0237-0239 and 0257-0258 discloses switching the current display data to new display data when the user is bored, neither of these paragraphs (or any other within Applicant’s specification) mentioned that the switched/new display data (displayed in response to determined that the user was bored) is also erased after the mobile device has passed through the specific area. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to find any support within the disclosure in regards of the limitation. Thus, Applicant’s specification has no support that the generation of the quality report workflow configuration data is done automatically in anyway. Therefore, since this language is not described in the specification for the instant application, the examiner is forced to make a broad interpretation for this language as explained. Furthermore, Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claims are supported within the specification. Thus, since support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported, a prima facie case has been established. See MPEP 2163.04.
Claims 15-16 recites similar issues as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-11,15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaki et al (JP 2018-169244, pub. 11/1/2018, filed 3/29/2017) (Disclosed in the IDS filed 5/27/22) in further view of Kim et al (US20180137595, 2018) in further view of Matlack et al (US 20210097728, EFD 9/30/19) in further view of Aslan et al (US20150099255, 2015) in further view of Franko et al (US20080136839, 2008) (Examiner's Note: An English machine translation of JP 2018-169244 by the J-PlatPat was previously provided. All references to page and paragraph numbers associated with Ogaki et al disclosed in the rejection(s) below refer to the English translation)
As per independent claim 1, Ogaki et al discloses a device comprising:
CPU (FIG 3; Paragraph 0046)
Detect a mobile device in a specific area on a travel route; acquire characteristic information associated with the specific area (p3-4: Solution; Claim 1, 0011, 0051, 0058, 0062-0063, 0066: position and image information of a moving body (such as a train, an automobile, a bus, a ship, or an aircraft), while moving/traveling is acquired (information of the current area) via GPS and camera; wherein the mobile window apparatus is within/apart of the moving body (FIG 1, 3; 0012, 0016)
Acquire a first image of a specific area (0045, 0050-0051, 0062: captures image outside the moving body)
acquire animation image data associated with the specific area on the travel route: (“animation image data” is not clearly defined within the claim language and a definite definition was not disclosed in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. 0058: Discloses a box/information/notification gradually appears from the right side of the window (form of animation image data). The box/information/notification is associated with a feature of the image data captured (0042, 0051, 0056, 0064) Thus, the animation is related to the feature of the island appear within the captured imagery)
superimpose the animation image data on the first image at a time of the detection of the mobile device in the specific area (0058: discloses similar functionality as in 0056-0058 such that the animated box/information/notification (guidance display) moves across the displayed captured image/scenery (shown in the window) such that animated box/information/notification which being superimposed on the scenery image. 0043, 0048: discloses display information being superimposed on actual image)
determine first display data, based on the acquired characteristic information, and control a display unit to output the first display data, wherein the display unit is inside the mobile device;. (FIG 3-5; p3-4: Solution; Claim 1; 0011, 0013, 0043-44, 0048, 0056-0058: acquired information is displayed to the user on the screen/display of the mobile window apparatus. Since the acquired information is displayed, it had to be determined for display prior to the displaying)
execute an operation to analyze of a state of an occupant in the mobile device and switch the first display data to second display data (on a result of the analysis of the state of the occupant) wherein the second display data corresponds to an attribute of the occupant (0081-0082, 0100-0101, 0117: content that is displayed is updated so that it matches the user’s entered preferences. This also includes mode switching of the scenery as disclosed in 0083-0086)
Ogaki discloses a traffic server providing traffic information to the server associated with a mobile window apparatus within/apart of the moving body. (0012, 0018)However, Ogaki fails to specifically discloses acquire characteristic information wherein the acquired characteristic information includes real-time traffic information. However, Kim et al discloses a moving body/vehicle comprising a display device/screen wherein the vehicle is provided (acquired) with real-time traffic situation information while the vehicle is traveling (on a route).(0029, 0260) In addition, while the vehicle is traveling on the route, the display device displays the provided/acquired real-time traffic information. (0168,0234; FIG 16)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Kim et al since it would have provided the benefit of eliminating boredom of a passenger while the vehicle is traveling to the destination and improving user satisfaction. (0029)
Furthermore, Ogaki et al discloses generate an augmented reality (AR) image based on the superimposed image data on the first image and the display data includes the generated AR. (0043, 0048, 0056-0057: an image is taken and displayed, on the display of the mobile window apparatus, where image data is superimposed on the image, form of an AR image. The superimposed image is displayed to the user). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose generate an augmented reality (AR) image based on the superimposed animation image data on the first image and the first display data includes the generated AR image. However, Matlack discloses receiving image or video feeds from the camera of their phone which is displayed on the user’s phone as the user is navigating to their intended destination. (0022, 0041) Navigation guidance using AR is then generated and provided on the user's (rider's) mobile-device (e.g., smart phone), by superimposing visual cues (e.g., virtual object) onto an image stream received on the mobile device, such as a camera image, to form an AR image. The AR navigation guidance includes dynamic (animated) graphical representations that can convey navigation paths/directions (such as moving arrows or other visual call-outs), indicate locations of interest, and/or provide other navigation instructions or guidance are generated based on the current image/video feeds. (0013, 0020, 0043-0045) Thus, Matlack discloses the user/rider can point their mobile device (smartphone) in a direction of their intended path and receive real-time navigational guidance to assist their navigation toward an intended destination by the use of generated AR images comprising of superimposed animated guidance on the displayed captured user’s image/video feed. (0020, 0022, 0044-0045) In addition, Matlack also teaches acquiring image data of the area (0013, 0022, 0041), acquiring animation image data associated with the specific area of the travel route (0013, 0022, 0043), and superimpose the animation image data on the first image at a time of the detection of the mobile device in the specific area (0013, 0022, 0044-0045)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Matlack et al since it would have provided the benefit of facilitate rider navigation using augmented reality (AR) of to improving the user experience by providing improved visual aids and more intuitive route visualizations. (0012)
As explained, Ogaki discloses switch the first display data to second display data wherein the second display data corresponds to an attribute of the occupant. However, the cited art fails to specifically determine whether the occupant is bored based on a result of the analysis of the state of the occupant; switch the first display data to second display data based on the determination that the occupant is bored, wherein the second display data corresponds to an attribute of the occupant. (Note: According to 0237, 0257 of Applicant specification, Applicant indicates “bored” as being “without paying attention”. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Aslan et al discloses analyzing the level of engagement in regarding to the content type being displayed and determines if the level of engagement is low by checking if the level falls below a threshold). One of a skilled artisan would have realized if the user’s level of engagement with a particular content type falls below a threshold then that is considered the user is not paying attention/bored with the current content. Thus, the original displayed content is replaced with new displayed content, such as replacing text with video. This new contact chosen is based on attributes of the user viewing the content. (FIG 2; 0027, 0030, 0043-0044)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Aslan et al since it would have provided the benefit of enhancing the learning experience and effectiveness of learning, based at least in part on real-time identification of a user's engagement levels
Furthermore, Ogaki discloses as the moving body enters a specific area, display data representing the area begins to be displayed. (FIG 5; 0058). In addition, Ogaki discloses the moving body can be for example, a train, an automobile, a bus, a ship, or an aircraft. (0001) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose determine that the mobile device has passed through the specific area and perform, based on the determination that the mobile device has passed through the specific area, an erasure process to erase the second display data on the display unit.
However, Franko et al discloses a moving body vehicle having a display that provides displayed live video of scenery, from outside the moving vehicle, with added information and identification of points or areas of interest indicated on the display. (Abstract; FIG 4, 0029, 0047-0048) In other words, Franko et al discloses displaying display data of combined overlaying map information over live video produced by the moving vehicle. Based on the vehicle’s location, identified map data associated with the vehicle location is matched to the video data (of the scenery outside the vehicle) being displayed. (0036) As explained FIG 9, particular steps 0058-0059, combined video data, associated with the vehicle’s location, is generated and displayed with provided information about geopolitical borders, city names, and points of interest presented along with the current location of the aircraft that is superimposed on the current displayed video data. In addition, updated location information of the vehicle is continuously provided to the vehicle. Based on the updated information, it is determined if new map data is needed because of the new portion of the terrain/scenery that is captured in the video data by the cameras may not correspond to the current map data that is currently being used. (0061-0062) Based on that determination, new map data is obtained which would overall produce new combined video data to be displayed since steps 902-918 of FIG 9 were repeated. Therefore, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the existing combined video data being displayed would have to be replaced (e.g. erase) by the newly generated combined video data since the new map data was needed to be obtained since the new map data is different than the old map data. In other words, the displayed combined video data is continuously refreshed such that the stale map data is replaced with new fresh map data as the vehicle’s location continuously changes. Thus, Franko et al discloses each time a new location is determined (i.e. new specific area), the old displayed combined video data (display data) is erased/replaced for new displayed data to be displayed based on the new determined specific area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Franko et al since it would have provided the benefit of opens up the world outside and enriches the experience for the passengers by allowing them to view the outside in a new manner in which they understand what they are seeing below them.(0030)
As per dependent claim 2, Claim 2 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ogaki et al discloses select the first display data based on the characteristic information that corresponds to a display data storage database, wherein the display data storage database records correspondence data and the first display data, the correspondence data indicates correspondence between a plurality of pieces of the characteristic information and the first display data, and the first display data corresponds to the acquired characteristic information; and output the first display data to the display unit. (p3-4, Solution; Claim 1, 0013: current position information and image information(plurality of pieces) during traveling of a moving device (moving body) and determines display data (provision information) to be outputted from a database (service server device for providing moving body information) to a display unit. It is implicitly known that the transmitted information must have stored in at least a memory buffer (data storage) when the information were received at the server).
As per dependent claim 5, Claim 5 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ogaki et al discloses refer to a characteristic-information setting map that includes the characteristic information, wherein the characteristic information is associated with the travel route of the mobile device; detect the mobile device approaches the specific area; and determine the first display data based on characteristic information and the detection of the mobile device approaches the specific area. ((0021-0024: discloses map information is stored; 0055-0056, 0059, 0066: discloses displaying current position information of the moving body on the map (specific area) and nearby landmarks or features/objects corresponding to the current position information)
As per dependent claim 6, Claim 6 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ogaki et al discloses detect a characteristic scene from the first image captured by a camera on the travel route of the mobile device, and determine, based on the detected characteristic scene, the first display data (0045, 0048, 0056, 0062)
As per dependent claim 9, Claim 9 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ogaki et al discloses
acquire, from a sensor, specific information associated with the mobile device; detect characteristic information based on the specific information; and determine, based on the detected characteristic information, the first display data. (Applicant’s specification discloses a sensor is a camera; therefore, Ogaki: p3-4; 0042,0045, 0048, 0051, 0056, 0062, 0064: feature data detected used to generate display data based on the captured image (specific information))
As per dependent claim 10, Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is reject under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ogaki et al discloses acquire specific information from an external device on the travel route; detect characteristic information based on the specific information, and determine, based on the detected characteristic information, the first display data (p3-4, 0013, 0017, 0041: display information obtained from (external) server; 0050: satellite used for position information)
As per dependent claim 11, Claim 11 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is reject under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ogaki et al discloses acquire occupant information associated with a plurality of occupants, including the occupant, on the travel route of the mobile device; detect characteristic information based on the occupant information, and determine, based on the detected characteristic information, the first display data. (0070, 0079-0081, 0100: user (occupant) provides their information; 0072, 0096 discloses receiving input from plurality of users. 0062 discloses each seat, for a passenger, has a window device. 0019 discloses multiple passengers for a seat. Thus, one of a skilled artisan would have realized multiple users would have provided their information when each user operated their window device at their seat)
As per independent claims 15-16, Claims 15-16 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ogaki discloses a memory/medium (0021)
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaki et al in further view of Kim et al in further view of Matlack et al in further view of Aslan et al in further view of Franko et al in further view of Pires et al (US 20130089260, 2013)
As per dependent claim 7, Claim 7 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the data processing unit extract a difference data between the first image and averaged image data, wherein the averaged image data is based on a second image captured by the camera, and the second image is captured prior to the first image and detect the characteristic scene based on the extracted difference data. However, Pires et al discloses object/scene recognition when comparing current and stored images. Pires et al discloses the process involves differences in camera (observation) location as between two images (herein referred to as a "reference image" and a "query image" or a "first image" and a "second image," or the like) being compared and/or differences in the location of one or more objects within the scenes of the images being compared. (0028) (0047 discloses reference image was previously acquired before the query image) Thus, Pires discloses recognition of object(s) and/or scene in a query image based on the same object(s) and/or scene appearing in a reference image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Pires et al since it would have provided the benefit of an inexpensive algorithm that is robust enough to deal with full affine movement that is practical for commercial and other real-world applications. (0003)
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaki et al in further view of Kim et al in further view of Matlack et al in further view of Aslan et al in further view of Franko et al in further view of Pires et al in further view of Michielin et al (WO2019164498 A1, pub. 8/29/19, filed 2/23/18) in further view of Lee (US 20150071524, 2015)
As per dependent claim 8, Claim 8 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ogaki discloses storing 3D maps (0024) It is implicitly known that these maps had to be generated before storing. Thus, Ogaki discloses storing generated 3D maps. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the CPU generate, as the averaged image data, an averaged 3D map based on a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) processing. However, Michielin et al discloses SLAM techniques utilize the construction of a 3D map from Two-Dimensional (2D) images. A 3D map may be generated from a series of 2D images, which can allow the generation of a 3D model from a series of scanned images. In addition, it is implicit that the generated map must have been stored in at least a memory buffer (data storage) when generated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Michielin et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of allowing map construction of large areas in much shorter spaces of time as areas using vehicles. In addition, SLAM simplify data collection and can be used in outdoor or indoor environments.
Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 7 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Pires discloses extracts a difference between an image captured on a travel route of the mobile device by a camera and detects a characteristic scene on a basis of the extracted difference data. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose extract difference data between the first image of the specific area and the averaged 3D map stored in the storage unit, and detect the characteristic scene based on the extracted difference data. However, Lee discloses comparing 2D images to a 3D map to identify an object/scene in the 3D map. (object recognition) (0098: In this approach, upon encountering a previously-encountered object, the electronic device 100 can extract 2D features from an image captured from the object in a given pose, and then compare the extracted 2D features with the feature descriptors of one or more 3D feature descriptors to identify the 3D feature descriptor that most closely matches the extracted 2D features, and thus identify the object associated with this identified 3D feature descriptor. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Lee et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of being able to compare and integrate real-world objects, landmarks, or other features extracted from the different images into a unified 3D map associated with the real-world location.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogaki et al in further view of Kim et al in further view of Matlack et al in further view of Aslan et al in further view of Franko et al in further view of Yang et al (US 20160140438, 2016)
As per dependent claim 12, Claim 12 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ogaki discloses acquire the characteristic information at a time of travel of the mobile device on a travel route. ((p3-4: Solution; Claim 1, 0011, 0051, 0058, 0062-0063, 0066: position and image information of a moving body, while moving/traveling is acquired (information of the current area at the time of travel) via GPS and camera) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose execute travel control of the mobile device on a basis of the acquired characteristic information. However, Yang et al discloses that a vehicle using its cameras to determine the current speed limit based on the speed limit sign. If the vehicle is driving over the current speed limit (i.e. speeding), then the vehicle will automatically slow down based on the detected speed limit sign. (0049)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Lee et al since it would have provided the benefit of allowing the vehicle to understand and potentially respond to its environment in order to maximize safety for passengers as well as objects or people in the environment. (0045)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s remarks, on pages 12-13, on the objections to the title and the abstract, the Examiner respectfully state that the amendments did not overcome either objection. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Specification” section of the office action above on why each of the objections remain.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 15-16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
All other arguments on pages 15-16 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described in the rejections above.
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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights