Response to RCE
This action is responsive to the RCE filed on 09/12/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20, 24-25 are pending in the case.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/12/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Application 18149640 filed 01/03/2023 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63266357, filed 01/03/2022, 18149640 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63337539, filed 05/02/2022, 18149640 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63377025, filed 09/24/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1-9, 15-19, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Baldwin et al. US 20120256967 A1, (hereinafter Baldwin) in view of Suk et al. US 20190056785 A1, (hereinafter Suk).
As to independent claim 1, Baldwin teaches:
A method, comprising:
at a computer system in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices (See Fig. 8 display 806 and image capture element 808 [i.e., input device]):
displaying, via the display generation component, a user interface including scrollable content that is not scrolling (See Fig. 3 Zone 4 with [0028] – “For example, if the user's viewing location moves up to Zone 4, the device might stop scrolling,”, thus the display of the Fig. 3’s UI includes scrollable content (content overlaid by Zones 1-5) that is currently not scrolling when the user’s gaze is at Zone 4.);
while displaying the user interface including the scrollable content that is not scrolling, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a gaze of a user of the computer system directed to the scrollable content (See Fig. 3 with Fig. 1 with [0022] gaze direction); and
in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the scrollable content:
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a first region of the scrollable content, maintaining display of the scrollable content without scrolling the scrollable content (See Fig. 3 Zone 4 with [0028] – “For example, if the user's viewing location moves up to Zone 4, the device might stop scrolling,”, in other words if user’s gaze is directed to zone 4 [i.e., first region] then the device will not scroll);
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a second region, different from the first region, of the scrollable content while a respective portion of the user meets respective criteria, scrolling the scrollable content in accordance with the gaze of the user (See Fig. 3 Zone 3 with [0027] – “If the user's gaze direction moves closer to the bottom of the screen such that it is determined to be in zone 3, the scrolling speed can increase again in order to more quickly direct the user's viewing location back up to Zone 1”, in other words Zone 3 is seen as the second region and is scrolling. In regards to claimed “respective portion of the user meets respective criteria”, see Fig. 6a in view of Fig. 9 step 908 with [0041] – “In this example, the user can continue to read the text without interruption and using a scrolling approach discussed above.”, in other words the claimed “respective portion of the user” is interpreted to be the user’s eyes, and the eyes of the user are gazed upon the text, which is seen as the user meeting the criteria of gazing at the text instead of the thumbnails 604, 606, 608. Also see the explanation below in regards to Figs. 6a and 6b); and
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to the second region and the respective portion of the user does not meet the respective criteria, maintaining display of the scrollable content without scrolling the scrollable content (See Fig. 6B with [0041] – “If the user gets to a point where the user wants to view one of the images, the user can gaze at the appropriate thumbnail or element. For example, in FIG. 6(b) the user is detected to gaze at element 606. By gazing at element 606, the corresponding image 610 can be displayed, such as in a modal or popup window or other such display. Thus, the user can view the image if and when the user gazes at the corresponding element…The user can cause the image to no longer be displayed by looking back to the text, or in another appropriate location. Such an approach is also relatively natural for a user, as the user would look at the image element when the image is of interest, and would look back to the text when the image is no longer of interest.”; furthermore, see in view of Fig. 9, which shows that the device is either scrolling in step 908 based on the gaze being on the text, or the device is performing a control action in step 912 e.g. thumbnail popup display based on gaze being on the thumbnail. Thus, the claim is met because Fig. 6a illustrates a thumbnail 608, which corresponds to zone 3 of Fig. 3, and the thumbnail 608 is also adjacent to text. Thus, if user’s gaze meets the criteria of gazing at the text adjacent to thumbnail 608, scrolling will be performed as shown by Fig. 9 step 908. However, if user’s gaze does not meet the criteria because the gaze is upon the thumbnail 608, the device will enlarge the thumbnail 608 instead of scrolling as shown by Fig. 6B with Fig. 9 step 912).
Baldwin does not teach: …while a hand of the user meets respective criteria, scrolling the scrollable content in accordance with the gaze of the user;
In accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to the second region while the hand of the user does not meet the respective criteria, maintaining display of the scrollable content without scrolling the scrollable content.
Suk teaches: …while a hand of the user meets respective criteria, scrolling the scrollable content in accordance with the gaze of the user (See [0073] – “For example, a menu associated with content is scrolled and displayed along the direction of movement of the user's gaze and when the user performs a gesture of touching a thumb and an index finger, input control, such as stopping the scrolled menu, may be performed.”, in other words if the user’s hand does NOT perform the gesture of touching a thumb and an index finger together [i.e., user’s hand meets the respective criteria of NOT performing that gesture], then the user’s gaze input will be allowed to activate scrolling of the menu);
In accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to the second region while the hand of the user does not meet the respective criteria, maintaining display of the scrollable content without scrolling the scrollable content (See [0073], in other words if the user’s hand DOES perform the gesture of touching a thumb and an index finger together, then the respective criteria is NOT met and the menu is not allowed to scroll).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of scrolling involving only the eyes of the user to include a method of scrolling that involves both the eye gaze and hand position to determine whether to scroll or not as taught by Suk. Motivation to do so would be for mitigating unintended user input by checking both eye and hand input to make sure of the user’s intentions.
As to dependent claim 2, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin does not teach: wherein the respective criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the hand of the user is not detected in a predefined pose.
Suk teaches: wherein the respective criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the hand of the user is not detected in a predefined pose (See [0073] if user hand is in a pose where the thumb and index finger are touching, then the respective criteria is not satisfied. Thus, if user hand is not in that pose, then respective criteria is satisfied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of scrolling involving only the eyes of the user to include a method of scrolling that involves both the eye gaze and hand position to determine whether to scroll or not as taught by Suk. Motivation to do so would be for mitigating unintended user input by checking both eye and hand input to make sure of the user’s intentions.
As to dependent claim 3, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: while displaying the user interface including the scrollable content:
detecting, via the one or more input devices, an input directed to a respective user interface element, wherein detecting the input includes detecting gaze of the user directed to the respective user interface element and detecting the user perform a respective gesture with the respective portion of the user (See Fig. 6B with [0041] and as explained above, user gaze gesture upon thumbnail 606); and
in response to detecting the input directed to the respective user interface element, performing an operation associated with the respective user interface element (See Fig. 6B with [0041] and as explained above, user gaze activates enlarge operation on the thumbnail 606).
Baldwin does not teach that the respective portion of the user cited above is the hand of the user.
Suk teaches: detecting, via the one or more input devices, an input directed to a respective user interface element, wherein detecting the input includes detecting gaze of the user directed to the respective user interface element and detecting the user perform a respective gesture with the hand of the user (See [0012] – “The user input signal may be generated by recognizing a gesture of the user in the user input apparatus and the display apparatus may perform predetermined input control corresponding to a combination of an eye-gaze processing pattern based on the eye-tracking data and the gesture of the user.”); and
in response to detecting the input directed to the respective user interface element, performing an operation associated with the respective user interface element (See [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of scrolling involving only the eyes of the user to include a method of performing an operation that involves both the eye gaze and hand position as taught by Suk. Motivation to do so would be for mitigating unintended user input by checking both eye and hand input to make sure of the user’s intentions.
As to dependent claim 4, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: wherein the second region of the scrollable content includes an edge of the scrollable content (See Fig. 3 Zone 3 with [0027] – “bottom of the screen”, in other words the edge of the scrollable content).
As to dependent claim 5, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: wherein the computer system scrolls the scrollable content in a first direction in accordance with the determination that the gaze of the user is directed to the second region (See Fig. 3 Zone 3 corresponds to downward scroll), and the method further comprises:
while displaying, via the display generation component, the user interface including the scrollable content:
in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the scrollable content:
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a third region of the scrollable content, the third region different from the second region and different from the first region, and the respective portion of the user meets the respective criteria, scrolling the scrollable content in a second direction different from the first direction in accordance with the gaze of the user (See Fig. 3 Zone 5 corresponds to upwards scroll), wherein the second region and the third region have different sizes (See [0026] – “In this example, a navigation algorithm is used that divides the display screen up into five different zones 304, although it should be understood that any appropriate number of zones could be used in any appropriate arrangement in accordance with the various embodiments”, in other words it is within the scope of Baldwin’s disclosure for there to be 4 zones instead of 5, and wherein the areas of Zone 3 and Zone 2 are combined together, which make them a different size compared to Zone 5 as can be imagined from seeing Fig. 3).
Baldwin does not teach that the respective portion of the user cited above is the hand of the user.
Suk, as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, teaches the hand of the user meets the respective criteria thus allows scrolling (See [0073] and as explained in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of scrolling involving only the eyes of the user to include a method of scrolling that involves both the eye gaze and hand position to determine whether to scroll or not as taught by Suk. Motivation to do so would be for mitigating unintended user input by checking both eye and hand input to make sure of the user’s intentions.
As to dependent claim 6, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: wherein: the second region of the scrollable content is located at a bottom of the scrollable content and has a first size, and the third region of the scrollable content is located at a top of the scrollable content and has a second size smaller than the first size (See Fig. 3 with [0026] and as explained above, the number of zones is flexible, and the arrangement of the zones is also flexible).
As to dependent claim 7, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: wherein scrolling the scrollable content in accordance with the gaze of the user includes:
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a location that is a first distance from a respective position of the scrollable content, scrolling the scrollable content with a first speed in accordance with the gaze of the user (See Fig. 3, Zone 4 can be seen as the claimed respective position of the scrollable content, and Zone 1 can be seen as the first distance from Zone 4, wherein Zone 1 will scroll at a first speed as explained in [0026]), and
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a location that is a second distance from the respective position of the scrollable content different from the first distance, scrolling the scrollable content with a second speed different from the first speed in accordance with the gaze of the user (See Fig. 3 Zone 2 can correspond to the claimed second distance and with different speed as mentioned in [0027]).
As to dependent claim 8, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: while the gaze of the user is directed to the second region of the scrollable content and the respective portion of the user meets the respective criteria, and while scrolling the scrollable content in accordance with the gaze of the user, detecting, via the one or more input devices, the gaze of the user directed away from the second region of the scrollable content; and
in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed away from the second region of the scrollable content, decreasing a speed at which the scrollable content is scrolling until the scrolling of the scrollable content is ceased (See Fig. 3 and in the paragraphs cited above, if user gazes away from Zone 3 and the gaze approaches towards Zone 4, the scroll speed would be slowed by Zone 2 and Zone 1, and eventually ceased when approached Zone 4).
Baldwin does not teach that the respective portion of the user cited above is the hand of the user.
Suk, as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, teaches the hand of the user meets the respective criteria thus allows scrolling (See [0073] and as explained in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of scrolling involving only the eyes of the user to include a method of scrolling that involves both the eye gaze and hand position to determine whether to scroll or not as taught by Suk. Motivation to do so would be for mitigating unintended user input by checking both eye and hand input to make sure of the user’s intentions.
As to dependent claim 9, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: wherein scrolling the scrollable content in accordance with the gaze of the user in accordance with the determination that the gaze of the user is directed to the second region and the respective portion of the user meets the respective criteria in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the scrollable content includes:
gradually increasing a speed of scrolling the scrollable content while the gaze of the user is directed to the second region and the respective portion of the user meets the respective criteria (See [0017] – “Each zone can correspond to a different action, such as to scroll at a different rate, switch to a different page, stop at the current display, etc. In other embodiments, there will not be discrete zones but instead at least a semi-continuous function will be applied to different areas of the display such that adjustments to the content can be made in a relatively smooth and natural manner.”, in other words even within each zone, gradual increase of speed while the gaze is within a zone can occur.).
Baldwin does not teach that the respective portion of the user cited above is the hand of the user.
Suk, as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, teaches the hand of the user meets the respective criteria thus allows scrolling (See [0073] and as explained in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of scrolling involving only the eyes of the user to include a method of scrolling that involves both the eye gaze and hand position to determine whether to scroll or not as taught by Suk. Motivation to do so would be for mitigating unintended user input by checking both eye and hand input to make sure of the user’s intentions.
As to dependent claim 15, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: wherein in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the scrollable content, and in accordance with the determination that the gaze of the user is directed to the second region of the scrollable content and the respective portion of the user meets the respective criteria, the computer system scrolls the scrollable content in a first direction in accordance with the gaze of the user (See paragraphs cited above, Fig. 3 shows Zone 3 which has downward scroll), and the method further comprises:
while displaying, via the display generation component, the user interface including the scrollable content:
in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the scrollable content:
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a third region of the scrollable content, the third region different from the second region, and the respective portion of the user meets the respective criteria, scrolling the scrollable content in a second direction opposite the first direction in accordance with the gaze of the user (See paragraphs cited above, Fig. 3 Zone 5 is seen as the third region that has upward scroll).
Baldwin does not teach that the respective portion of the user cited above is the hand of the user.
Suk, as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, teaches the hand of the user meets the respective criteria thus allows scrolling (See [0073] and as explained in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of scrolling involving only the eyes of the user to include a method of scrolling that involves both the eye gaze and hand position to determine whether to scroll or not as taught by Suk. Motivation to do so would be for mitigating unintended user input by checking both eye and hand input to make sure of the user’s intentions.
As to dependent claim 16, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: wherein:
in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the scrollable content and in accordance with the determination that the gaze of the user is directed to the second region of the scrollable content and the respective portion of the user meets the respective criteria, scrolling the scrollable content in the first direction in accordance with the gaze of the user includes scrolling the scrollable content with first acceleration (See [0027] – “such that it is determined to be in zone 3, the scrolling speed can increase again in order to more quickly direct the user's viewing location back up to Zone 1.”, in other words zone 3 is associated with downward scroll and a first acceleration), and
in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the scrollable content and in accordance with the determination that the gaze of the user is directed to the third region of the scrollable content and the respective portion of the user meets the respective criteria, scrolling the scrollable content in the second direction in accordance with the gaze of the user includes scrolling the scrollable content with second acceleration different from the first acceleration (See [0028] – “the viewing location might move up to Zone 5, which can result in the content scrolling backward. (e.g., scrolling "up") at a faster rate.”, in other words scrolling backwards direction at a faster rate is seen as a second acceleration different from the first acceleration. They are different at least for the reason that their directions i.e. vector orientation is different).
Baldwin does not teach that the respective portion of the user cited above is the hand of the user.
Suk, as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, teaches the hand of the user meets the respective criteria thus allows scrolling (See [0073] and as explained in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of scrolling involving only the eyes of the user to include a method of scrolling that involves both the eye gaze and hand position to determine whether to scroll or not as taught by Suk. Motivation to do so would be for mitigating unintended user input by checking both eye and hand input to make sure of the user’s intentions.
As to dependent claim 17, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: wherein the scrollable content includes text content and other content (See Fig. 6B text and image 610 [i.e., other content]), and the method further comprises:
while displaying the text content of the scrollable content without displaying the other content of the scrollable content (See Fig. 6A where the image 610 no longer is displayed):
detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement of the gaze of the user (See [0043] camera); and
in response to detecting the movement of the gaze of the user:
in accordance with a determination that the movement of the gaze of the user satisfies one or more criteria, including a criterion that is satisfied based on movement of the gaze of the user relative to a line of text in the text content, scrolling the text content (See Fig. 3 Zone 4 is interpreted to be the area containing the claimed line of text, and see Zone 3 where the gaze moves towards, away from Zone 4, as explained in [0027]. The claimed criterion is interpreted to be the moving distance from Zone 4 to Zone 3); and
in accordance with a determination that the movement of the gaze of the user does not satisfy the one or more criteria, maintaining display of the text content without scrolling the text content (See Fig. 3, if the gaze movement is only within Zone 4, then no scroll will occur. This is evidenced by [0028]).
As to dependent claim 18, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as cited above.
Baldwin as modified by Suk further teaches: wherein scrolling the text content in response to detecting the movement of the gaze of the user that satisfies the one or more criteria is independent of whether the hand of the user is detected in a predefined pose (In Baldwin, there is no disclosure of a predefined pose, only the eye gaze input is necessary for activating a scroll, thus Baldwin meets the claim if Baldwin un-modifies himself from the teachings of Suk. The motivation to do so being, having the user input both eye gaze input and hand position input may burden or annoy some users).
As to dependent claim 19, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as cited above.
Baldwin further teaches: further comprising:
while displaying the text content of the scrollable content without the other content of the scrollable content (See Fig. 6A):
detecting, via the one or more input devices, the gaze of the user directed to the text content (See [0043] camera); and
in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the text content:
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a first region of the text content and the movement of the gaze of the user does not satisfy the one or more criteria, maintaining display of the text content without scrolling the text content (See Fig. 3 Zone 4 and as explained above, as long as user gaze is within Zone 4 [i.e., movement of the gaze does not satisfy the distance criteria], there is no scroll); and
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a second region of the text content different from the first region of the text content, and the respective portion of the user meets the respective criteria, and the movement of the gaze of the user does not satisfy the one or more criteria, scrolling the text content in accordance with the gaze of the user (See Fig. 3 Zone 3 and as explained above, as long as user gaze is within Zone 3 [i.e., movement of the gaze does not satisfy the distance criteria], scroll will continue); and
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to the first region of the text content and the movement of the gaze of the user satisfies the one or more criteria, scrolling the text content (See Fig. 3 and see the paragraphs cited above, if user gaze is at Zone 4 but movement of the gaze causes the gaze to be moved to Zone 3, then a scroll will occur).
Baldwin does not teach that the respective portion of the user cited above is the hand of the user.
Suk, as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, teaches the hand of the user meets the respective criteria thus allows scrolling (See [0073] and as explained in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of scrolling involving only the eyes of the user to include a method of scrolling that involves both the eye gaze and hand position to determine whether to scroll or not as taught by Suk. Motivation to do so would be for mitigating unintended user input by checking both eye and hand input to make sure of the user’s intentions.
As to independent claim 24, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
As to independent claim 25, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. US 20120256967 A1, (hereinafter Baldwin) in view of Suk et al. US 20190056785 A1, (hereinafter Suk) in view of Rochford et al. US 20180197336 A1, (hereinafter Rochford).
As to dependent claim 20, Baldwin as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Baldwin teaches the scrollable content as cited above, but Baldwin does not teach: while displaying the scrollable content, in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the scrollable content:
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a word included in the first region of the scrollable content for at least a threshold time, displaying, via the display generation component, a definition of the word included in the scrollable content.
Rochford teaches: while displaying the content, in response to detecting the gaze of the user directed to the content:
in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user is directed to a word included in the first region of the content for at least a threshold time, displaying, via the display generation component, a definition of the word included in the content (See [0132] – “For example, when a user gazes at a specific word for an extended period of time, the AR device 320 determines that the word is difficult and displays a definition of a word.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaze system taught by Baldwin to include the feature of gazing at a word to display its definition as taught by Rochford. Motivation to do so would be for “difficult words” (See Rochford [0132]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment pertaining to the previous 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but upon further review of Baldwin, are not found persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to the independent claims, are found to be still taught by Baldwin. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended independent claims, the amended limitations merely specify that the initial state of the scrollable user interface is currently not scrolling. Examiner asserts that Baldwin does teach an initial state of the scrollable user interface, wherein the initial state is currently not scrolling. See Baldwin paragraph [0028] – “For example, if the user's viewing location moves up to Zone 4, the device might stop scrolling,”. In other words, if the initial gaze state of the user is initially at Zone 4, then initially the user interface will be in a non-scrolling initial state. Thus, the amended claims are taught.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Baldwin and Suk references have been considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that Baldwin does not teach a claim 1 limitation that was cited by the Examiner in the previous office action as being taught by Suk. Thus, the Applicant argument is not addressing how does Baldwin’s disclosure NOT teach the amended limitations of claim 1. The Applicant then proceeds to argue that the Suk reference does not teach the amended limitations of claim 1. Thus, these arguments are moot because the Examiner has cited Baldwin to teach the amended limitations as further explained above in the rejection of claim 1, and the Applicant has not explained in their arguments how the amended limitations would overcome Baldwin. Thus, the arguments not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to DAVID V LUU at telephone number (571)270-0703.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday from 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAVID V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights