DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on September 10, 2025 concerning application No. 17/822,358 filed on August 25, 2022.
Claims 1-12 and 15-19 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “the processor is further configured to vary the predetermined intervals, based on a processing speed of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus or a time taken for scanning of a urinary bladder”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office action, [0073] and [0126] of Kobayashi disclose the amount of data to be reduced is based on the memory volume and speed of loading the data which corresponds to the speed in which the apparatus can process the data. The determining of the regular interval of 1/X data to be thinned out is based on the amount and speed in which the data is loaded. If the total amount of data is small, the loading (processing speed) of the data will be short and the regular interval 1/X will result in less data being thinned out. If the total amount of data is large, the loading (processing speed) of the data will be long and the regular interval 1/X will result in more data being thinned out, thereby increasing the speed of the calculations. This reads on varying the predetermined interval based on a processing speed of the apparatus. [0073] further discloses the thinned out data is based on the imaging time, for example the thinned out data is based on the data at an elapsed time from the start of the imaging or at specific time intervals. This corresponds to varying the predetermined interval based on the time taken for scanning. For at least these reasons Kobayashi teaches the argued limitation recited above.
Applicant further argues, the Kobayashi reference cannot be combined with the Poland reference because “Poland needs to calculate a maximum area of a contour of the bladder in each view. Therefore, Applicant contends that an ultrasound image corresponding to the maximum area may not be acquired if ultrasound images are thinned out in Poland”. However, as set forth in the previous office action Poland is already thinning out the ultrasound data, see [0047] of Poland and the rejection of claim 1 below. Therefore, Poland is able to calculate a maximum area of the contour using the thinned out ultrasound images. Kobayashi is simply teaching that it would have been obvious to perform the thinning out using predetermined intervals and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the thinning out processor Poland for the thinning out using predetermined intervals process of Kobayashi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland (US 20210315541) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20170219705, hereinafter Kobayashi) and Kim et al. (US 20160192904, as cited in applicant’s 11/23/2022 IDS, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Poland teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (Abstract “ultrasound scanning device”) comprising:
a monitor (display 112 in fig. 1A and display 212 in fig. 2);
an input device configured to accept an input operation of a user ([0040] “a user of the handheld medical scanning device 102 may input instructions to control the operation of the handheld medical scanning device 102 via one or more buttons and/or via the display 112”);
an image memory configured to store a first frame group of ultrasound images ([0069] discloses memory 208 which stores data including imaging data files);
a processor (the electronic circuitry of the scanning device 102/202 in figs. 1-2) configured to
thin out ultrasound images of some frames from the ultrasound images of the first frame group to form a second frame group of ultrasound images ([0047] “the handheld medical scanning device 102 may filter the received imaging data to segregate relevant imaging data from irrelevant imaging data”, the filtering is considered the thinning out process. The first frame group is considered the received imaging data and the second frame group is considered the filtered imaging data), the second frame group being constituted by a smaller number of frames of ultrasound images ([0047] by removing imaging data the filtered imaging data group is smaller than the initial received imaging data group),
extract a urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses performing edge detection on a bladder cavity in each imaging plane 450 and 475, the imaging planes 450 and 475 are considered the relevant planes and are therefore part of the second frame group. By performing edge detection of the bladder, a urinary bladder region is being extracted from each of the image planes),
calculate a feature quantity related to the urinary bladder region extracted for each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses the area of the bladder cavity is determined for each view),
extract, based on the feature quantity, an ultrasound image of at least one candidate frame that serves as a candidate subjected to measurement from the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses imaging planes 450 and 475 are identified as image planes (candidate planes) subjected to measurement),
display the ultrasound image of the at least one candidate frame on the monitor ([0074] “ultrasound images of the patient’s bladder…may be outputted to a display of the handheld medical scanning device”),
select, in accordance with the input operation performed by the user via the input device ([0042]-[0043] discloses the user selects an imaging preset which includes the imaging target, Therefore only images that include the imaging target can be selected for measurement, meaning the selection of a measurement frame is in accordance with the input operation), an ultrasound image of a measurement frame that serves as a target subjected to measurement, from the ultrasound image of the at least one candidate frame displayed on the monitor ([0074] discloses that imaging plane 450 is identified (selected) to serve as an imaging plane in which measurement is performed since the plane includes the imaging target (bladder)), and
analyze the ultrasound image of the measurement frame which is selected to measure a bladder volume ([0074] discloses the imaging plane 450 is analyzed to calculate the bladder volume),
wherein only the ultrasound images of the second frame group are analyzed during the extraction of the urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses only relevant imaging planes 450 and 475 are analyzed and have edge detection on the bladder cavity performed. Therefore only ultrasound images of the second frame group are analyzed during the extraction of the urinary bladder region).
Poland does not specifically teach the thinning out of the ultrasound images occurs at predetermined intervals; wherein the processor is further configured to vary the predetermined intervals, based on a processing speed of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus or a time taken for scanning of a urinary bladder.
However,
Kobayashi in a similar field of endeavor teaches thinning out ultrasound images at predetermined intervals ([0073] “a method in which image data, which constitute volume data vd0, are thinned out at regular intervals such that the number of data becomes 1/x”); wherein the processor is further configured to vary the predetermined intervals, based on a processing speed of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ([0073] and [0126] disclose the amount of data to be reduced is based on the memory volume and speed of loading the data which corresponds to the speed in which the apparatus can process the data. The determining of the regular interval of 1/X data to be thinned is based on the amount and speed in which the data is loaded) or a time taken for scanning of a target region ([0073] discloses the thinned out data is based on the imaging time, for example the thinned out data is based on the data at an elapsed time from the start of the imaging or at specific time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the thinning out process of Poland for the thinning out at predetermined intervals of Kobayashi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of reducing the number of imaging frames the system needs to process, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Poland in view of Kobayashi does not specifically teach the measured volume is a urine volume.
However,
Kim in a similar field of endeavor teaches measuring and analyzing ultrasound images of the urinary bladder to determine urine volume ([0008] “Various types of ultrasonic scanning equipment may be used to measure the amount of urine in the urinary bladder,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the measured volume of Poland in view of Kobayashi to be a urine volume in order to provide additional information that can be used for determining if an abnormality is present with the patient, as recognized by Kim ([0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Poland further teaches remove ultrasound images of rest of the frames from the ultrasound images of the first frame group to form the second frame group of ultrasound images ([0074] discloses only relevant image planes are being analyzed and the rest of the imaging planes (irrelevant planes) are being discarded (removed)).
Kobayashi further teaches the processor is further configured to extract an ultrasound image at predetermined intervals in time series from the ultrasound images of the first frame group ([0073] “a method in which image data, which constitute volume data vd0, are thinned out at regular intervals such that the number of data becomes 1/x” and “the predetermined data may be thinned-out data…data at a predetermined imaging time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the thinning out process of Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim for the thinning out at predetermined intervals in time series of Kobayashi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of reducing the number of imaging frames the system needs to process, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 3, Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 2, as set forth above. Kobayashi further teaches the predetermined intervals are intervals of a predetermined number of frames or predetermined time intervals ([0074] discloses the image data is bundled (extracted at intervals of six frames as can be seen in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the thinning out process of Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim for the thinning out at predetermined intervals of a predetermined number of frames of Kobayashi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of reducing the number of imaging frames the system needs to process, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 19, Poland teaches a method for controlling an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (Abstract “ultrasound scanning device” and the method shown in fig. 8) comprising:
thinning out ultrasound images of some frames from ultrasound images of a first frame group to form a second frame group of ultrasound images ([0047] “the handheld medical scanning device 102 may filter the received imaging data to segregate relevant imaging data from irrelevant imaging data”, the filtering is considered the thinning out process. The first frame group is considered the received imaging data and the second frame group is considered the filtered imaging data), the second frame group being constituted by a smaller number of frames of ultrasound images than the first frame group of ultrasound images ([0047] by removing imaging data the filtered imaging data group is smaller than the initial received imaging data group),
extracting a urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses performing edge detection on a bladder cavity in each imaging plane 450 and 475, the imaging planes 450 and 475 are considered the relevant planes and are therefore part of the second frame group. By performing edge detection of the bladder, a urinary bladder region is being extracted from each of the image planes),
calculating a feature quantity related to the urinary bladder region extracted for each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses the area of the bladder cavity is determined for each view),
extracting, based on the feature quantity, an ultrasound image of at least one candidate frame that serves as a candidate subjected to measurement from the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses imaging planes 450 and 475 are identified as image planes (candidate planes) subjected to measurement),
displaying the ultrasound image of the at least one candidate frame on a monitor ([0074] “ultrasound images of the patient’s bladder…may be outputted to a display of the handheld medical scanning device”),
selecting, in accordance with the input operation performed by the user via the input device ([0042]-[0043] discloses the user selects an imaging preset which includes the imaging target, Therefore only images that include the imaging target can be selected for measurement, meaning the selection of a measurement frame is in accordance with the input operation), an ultrasound image of a measurement frame that serves as a target subjected to measurement, from the ultrasound image of the at least one candidate frame displayed on the monitor ([0074] discloses that imaging plane 450 is identified (selected) to serve as an imaging plane in which measurement is performed since the plane includes the imaging target (bladder)),
analyzing the ultrasound image of the measurement frame which is selected to measure a bladder volume ([0074] discloses the imaging plane 450 is analyzed to calculate the bladder volume); and
wherein only the ultrasound images of the second frame group are analyzed during the extraction of the urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses only relevant imaging planes 450 and 475 are analyzed and have edge detection on the bladder cavity performed. Therefore only ultrasound images of the second frame group are analyzed during the extraction of the urinary bladder region).
Poland does not specifically teach the thinning out of the ultrasound images occurs at predetermined intervals; wherein the processor is further configured to vary the predetermined intervals, based on a processing speed of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus or a time taken for scanning of a urinary bladder.
However,
Kobayashi in a similar field of endeavor teaches thinning out ultrasound images at predetermined intervals ([0073] “a method in which image data, which constitute volume data vd0, are thinned out at regular intervals such that the number of data becomes 1/x”); wherein the processor is further configured to vary the predetermined intervals, based on a processing speed of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ([0073] and [0126] disclose the amount of data to be reduced is based on the memory volume and speed of loading the data which corresponds to the speed in which the apparatus can process the data. The determining of the regular interval of 1/X data to be thinned is based on the amount and speed in which the data is loaded) or a time taken for scanning of a target region ([0073] discloses the thinned out data is based on the imaging time, for example the thinned out data is based on the data at an elapsed time from the start of the imaging or at specific time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the thinning out process of Poland for the thinning out at predetermined intervals of Kobayashi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of reducing the number of imaging frames the system needs to process, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Poland in view of Kobayashi does not specifically teach the measured volume is a urine volume.
However,
Kim in a similar field of endeavor teaches measuring and analyzing ultrasound images of the urinary bladder to determine urine volume ([0008] “Various types of ultrasonic scanning equipment may be used to measure the amount of urine in the urinary bladder,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the measured volume of Poland in view of Kobayashi to be a urine volume in order to provide additional information that can be used for determining if an abnormality is present with the patient, as recognized by Kim ([0007]).
Claims 4-7, 10-12, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Noguchi (US 20200100770).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim teach the apparatus of claims 2 and 3, as set forth above. Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and remove, from the ultrasound images of the second frame group, an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive in time series to the extracted ultrasound image of one frame and that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame.
However,
Noguchi in a similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and remove, from the ultrasound images of the second frame group, an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive in time series to the extracted ultrasound image of one frame and that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame ([0016] “the tomographic plane determination unit may perform image analysis with respect to the deformed image and the reference image to calculate a similarity between the deformed image and the reference image, and may determine the tomographic plane of the subject based on the calculated similarity.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the known technique of estimating whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and remove, from the ultrasound images of the second frame group, an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive in time series to the extracted ultrasound image of one frame and that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame of Noguchi to the apparatus of Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim to allow for the predictable results of reducing the number of frames the apparatus needs to process, thereby making the apparatus more efficient.
Regarding Claim 15, Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim teach the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim does not specifically teach the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and form the second frame group of ultrasound images using ultrasound images of frames that are left after removal of an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive to an ultrasound image of each frame of the ultrasound images of the first frame group and is estimated to be similar to the ultrasound image of the frame.
However,
Noguchi in a similar field of endeavor teaches the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and form the second frame group of ultrasound images using ultrasound images of frames that are left after removal of an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive to an ultrasound image of each frame of the ultrasound images of the first frame group and is estimated to be similar to the ultrasound image of the frame ([0009] “a movement vector calculation unit that calculates a movement vector indicating an image movement change between two ultrasound images that are consecutive for each predetermined number of frames among the ultrasound images sequentially acquired by the image acquisition unit; … a tomographic plane determination unit that determines whether a tomographic plane of the subject depicted from the ultrasound image of the current frame and a tomographic plane of the subject depicted from the reference image are the same as each other by comparing the deformed image generated by the deformed image generation unit with the reference image held by the reference image holding unit” and [0016] “the tomographic plane determination unit may perform image analysis with respect to the deformed image and the reference image to calculate a similarity between the deformed image and the reference image, and may determine the tomographic plane of the subject based on the calculated similarity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the known technique of estimating whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and form the second frame group of ultrasound images using ultrasound images of frames that are left after removal of an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive to an ultrasound image of each frame of the ultrasound images of the first frame group and is estimated to be similar to the ultrasound image of the frame of Noguchi to the apparatus of Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim to allow for the predictable results of reducing the number of frames the apparatus needs to process, thereby making the apparatus more efficient.
Regarding Claims 6, 7, and 16, Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim and Noguchi teach the apparatus of claims 4, 5, and 15, as set forth above. Noguchi further teaches the processor is further configured to analyze the ultrasound images of the two frames to calculate a similarity level between the ultrasound images of the two frames, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the similarity level is greater than or equal to a predetermined similarity level threshold, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the similarity level is less than the predetermined similarity level threshold ([0023] “the tomographic plane determination unit may perform image analysis with respect to the deformed image and the reference image to calculate a similarity between the deformed image and the reference image, and may determine the tomographic plane of the subject based on the calculated similarity”. [0016], “start a new operation to the reference image holding unit and the movement vector integration unit in a case where the ultrasound images of which the image change amount is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value are consecutively acquired by a predetermined number of frames.”. Therefore Noguchi compares the image change amount (similarity) to a threshold to determine whether the images a similar or dissimilar).
Regarding Claims 10, 11, and 18, Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim and Noguchi teach the apparatus of claims 4, 5, and 15. Poland further teaches an ultrasound probe is configured to transmit an ultrasonic beam to a subject and receive an ultrasonic beam from the subject ([0039] discloses the micro-beamformer of the ultrasound assembly sequences both transmit and receive signals). Noguchi further teaches an angle sensor device attached to the ultrasound probe and configured to detect an angle of the ultrasound probe, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate, based on the angle of the ultrasound probe detected by the angle sensor device, a change in the angle of the ultrasound probe during capturing of the ultrasound images of the two frames, ([0009] “an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus that has an ultrasound probe and is used to compression-test an observation target in a subject by pressing the ultrasound probe against a body surface of the subject, the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising: an image acquisition unit that performs transmission of an ultrasound beam from the ultrasound probe toward the subject to acquire ultrasound images sequentially and consecutively;… a movement vector calculation unit that calculates a movement vector indicating an image movement change between two ultrasound images that are consecutive for each predetermined number of frames among the ultrasound images sequentially acquired by the image acquisition unit”, the movement vector calculation unit is considered the angle sensor device).
estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the change in the angle is smaller than a predetermined change-in-angle threshold, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the change in the angle is greater than or equal to the predetermined change-in- angle threshold. . ([0016] “the tomographic plane determination unit may perform image analysis with respect to the deformed image and the reference image to calculate a similarity between the deformed image and the reference image, and may determine the tomographic plane of the subject based on the calculated similarity.” [0012] ”the movement vector calculation unit may calculate a movement change of a high-luminance pixel of which a luminance is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value among all the pixels in the ultrasound image as the movement vector.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim and Noguchi to have an angle sensor device attached to the ultrasound probe and configured to detect an angle of the ultrasound probe, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate, based on the angle of the ultrasound probe detected by the angle sensor device, a change in the angle of the ultrasound probe during capturing of the ultrasound images of the two frames, estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the change in the angle is smaller than a predetermined change-in-angle threshold, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the change in the angle is greater than or equal to the predetermined change-in-angle threshold in order to reduce the total number of images the apparatus processes, thereby making the apparatus more efficient.
Regarding Claim 12, Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim and Noguchi teach the apparatus of claim 5, as set forth above. Noguchi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to update the predetermined intervals, ([0023] “start a new operation to the reference image holding unit and the movement vector integration unit in a case where the ultrasound images of which the image change amount is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value are consecutively acquired by a predetermined number of frames.”)
based on the similarity level, the area ratio, or the change in the angle.([0016] “calculate a similarity between the deformed image and the reference image, and may determine the tomographic plane of the subject based on the calculated similarity.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the processor of Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim and Noguchi to have the processor be further configured to update the predetermined intervals, based on the similarity level, the area ratio, or the change in the angle in order to reduce the number of images the apparatus has to process, thereby making the apparatus more efficient.
Claims 8-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim, and Noguchi as applied to claims 4-5 and 15 above, and further in view of Park (US 20160171158).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, and 17, Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim and Noguchi teach the apparatus of claims 4, 5, and 15, as set forth above. Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim and Noguchi does not specifically teach the processor is further configured to analyze the ultrasound images of the two frames to calculate an area ratio between regions in the respective ultrasound images of the two frames, estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the area ratio is within a predetermined area ratio range, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the area ratio is out of the predetermined area ratio range.
However,
Park in a similar field of determining similarity between images teaches analyze the ultrasound images of the two frames to calculate an area ratio between regions in the respective ultrasound images of the two frames, estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the area ratio is within a predetermined area ratio range, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the area ratio is out of the predetermined area ratio range ([0059] “the comparison selector 270 calculates the similarity measure between each of the ROIs, and selects the reference images that include the same ROI that shows the similarity measure greater than a threshold”. The calculated similarity value is considered the area ratio and the threshold is considered the range, where when the similarity is above the threshold the ratio is within the range and the images are considered similar and when the similarity is below the threshold the ratio is out of the range and the images are considered dissimilar. [0093] further discloses comparing the shapes (areas) of the ROIs is compared).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the similarity determination using an area ratio of Park for the similarity determination of Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim and Noguchi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of determining whether the imaging frames are similar or not.
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 ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights