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 .
Response to Remark(s)
Applicant's amendment filed January 02nd, 2026 have been fully entered and considered. Applicant’s amendment to the claims and the specification have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 01st, 2025. Regarding the arguments to the previous prior art and the 101 rejections, the examiner respectfully finds the arguments to be non-persuasive, see response to remarks section below. Accordingly, this action is made final.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10, 12-20 and 22 are pending, claims 6-7 and 17-18 have been amended, claims 11, 21 and 23 have been cancelled. Claims 1-10, 12-20 and 22 remains rejected.
Response to Argument(s)
Regarding the Applicants’ argument to the 101 rejection:
In pages 9-15 of the remarks, the Applicants argue that the alleged mental processes stated in the non-final Office Action are not practically performable in the human mind, even with a pen and paper and the alleged abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application.
Particularly for the limitations of (of the independent claim 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
462
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicants brings in the support of the instant specification’s [0051] to specify the claimed invention through the steps of [0051].
In support of the above argument, the Applicants assert that the steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind because, said first image and second image are digital images, the human mind is not equipped to perform operations on digital images like those outlined in paragraphs [0051-71], of the instant specification. For example, the human mind cannot determiner coordinates of saif features (e.g., corners of a container) in a common coordinate system from said digital images, this requires the use of a computer software or printing out images to perform pixel-wise calculations manually, which is not practical. Furthermore, the Applicants state that the similarities between determining image plane coordinates of the features of the load based on the first image and the second image and. The Applicants further brings in the example of MPEP 21.06.04(a)(2)(III)(A) of “rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask” to be similar to the claimed “determining image plane coordinates of the features of the load based on the first image and the second image” hence, cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
The Applicants also state “determining a pairwise operation between the image plane coordinates of the first feature and the image plane coordinates of the second feature…” also requires complex calculations immediately recognizable as impractical to perform in the human mind such as disclosed in [0071-93].
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the Applicants state that the Office Action overlooked a number of claim features such as the steps of “determining one or more action candidates…, evaluating the one or more action candidates…, and determining a control action” hence, the Applicant submits the rejections are improper. Moreover, the Applicants find the overlooked claim features to provide meaningful limitations on the alleged abstract ideas, with the reference to MPEP 2106.05(e), that the combination of limitations in the claim provides an inventive concept to the claim as a whole.
And the limitations of “receiving a first image of a first feature of a load and receiving a second image of a second feature of the load” are necessary data gathering, not insignificant, according to MPEP 2106.05(g) that all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output, which align with the requirement of the process of the claim.
Regarding dependent claims, the Applicants assert that the claims 2-4, 6 and 8, as previously stated in the Office Action, to be further specification limitations, may be eligible because they add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The Applicants submit that the saif rejections for claims 2-4, 6 and 8 are improper.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants’ arguments and find them to be non-persuasive and incommensurate with the scope of the claims. Importantly, the Applicants are reminded that the claims are construed based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) in light of the specification.
Accordingly, the examiner finds the Applicants’ interpretation of the scope of the claims are not commensurate with the claim’s language and that the bringing in of the support from the instant specification to be a direct import and support for the Applicants’ argument for the claimed invention is not persuasive and incommensurate (that the teachings of the specification cannot be imported to be the instant scope of the claim). To then the Applicants state that the human mind cannot perform determine coordinates of said features such as corners of a container in a common coordinate system which can be based on pixel-wise calculations. There is no recitation of these stated steps, the discussed claim 1 does not recite any explicit pixel-wise calculations, corners of a container and what the Applicants referred to as a common coordinate system that the human mind cannot perform on.
Importantly, the Applicants’ general statement on that the human mind cannot perform operations on digital images is non-persuasive, since, the human mind can, in many instances in general, perform mental processes on digital images. However, it’s important that the Applicants understand the examiner’s 101 rejection previously set forth, interpret the claimed limitations to involve steps that, under BRI, to fall under mental processes of the categories of observation, and evaluation that the human mind can practically and obviously observe digital images and make such evaluation that fall under the same scope as of the claimed limitation. This is the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 that the claim cannot be a combination of steps of abstract ideas to be implemented by a generic devices, computer to perform generic functions of data gathering, processing data/information/program, which the examiner has analyzed and discussed in the rejections.
The human mind can observe first and second images and evaluate them to make a determination of an image plane coordinates of the features of a load (the claim simply recite features of a load, features can be understood to be anything within the image of the load) with the help of pen and paper (not necessary writing on the digital image, but observation and evaluation not referring to purely execution of the human brain, but a process involve using of the human mind and the physical tools such as pen and paper for the help of making such evaluation). The human mind can also “determine a pairwise operation between the image plane coordinates…or piecewise monotonic behaviour,” the examiner interprets this limitation to be a mere attempt to make a determination of which operation to use on the image between the image plane coordinates of the first feature and that of the second feature, wherein the pairwise operation can be one of the two options a monotonic or a piecewise monotonic behaviour for the pairwise operator (which is simply a specification limitation giving more detail information to which the operation is of) , therefore, such human mind can make a determination. It’s important for the Applicants to understand the BRI scope of this limitation, that the pairwise operation is not necessary carried out or performed, but the limitation simply recites “determining a pairwise operation” which falls under the scope of selecting/determining an operation which the human mind can make such determination. Claim interpretation is the first step of the 101 requirements.
Similarly for the limitations of “determining one or more action candidates….operation;” “evaluating the one or more action candidates….for the one or more action candidates;” and “determining a control action….with respect to the load” are all steps that human mind can observe these recited data/information such as the “based on the pairwise operation,” “an intermediate medium embodying historical experience information within a finite time horizon,” “based on the cost(s) and/or reward(s) of the action candidates” which are all information to be observed and basing on for the actual step taking place which are the determining steps, evaluating steps which, under BRI scope, the human mind can practically perform. Such as, the question of can a human, when is given with information regarding an intermediate medium embodying historical experience information within a finite time horizon, make a determination of one or more candidates actions regarding this information, and yes a human can, similarly for the other limitations. And the limitation of “to obtain cost(s) and/or reward(s) for the one or more action candidates” and “wherein the control action causes a spreader to move with respect to the load” are merely intended use limitations, intended outcome/use limitations.
Regarding the bringing in of the example of MPEP 21.06.04(a)(2)(III)(A), the examiner examines the claims based on claim-by-claim basis and case-by-case basis, the examiner finds the inventions to be far different, and also the claims are far different such as, by the actions these limitations take, the MPEP example perform a rendering action while the claimed limitations perform determination actions and evaluating actions, for one aspect. See 101 rejections below for more details of the rejection and analysis of the claimed features.
Regarding the Applicants’ argument on the step 2A, prong 2, it’s important that the Applicants understand the requirements of step 2A, prong 2 is that there are additional elements (features of the claim other than the judicial exception) would integrate the judicial exceptions indicated in step 2A, prong 1, into a practical application. The requirements of this integration and the requirement for additional elements can be found in MPEP §2106.04. Therefore, the examiner has already discussed the steps of “determining one or more action candidates…, evaluating the one or more action candidates…, and determining a control action” in step 2A Prong 1, and what is left for step 2A, prong 2 are the features of the claims the examiner finds to be additional elements (such as stated in the rejection set forth and stated below) which includes generic computer components recited at high level of generality to perform generic functions, even though are recited to be used together with the other limitations in the claim, however, as analyzed to be steps fall under abstract ideas, these additional elements are recited to be just a mere attempt to implement the judicial exceptions using generic computer, computer components, and devices. The claim as a whole do not recite any additional element that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Moreover, the Applicants are reminded that, under the requirement of the 101, steps 2A Prong 2, the Applicants’ argument is not persuasive at first attempt since they fail to identify any additional elements they believe to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Regarding the argument that the limitations of “receiving a first image of a first feature of a load and receiving a second image of a second feature of the load” are necessary data gathering. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants’ argument, moreover, these limitations are just mere steps of data gathering for use in the process of the claim, being insignificant extra-solution activities of simply “receiving a first image…” and “receiving a second image…” which are obviously steps in a image processing invention, well-known and conventional. These steps are not necessary data gathering, not all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, it’s important for the Applicants to understand that this statement of “all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering” implies that the judicial exception solely perform on these types of particular data and at all uses of this type of judicial exception (here being mental processes) there must be this particular data gathering. However, the claim recites limitations fall under mental process abstract ideas, that have been discussed, do not, at all instances, require the use of this particular type of data, these mental process observation and evaluation can also be done, in other instances, not strictly tied to image receiving.
As indicated, in the previous Office Action, claims 2-4, 6 and 8, each recite “wherein clauses” of providing further specification to the feature they each depend on, therefore, just providing further specification to these feature, without further limiting the claims in a meaningful way. the rejection is properly stated.
Regarding the Applicants’ argument on the 103 rejections:
In pages 15-20 of the remarks, the Applicants argue that the proposed prior arts in combination do not teach or suggest the features of the claims (such as for the independent claim 1):
“evaluating the one or more action candidates…….;
Determining a control action…..;”
The Applicants cites the portion of the specification’s [0095] and [00109-00113] to support the claimed invention.
Regarding the proposed Lee: In support of the above argument, the Applicants assert that the propose Lee centrally teaches features (conventional method and proposed method) that are not the same as the action candidates of the claim. The claimed action candidates“ are recited to determine the particular movement of a spreader, they can be defined as simple vectors, are not themselves anything approaching an entire method for matching a spreader to a container. There is no reasonable interpretation on which “action candidates” map to Lee’s “conventional method” (which is one of the different method of Lee which the examiner mapped to the recited action candidates). And the Applicants find that Lee’s comparison of different methods is not readable on “evaluating the one or more action candidates….”
Beyond disagreeing that Lee’s methods are not action candidates, Applicants notes that Lee disclose an empirical comparison on which each method is tested 20 times, with the results averaged across trials (section V.B.) is not equivalent to “evaluating the one or more action candidates….for the one or more action candidates.”
Furthermore, the Applicants submit that even if Lee’s conventional and proposed methods are interpreted to read on the recited “control action,” then Lee does not disclose the step “determining a control action…wherein the control action causes a spreader to move with respect to the load” occurring after the “evaluating…” step. While Lee’s claim mapping has the experimental comparison occurs after the spreader has been caused to move with respect to the load.
Regarding the proposed Shum: In support of the above argument, the Applicants centrally assert that the proposed Shum is not analogous art to the claimed invention, with referencing to the requirements of MPEP 2141.01(a) to, centrally, state that the proper use in an obviousness rejection that the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention, etc. (page 18, last par. of the remarks). And that the problem Shum tries to solve is different to the problem of the instant invention tries to solve.
Regarding the proposed combination of Lee and Shum: In support of the above argument, the Applicants assert that neither Lee nor Shum discloses the features as discussed and have different systems and ideas. Therefore, the Applicants submit that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to modify Lee with Shum.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants’ arguments and find them to be non-persuasive and incommensurate with the scope of the claims. Importantly, the Applicants are reminded that the claims are construed based on BRI in light of the specification, therefore, the teachings of the specification cannot be imported to be the instant scope of the claim.
Regarding the Applicants’ argument on the proposed Lee, the Applicants’ interpretation of the recited “action candidate” to be an action of determining a particular movement of a spreader can be defined as a vectors, this interpretation is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, there is no recitation in the claim that explicitly teaches, the claim simple recites “action candidates” without giving it further specification or definition therefore, the term can be understood to be any action options/candidates that the examiner finds Lee to teach the different methods used to move the spreader being analogous to the “action candidates” since they are action options, what are different methods of moving a spreader to be selected but action options? or action candidates to be selected to be appropriate to solve the problem? This claimed “action candidates” does not exclude Lee’s teaching of the different methods used to move the spreader in response to detecting of a misalignment error. Moreover, Lee, based on BRI, teaches the recited “evaluating…” since Lee has to compare the different methods (what is comparing the different method options/ proposed methods but evaluating action candidates?), importantly, Lee’s invention compare the different methods to find the best method to take according to cost of the system, therefore, is analogous to the claimed limitation.
Furthermore, the Applicants are reminded to consult with the examiner’s mapping to guide the understanding of the interpretation of the claim to share same scope with the propose reference, here, in the mapping, Lee was mapped its action to move the spreader according to the selected method is analogous to the recited “control action,” not the “conventional and propose methods of Lee” as stated in the Applicants’ remarks of the mapping. Which is when the appropriate method is used to compensate the misalignment error, of course the system then performs moving the spreader in according to the selected method. This can be found in Lee’s section V.C, the system control the movement, even the acceleration of the spreader in according to the method/algorithm, such as shown in Figure. 15 when the error still insist when using the method perform the control the motor again until there is no error. Therefore, the steps are performed in the same order as the claimed limitations.
The Applicants are reminded, in the rejection, the Examiner explicitly stated the endeavor of the references being the same in combination to arrive at the claimed invention, one reference of Lee has been the primary reference that teaches the limitations that have been mapped to the claimed invention, while the remaining limitation of “pairwise operation, wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour” was mapped to Shum, Shum is used in a 103 combination to teach the feature of the claim that focuses on the pairwise operation, wherein the pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behavior used in misalignment determination field of endeavor. Therefore, the reference is proper and sharing the same field of endeavor to Lee to be combined with Lee to arrive at the claimed limitations.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as discussed above.
Therefore, the rejections for 101 and 103 remain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding Independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus/device, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part:
“determining image plane coordinates of the features of the load based on the first image and the second image;
determining a pairwise operation between the image plane coordinates of the first feature and the image plane coordinates of the second feature, wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour;
determining one or more action candidates based on the pairwise operation;
evaluating the one or more action candidates using an intermediate medium embodying historical experience information within a finite time horizon to obtain cost(s) and/or reward(s) for the one or more action candidates; and
determining a control action based on the cost(s) and/or reward(s) of the action candidates, wherein the control action causes a spreader to move with respect to the load.”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of:
“determining image plane coordinates of the features of the load based on the first image and the second image” is step, by BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation), that a human mind can also perform through a process of observation and evaluation such as a human mind can observe images and determine plane coordinates of features such as recited in the claim. Same for the limitation of “determining a pairwise operation….has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour” is a step, by BRI, a human mind can observe image data and determine coordinates an operation such steps a human mind can perform with pen and pencil; same for the other determining steps and the evaluating step which the human mind can perform mentally, based on BRI, using a pen and pencil.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
An apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: receiving a first image of a first feature of a load; receiving a second image of a second feature of the load;
The additional elements – “an apparatus comprising….processor….memory…program code” is a generic device/computer recited at high level of generality further comprising generic computer components to perform generic functions such as a processor to execute program stored in a memory, and the steps of receiving are just step of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities of receiving data/information for further processing. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(d).III.C.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-10 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1. Moreover, claim 2-4, 6, and 8 recites, in part, wherein clauses of further specification limitations of just general giving further specification of the limitations of abstract ideas, and/or additional elements each of them depend on, hence still merely abstract idea, additional elements. Claim 5 recites, in part, “wherein the pairwise operator has a piecewise monotonic behaviour correlated with decreasing or increasing errors in alignment of the spreader and the load; and wherein the pairwise operation is a pairwise symmetry operation; or the pairwise operator is a norm of dot or cross multiplication of error vectors in the first image and the second image; or the pairwise operator is a norm of dot or cross multiplication of feature position vectors in the first image and the second image” which includes a wherein clause of just giving further specification to the abstract idea it depends on in claim 1, moreover, the “or” indicates a selection therefore, only one option is considered to be the scope of the claim and has patent weight which any of them to be just abstract idea giving further specification to the determining step abstract idea in claim 1. Claim 7 recites, in part, “wherein at least one cost for the one or more action candidates is obtained, and wherein at least one of saif cost(s) is proportional to force or energy or pressure or voltage or current or placement or placement consumption of the action candidates and their effect in the spreader motion at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future; and/or reflects risk of losing features in a camera's field of view at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future” which includes a general wherein clause to provide further specification to the abstract idea of what the cost is to be proportional etc., which is still abstract idea. Claim 9 recites, in part, insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering of the image being received from a camera and further specification of the camera and further specification of the features and the corner and the spreader hence, still merely general information providing limitation to the abstract ideas and additional elements these limitations depend on, hence, still abstract ideas and insignificant additional elements. Claim 10 recites, in part, different images used for the processing each is received from different camera at a corner, by BRI, is still generic camera being used to obtain image which is generic function of a camera, therefore, the claim recites no more than obtaining data/images using generic cameras recited at high level of generality, the receiving steps are just insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities, the determining steps to be a mental process of which the human mind can also perform, based on BRI, such as based on given information or output, the human mind can observe the output data to determine an operation or action candidates.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-20:
The independent claim 12 recites analogous limitations to the independent claim 1 being a process claim, hence these analogous limitations are analyzed under the same approach as shown above, to be 101 ineligible. The dependent claims 13-20 also recite analogous limitations to the dependent claims 2-10 hence, to be analyzed under the same approach to be 101 ineligible.
Regarding claim 22:
The independent claim 22 recites analogous limitations to the independent claim 1 being a non-transitory computer readable medium/device claim, hence these analogous limitations are analyzed under the same approach as shown above, to be 101 ineligible. Claim 22 further recites additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause an apparatus to perform at least” to be generic computer components performing generic functions hence, not indicative of an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application under step 2A, nor being considered significantly more under step 2B.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-17, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungjae Lee et. al. (“Measurement of 3D Spreader Position for Automatic Landing System, Nov. 2004, The 30th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Busan, Korea” hereinafter as “Lee”) in view of Heung-Yeung Shum et. al. (“Construction of Panoramic Image Mosaics with Global and Local Alignment, August 1999, 1999 Kluwer Academic Publisher, Printed in the Netherlands” hereinafter as “Shum”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform (abstract discloses that the processing is done on images, which can be understood to have the use of a computer which includes a processor to execute program stored in a memory): receiving a first image of a first feature of a load (section III, 1st par., discloses having cameras to take pictures of two corners of a container [analogous to a load as claimed, by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation], therefore, any of the pictures is analogous to the first image as claimed, and the any of the corners is analogous to the first feature as claimed); receiving a second image of a second feature of the load (any of the other pictures is analogous to the second image as claimed, based on BRI, and any of the corners is analogous to the second feature as claimed); determining image plane coordinates of the features of the load based on the first image and the second image (section III.A, 1st par., discloses extracting plane coordinates of the corners based on the pictures taken from the two cameras, which is analogous to the claimed limitation); determining an operation between the image plane coordinates of the first feature and the image plane coordinates of the second feature (section V.B discloses determination of misalignment between the spreader and the container based on the coordinates found previously from the pictures to call misalignment error); determining one or more action candidates based on the operation (section V.C discloses when the misalignment error is found, take an appropriate action such as moving the spreader to either right or left based on where the misalignment is found, which, by BRI, is analogous to the claimed limitation); evaluating the one or more action candidates using an intermediate medium embodying historical experience information within a finite time horizon to obtain cost(s) and/or reward(s) for the one or more action candidates (section V.C shops different experiment results [also shown in tables I-III] to compensate for the misalignment errors found, the experience results are analogous to the historical experience information as claimed based on BRI, and the different methods here being analogous to the action candidates as claimed, by BRI; and the different method results here being applied according to cost such as if the system is too expensive, switch to using cheaper cameras, therefore, to obtain economical and essential and effectiveness of the system based on the experiment results [“and/or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects cost for mapping which is analogous to determining that when the system is too expensive, switch to using cheaper cameras for appropriate method to be used effectively]; since the movement and the camera taking picture continuously, therefore, the data in tables I-III can be understood to be in time series which is analogous to a finite time horizon as claimed, by BRI); and determining a control action based on the cost(s) and/or reward(s) of the action candidates, wherein the control action causes a spreader to move with respect to the load (as discussed previously, as disclosed in section V.C, when the method is appropriate to used based on cost effective and misalignment compensation effectiveness, the spreader is moved accordingly to compensate the misalignment error, hence, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim, the moving of the spreader here is analogous to the control action as claimed).
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose the operation being a pairwise operation, wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour.
In the same field of misalignment determination (page 27, last par., Shum), Shum discloses the operation being a pairwise operation (page 22, 1st par., discloses using pairwise operation to detect misalignment between data from two images which is analogous to the determination of the misalignment between the spreader and the container from two images of Lee), wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “monotonic” for mapping which is disclosed in Shum’s page 6, 3rd to the last par., wherein the operation being monotonic, which is analogous to the claimed limitation, by BRI).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to have a method that uses pairwise operation to account for features from two different images with found determined plane coordinate information wherein the pairwise operation being monotonic operation as taught by Shum to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to detect alignment and misalignment more effectively (abstract, Shum).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Shum discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a self-exploring algorithm is used in evaluating the one or more action candidates (Lee, as discussed previously, the section V.C discloses using appropriate method being experimented on to use for moving the spreader to compensate for the misalignment error, the different methods being experimented on for testing of the model is here is analogous to a self-exploring algorithm as claimed, since any method requires a self-determining of the experiment to determine an appropriate result, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Shum discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more action candidates are sample time independent (Lee, since the action to move the spreader to compensate for the misalignment error is dependent on acceleration such as disclosed in Lee’s section V.C, such as shown in equation 14, a constant acceleration is time-independent, based on BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Shum discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more action candidates and control action are defined based on displacement to x-direction, displacement to y- direction and rotation (Lee, the misalignment as discussed above, to be moved according to the action candidates, which are already mapped in claim 1 above, moreover, the misalignment is defined based on x and y directions such as show in in tables I-III, and the angle [analogous to the rotation as claimed], therefore, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Shum discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pairwise operator has a piecewise monotonic behaviour (as discussed above in claim 1, as being mapped to Shum) correlated with decreasing or increasing errors in alignment of the spreader and the load (as discussed above in claim 1, the misalignment relates to the decreasing or increasing errors in alignment or the misalignment of the spreader and the container, such as shown in tables I-III); and wherein the pairwise operation is a pairwise symmetry operation; or the pairwise operator is a norm of dot or cross multiplication of error vectors in the first image and the second image; or the pairwise operator is a norm of dot or cross multiplication of feature position vectors in the first image and the second image (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “pairwise symmetry operation” for mapping which is disclosed in Shum’s 10, 1st par., wherein the operation considered symmetry determined, which, by BRI covers the scope of the claim). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Shum discloses the apparatus claim 1, wherein at least one reward for the one or more action candidates is obtained, and wherein at least one of said reward(s) achieves its highest value when the spreader substantially aligns with the load or achieves substantial alignment in the finite time horizon in the future (as discussed above in claim 1, as disclosed in Lee’s section V, the method that provides the highest economical and effectiveness is selected for aligning the spreader with the container, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim [“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “substantially aligns with the load”]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Shum discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further caused to perform: transmitting the control action to one or more actuators for moving the spreader with respect to the load (Lee, as discussed above in claim 1, the control action is to move the spreader with respect to the load, hence, can be understood to transmit signal to carry out the action accordingly, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Shum discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first image is received from a first camera located on a first corner of a spreader and the second image is received from a second camera located on a second corner of the spreader (as discussed above in claim 1, the cameras to capture images of the corners of the container located on the corners of the spreader hence, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim, wherein any of the cameras can be understood to be the first camera located on a first corner of the spreader and any of the others can be understood to be the second camera located on the second corner), wherein the first corner and the second corner are different corners, and wherein the first feature of the load is a first corner of a container and the second feature of the load is a second corner of the container, wherein the first corner of the spreader and the first corner of the container are corresponding corners and the second corner of the spreader and the second corner of the container are corresponding corners (as discussed above and previously, the images captured each corners of the container, hence, by BRI, any of the corner can be understood to be the first corner of the container and any of the others to be the second corner of the container, and the first feature being the first corner and the second feature being the second corner, and by BRI, the first corner location of the camera correspond to the first corner of the container and same for the second corner location of the camera correspond to the second corner of the container).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Shum discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first image is received from a first camera located on a first corner of a spreader and the second image is received from a second camera located on a second corner of the spreader, wherein the first corner and the second corner are different corners (Lee, as discussed above in claim 1, the cameras to capture images of the corners of the container located on the corners of the spreader hence, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim, wherein any of the cameras can be understood to be the first camera located on a first corner of the spreader and any of the others can be understood to be the second camera located on the second corner), and wherein the first feature of the load is a first corner of a container and the second feature of the load is a second corner of the container, wherein the first corner of the spreader and the first corner of the container are corresponding corners and the second corner of the spreader and the second corner of the container are corresponding corners (Lee, as discussed above and previously, the images captured each corners of the container, hence, by BRI, any of the corner can be understood to be the first corner of the container and any of the others to be the second corner of the container, and the first feature being the first corner and the second feature being the second corner, and by BRI, the first corner location of the camera correspond to the first corner of the container and same for the second corner location of the camera correspond to the second corner of the container); wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: receiving a third image of a third feature of the load, wherein the third image is received from a third camera located on a third corner of the spreader; receiving a fourth image of a fourth feature of the load, wherein the fourth image is received from a fourth camera located on the fourth corner of the spreader (Lee, as shown in FIG. 10 and Fig. 11, the spreader system can include more than one spreader, hence here, the whole system of the experimental crane and the program environment can be understood to be the spreader as claimed, therefore, each spreader can be understood to carry two cameras at their corners, therefore, another spreader’s any of the set of cameras can be understood to be the capturing of a third image of a third corner/feature of the corresponding container [the load], and the other camera to be the fourth camera capturing a fourth image comprises a fourth corner/feature of the container [the load], by BRI, covers the scope of the claimed limitation); wherein the third corner and the fourth corner are different corners than the first corner and the second corner (Lee, since they are of a different spreader in the spreader system, they are different corners); and wherein the third feature of the load is a third corner of the container and the fourth feature of the load is a fourth corner of the container, wherein the third corner of the spreader and the third corner of the container are corresponding corners and the fourth corner of the spreader and the fourth corner of the container are corresponding corners (Lee, as discussed previously, the third feature being the third corner and the fourth feature being the fourth corner and that the third corner of the spreader correspond to the third corner of the container and the fourth corner of the spreader corresponds to the fourth corner of the container, by BRI); and the apparatus further comprises means for determining image plane coordinates of the third and fourth features of the load based on the third image and the fourth image (section III.A, 1st par., discloses extracting plane coordinates of the corners based on the pictures taken from the two cameras, which is analogous to the claimed limitation); determining another operation between the image plane coordinates of the third feature and the image plane coordinates of the fourth feature,; and determining one or more action candidates based on the operations (section V.B discloses determination of misalignment between the spreader and the container based on the coordinates found previously from the pictures to call misalignment error).
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose the operation being a pairwise operation, wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour.
In the same field of misalignment determination (page 27, last par., Shum), Shum discloses the operation being a pairwise operation (page 22, 1st par., discloses using pairwise operation to detect misalignment between data from two images which is analogous to the determination of the misalignment between the spreader and the container from two images of Lee), wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “monotonic” for mapping which is disclosed in Shum’s page 6, 3rd to the last par., wherein the operation being monotonic, which is analogous to the claimed limitation, by BRI).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to have a method that uses pairwise operation to account for features from two different images with found determined plane coordinate information wherein the pairwise operation being monotonic operation as taught by Shum to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to detect alignment and misalignment more effectively (abstract, Shum).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a method comprising: receiving a second image of a second feature of the load (any of the other pictures is analogous to the second image as claimed, based on BRI, and any of the corners is analogous to the second feature as claimed); determining image plane coordinates of the features of the load based on the first image and the second image (section III.A, 1st par., discloses extracting plane coordinates of the corners based on the pictures taken from the two cameras, which is analogous to the claimed limitation); determining an operation between the image plane coordinates of the first feature and the image plane coordinates of the second feature (section V.B discloses determination of misalignment between the spreader and the container based on the coordinates found previously from the pictures to call misalignment error); determining one or more action candidates based on the operation (section V.C discloses when the misalignment error is found, take an appropriate action such as moving the spreader to either right or left based on where the misalignment is found, which, by BRI, is analogous to the claimed limitation); evaluating the one or more action candidates using an intermediate medium embodying historical experience information within a finite time horizon to obtain cost(s) and/or reward(s) for the one or more action candidates (section V.C shops different experiment results [also shown in tables I-III] to compensate for the misalignment errors found, the experience results are analogous to the historical experience information as claimed based on BRI, and the different methods here being analogous to the action candidates as claimed, by BRI; and the different method results here being applied according to cost such as if the system is too expensive, switch to using cheaper cameras, therefore, to obtain economical and essential and effectiveness of the system based on the experiment results [“and/or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects cost for mapping which is analogous to determining that when the system is too expensive, switch to using cheaper cameras for appropriate method to be used effectively]; since the movement and the camera taking picture continuously, therefore, the data in tables I-III can be understood to be in time series which is analogous to a finite time horizon as claimed, by BRI); and determining a control action based on the cost(s) and/or reward(s) of the action candidates, wherein the control action causes a spreader to move with respect to the load (as discussed previously, as disclosed in section V.C, when the method is appropriate to used based on cost effective and misalignment compensation effectiveness, the spreader is moved accordingly to compensate the misalignment error, hence, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim, the moving of the spreader here is analogous to the control action as claimed).
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose the operation being a pairwise operation, wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour.
In the same field of misalignment determination (page 27, last par., Shum), Shum discloses the operation being a pairwise operation (page 22, 1st par., discloses using pairwise operation to detect misalignment between data from two images which is analogous to the determination of the misalignment between the spreader and the container from two images of Lee), wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “monotonic” for mapping which is disclosed in Shum’s page 6, 3rd to the last par., wherein the operation being monotonic, which is analogous to the claimed limitation, by BRI).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to have a method that uses pairwise operation to account for features from two different images with found determined plane coordinate information wherein the pairwise operation being monotonic operation as taught by Shum to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to detect alignment and misalignment more effectively (abstract, Shum).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Shum discloses the method of claim 12, wherein a self-exploring algorithm is used in evaluating the one or more action candidates (Lee, as discussed previously, the section V.C discloses using appropriate method being experimented on to use for moving the spreader to compensate for the misalignment error, the different methods being experimented on for testing of the model is here is analogous to a self-exploring algorithm as claimed, since any method requires a self-determining of the experiment to determine an appropriate result, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Shum discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the one or more action candidates are sample time independent (Lee, since the action to move the spreader to compensate for the misalignment error is dependent on acceleration such as disclosed in Lee’s section V.C, such as shown in equation 14, a constant acceleration is time-independent, based on BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Shum discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the one or more action candidates and control action are defined based on displacement to x-direction, displacement to y- direction and rotation (Lee, the misalignment as discussed above, to be moved according to the action candidates, which are already mapped in claim 12 above, moreover, the misalignment is defined based on x and y directions such as show in in tables I-III, and the angle [analogous to the rotation as claimed], therefore, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim 12).
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Shum discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the pairwise operator has a piecewise monotonic behaviour (as discussed above in claim 12, as being mapped to Shum) correlated with decreasing or increasing errors in alignment of the spreader and the load (as discussed above in claim 12, the misalignment relates to the decreasing or increasing errors in alignment or the misalignment of the spreader and the container, such as shown in tables I-III); and wherein the pairwise operation is a pairwise symmetry operation; or the pairwise operator is a norm of dot or cross multiplication of error vectors in the first image and the second image; or the pairwise operator is a norm of dot or cross multiplication of feature position vectors in the first image and the second image (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “pairwise symmetry operation” for mapping which is disclosed in Shum’s 10, 1st par., wherein the operation considered symmetry determined, which, by BRI covers the scope of the claim). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Shum discloses the method claim 12, wherein at least one reward for the one or more action candidates is obtained, and wherein at least one said reward(s) achieves its highest value when the spreader substantially aligns with the load or achieves substantial alignment in the finite time horizon in the future (as discussed above in claim 12, as disclosed in Lee’s section V, the method that provides the highest economical and effectiveness is selected for aligning the spreader with the container, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim [“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “substantially aligns with the load”]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Shum discloses the method of claim 12, further caused to perform: transmitting the control action to one or more actuators for moving the spreader with respect to the load (Lee, as discussed above in claim 12, the control action is to move the spreader with respect to the load, hence, can be understood to transmit signal to carry out the action accordingly, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Shum discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the first image is received from a first camera located on a first corner of a spreader and the second image is received from a second camera located on a second corner of the spreader (as discussed above in claim 12, the cameras to capture images of the corners of the container located on the corners of the spreader hence, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim, wherein any of the cameras can be understood to be the first camera located on a first corner of the spreader and any of the others can be understood to be the second camera located on the second corner), wherein the first corner and the second corner are different corners, and wherein the first feature of the load is a first corner of a container and the second feature of the load is a second corner of the container, wherein the first corner of the spreader and the first corner of the container are corresponding corners and the second corner of the spreader and the second corner of the container are corresponding corners (as discussed above and previously, the images captured each corners of the container, hence, by BRI, any of the corner can be understood to be the first corner of the container and any of the others to be the second corner of the container, and the first feature being the first corner and the second feature being the second corner, and by BRI, the first corner location of the camera correspond to the first corner of the container and same for the second corner location of the camera correspond to the second corner of the container).
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause an apparatus to perform at least (abstract discloses that the processing is done on images, which can be understood to have the use of a computer which includes a processor to execute program stored in a memory or a non-transitory computer readable medium such as a ROM or RAM): receiving a first image of a first feature of a load (section III, 1st par., discloses having cameras to take pictures of two corners of a container [analogous to a load as claimed, by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation], therefore, any of the pictures is analogous to the first image as claimed, and the any of the corners is analogous to the first feature as claimed); receiving a second image of a second feature of the load (any of the other pictures is analogous to the second image as claimed, based on BRI, and any of the corners is analogous to the second feature as claimed); determining image plane coordinates of the features of the load based on the first image and the second image (section III.A, 1st par., discloses extracting plane coordinates of the corners based on the pictures taken from the two cameras, which is analogous to the claimed limitation); determining an operation between the image plane coordinates of the first feature and the image plane coordinates of the second feature (section V.B discloses determination of misalignment between the spreader and the container based on the coordinates found previously from the pictures to call misalignment error); determining one or more action candidates based on the operation (section V.C discloses when the misalignment error is found, take an appropriate action such as moving the spreader to either right or left based on where the misalignment is found, which, by BRI, is analogous to the claimed limitation); evaluating the one or more action candidates using an intermediate medium embodying historical experience information within a finite time horizon to obtain cost(s) and/or reward(s) for the one or more action candidates (section V.C shops different experiment results [also shown in tables I-III] to compensate for the misalignment errors found, the experience results are analogous to the historical experience information as claimed based on BRI, and the different methods here being analogous to the action candidates as claimed, by BRI; and the different method results here being applied according to cost such as if the system is too expensive, switch to using cheaper cameras, therefore, to obtain economical and essential and effectiveness of the system based on the experiment results [“and/or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects cost for mapping which is analogous to determining that when the system is too expensive, switch to using cheaper cameras for appropriate method to be used effectively]; since the movement and the camera taking picture continuously, therefore, the data in tables I-III can be understood to be in time series which is analogous to a finite time horizon as claimed, by BRI); and determining a control action based on the cost(s) and/or reward(s) of the action candidates, wherein the control action causes a spreader to move with respect to the load (as discussed previously, as disclosed in section V.C, when the method is appropriate to used based on cost effective and misalignment compensation effectiveness, the spreader is moved accordingly to compensate the misalignment error, hence, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim, the moving of the spreader here is analogous to the control action as claimed).
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose the operation being a pairwise operation, wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour.
In the same field of misalignment determination (page 27, last par., Shum), Shum discloses the operation being a pairwise operation (page 22, 1st par., discloses using pairwise operation to detect misalignment between data from two images which is analogous to the determination of the misalignment between the spreader and the container from two images of Lee), wherein a pairwise operator of the pairwise operation has a monotonic or piecewise monotonic behaviour (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “monotonic” for mapping which is disclosed in Shum’s page 6, 3rd to the last par., wherein the operation being monotonic, which is analogous to the claimed limitation, by BRI).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to have a method that uses pairwise operation to account for features from two different images with found determined plane coordinate information wherein the pairwise operation being monotonic operation as taught by Shum to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to detect alignment and misalignment more effectively (abstract, Shum).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungjae Lee et. al. (“Measurement of 3D Spreader Position for Automatic Landing System, Nov. 2004, The 30th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Busan, Korea” hereinafter as “Lee”) in view of Heung-Yeung Shum et. al. (“Construction of Panoramic Image Mosaics with Global and Local Alignment, August 1999, 1999 Kluwer Academic Publisher, Printed in the Netherlands” hereinafter as “Shum”) and Yunfeng Diao et. al. (“Vision-based Detection of Container Lock Holes Using a Modified Local Sliding Window Method, June 2019, EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing, Vol. 2019, Article Number 69” hereinafter as “Diao”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Shum discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Lee in view of Shum does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one cost for the one or more action candidates is obtained, and wherein at least one of said cost(s) is proportional to force or energy or pressure or voltage or current or placement or placement consumption of the action candidates and their effect in the spreader motion at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future; and/or reflects risk of losing features in a camera's field of view at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future.
In the same field of taking photo of container from cameras on a spreader (title and abstract, Diao), Diao discloses wherein at least one cost for the one or more action candidates is obtained, and wherein at least one of said cost(s) is proportional to force or energy or pressure or voltage or current or placement or placement consumption of the action candidates and their effect in the spreader motion at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future; and/or reflects risk of losing features in a camera's field of view at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future (“and/or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “the cost reflects risk of losing features in a camera’s field of view at the current moment” which is disclosed in section 2.1.2, the shooting situation of the camera is being considered to capture the container effectively, further discloses in section 2.1.3 wherein the location of the camera installation is considered to decrease the container errors, therefore, the correctness of angle detection position of the camera installation is the cost as claimed which reflect the risk of losing feature sin the image, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Shum to perform processing of features obtained from images of a load wherein there is a cost wherein the cost is proportional to force or energy or pressure or voltage or current or placement or placement consumption of the action candidates and their effect in the spreader motion at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future; and/or reflects risk of losing features in a camera's field of view at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future as taught by Diao to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to determine locations of container and spreader effectively (subtract, Diao).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Shum discloses the method of claim 12.
However, Lee in view of Shum does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one cost for the one or more action candidates is obtained, and wherein at least one of said cost(s) is proportional to force or energy or pressure or voltage or current or placement or placement consumption of the action candidates and their effect in the spreader motion at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future; and/or reflects risk of losing features in a camera's field of view at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future.
In the same field of taking photo of container from cameras on a spreader (title and abstract, Diao), Diao discloses wherein at least one cost for the one or more action candidates is obtained, and wherein at least one of said cost(s) is proportional to force or energy or pressure or voltage or current or placement or placement consumption of the action candidates and their effect in the spreader motion at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future; and/or reflects risk of losing features in a camera's field of view at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future (“and/or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “the cost reflects risk of losing features in a camera’s field of view at the current moment” which is disclosed in section 2.1.2, the shooting situation of the camera is being considered to capture the container effectively, further discloses in section 2.1.3 wherein the location of the camera installation is considered to decrease the container errors, therefore, the correctness of angle detection position of the camera installation is the cost as claimed which reflect the risk of losing feature sin the image, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Shum to perform processing of features obtained from images of a load wherein there is a cost wherein the cost is proportional to force or energy or pressure or voltage or current or placement or placement consumption of the action candidates and their effect in the spreader motion at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future; and/or reflects risk of losing features in a camera's field of view at the current moment or in the finite time horizon in the future as taught by Diao to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to determine locations of container and spreader effectively (subtract, Diao).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673