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 .
The Applicant’s Remarks filed 11/20/2025 has been received and considered.
Claims 1 – 2, 4, 8, 11 – 12, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20, all of the claims pending in this application, have been rejected.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks were filed 11/20/2025 regarding amendments to independent claims 1 and 11. Applicant’s remarks starting on Page 7 states that the applicant disagrees with the Examiner on which Mizumura teaches on all of the claim language of claim 1. Specifically, Applicant believes that Mizumura discloses similar concepts, but that they differ in the fact that Mizumura acquires the frequency of the pixels by doing pixel clusters and generating a histogram based on a pixel cluster, not by using pixel groups as stated in the claim language of claim 1. Also, Applicant disagrees with the Examiner with the rejection of claim 11 under a 112(b) rejection by arguing that “As described in the specification, the claimed processor is not required to simultaneously store all instructions necessary to perform the claimed functions. The claimed processor is configured to execute the claimed steps sequentially based on instructions stored in memory or received from a connected device. Such dynamic configuration is standard practice for general-purpose processors that execute program instructions over time. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a general-purpose processor programmed to perform specific functions can constitute a "specially configured" machine. The applicant respectfully submits that claim 11 is clear and definite, and the processor configuration as claimed is fully support by the present application.”, Page 8, lines 16 – 25.
The Examiner disagrees with the remarks made by the Applicant. Referencing claim 11, the function of the processor is not what was being rejected by the Examiner. Claim 11 is an independent device claim that only mentions the image receiver and the processor as “hardware” components. Applicant’s own arguments state “As described in the specification, the claimed processor is not required to simultaneously store all instructions necessary to perform the claimed functions. The claimed processor is configured to execute the claimed steps sequentially based on instructions stored in memory or received from a connected device”. The Applicant argues the processor is “configured” to perform steps based on instructions stored in memory or received from connected devices, but that is not the claim language of independent device claim 11. Applicant points to unclaimed elements for the configuration. The Examiner interprets this as the processor needing to store all instructions in order to perform the steps as claimed in order to be “configured”; a general purpose processor executing a small number of operations is not ”configured” to execute an entire non-trivial program. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 11 under 112(b) rejection set forth in the non-final office action dated 10/01/2025. Pertaining to newly amended claim language in claim 1, Mizumura’s use of a histogram for intensity values is done is the same context as the distribution curve used in the Applicant’s specification. Furthermore, pertaining to claim 1, Applicant does not identify a meaningful difference between clusters and groups; they are understood to be the same thing. Cluster is defined as “a number of similar things that occur together” as quoted by CLUSTER Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cluster. As such, the newly added language to claim 1 fails to get around Mizumura teachings, where the teachings are disclosed in Paragraph [0033] (i.e. the reviewed pixel clusters “pixel groups”) and Paragraphs [0026-0027] (where the histogram “distribution curve”) is generated and then compared to the reference curve to determine if there are defects, as argued by Applicant. Nonetheless, the Examiner has decided to withdraw the previously applied prior art rejections. Applicant's arguments are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6 – 7, 9, 14, 16 – 17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites the claim language “the foresaid one pixel group”. It should be written as “the at least one of the plurality of pixel groups”.
Claim 6 recites the claim language “the foresaid one pixel group”. It should be written as “the at least one of the plurality of pixel groups”.
Claim 7 recites the claim language “the foresaid one pixel group”. It should be written as “the at least one of the plurality of pixel groups”.
Claim 9 recites the claim language “the foresaid one pixel group”. It should be written as “the at least one of the plurality of pixel groups”.
Claim 14 recites the claim language “the foresaid one pixel group”. It should be written as “the at least one of the plurality of pixel groups”.
Claim 16 recites the claim language “the foresaid one pixel group”. It should be written as “the at least one of the plurality of pixel groups”.
Claim 17 recites the claim language “the foresaid one pixel group”. It should be written as “the at least one of the plurality of pixel groups”.
Claim 19 recites the claim language “the foresaid one pixel group”. It should be written as “the at least one of the plurality of pixel groups”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
”[A]nother curve” has been added to Claim 2, and Applicant identifies support as paragraph [0018] . Remarks at 7. However, the additional curve appears to be described at [0021] where ‘another distribution curve Cd’ ‘ is described – but this has no specific mechanism for comparison to suggest that this identifies a defect when smaller than a threshold where the other curve identifies a defect when the difference is greater than a threshold.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention
Claims 2 and 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, which has been amended, recites the limitation “the operation processor generating another distribution curve different from the distribution curve by other transforming parameter and comparing the another distribution curve with the reference curve to verify whether the area of the detection image conforming to the specific section has the defect when the difference is smaller than or equal to the predefined threshold.”. It is unclear how a defect is determined when the difference is smaller than or equal to the predefined threshold. There is only one mention in the Applicant’s specification with respect to a difference being smaller and it states “Then, step S108 can be executed to compare the distribution curve Cd with the reference curve Cr. If a difference between a specific section of the distribution curve Cd and a related section of the reference curve Cr is smaller than or equal to a predefined threshold, such as the first section Z1 and the second section Z2, the distribution curve Cd and the reference curve Cr may have a high degree of overlapping, and step SI10 can be executed to determine an area of the detection image Id conforming to the specific section has no image defect. If the difference between the specific section of the distribution curve Cd and the related section of the reference curve Cr is greater than the predefined threshold, such as the third section Z3 shown in FIG. 4, step SI12can be executed to determine the area of the detection image Id conforming to the specific section has the image defect. The image defect may be a dark spot P shown in FIG. 3.” Paragraph [0018]. It is also possible that this indefinitness relates to the apparent new matter identified above Therefore, claim 2 has been rejected
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Claims 11 and its dependents 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 requires a processor with a particular configuration. A device claim is understood to exist in its entirety as claimed at some point in time, as opposed to a method which happens over time. A processor holds only a very limited number of instructions at any given point in time as a device (as opposed to a method where the instructions are understood to be serially fetched from a memory and executed by the processor). It is unclear at what point the processor would be adapted as claimed, as a typical processor would hold nowhere near the number of instructions needed to perform the steps of claim 11.
This is also apparent in paragraph [0014 – 0015] of the specification, where a personal computer connected to a camera is mentioned, but no indication that the structure of the processor would be simultaneously configured to perform the claimed functions beyond being a general purpose processor. Applicant argues (Remarks at 8) that the processor is “configured to execute the steps sequentially based on instructions…. received from a connected device.” Respectfully, this is every device everywhere on the internet; a general purpose processor is ready to execute received instructions. What is the configuration of the processor (as opposed to unclaimed stored instructions not yet affecting the structure of the processor) that is required by this claim? The configuration is a physical state of being, and not an intent to be part of a past, present or future method.
Claims 12 – 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 7, 11 – 13, and 17 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (KR Publication No. 2015/0114464 A) to Ozaki.
Examiner notes that the rejections made with respect to Ozaki are with a translated version of the respective prior art hereinafter called Translated Document.
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, an independent method claim, Ozaki teaches an image defect identification method applied to an image analysis device with an image receiver and an operation processor, the image defect identification method comprising: the operation processor dividing a detection image acquired by the image receiver into a plurality of pixel groups ("When the transport apparatus 3 executes the transporting process s1 and the illuminating device 4 executes the light irradiation process s2 and the image pickup device 5 executes the image pickup process s3 and the image processing apparatus 6 performs the feature quantity calculation.", Translated Document, lines 109 - 112; "In the two-dimensional image B, the direction parallel to the width direction of the sheet-like formed body 2 is the X direction and the direction parallel to the longitudinal direction of the sheet-like formed body 2 (direction parallel to the carrying direction Z) In the Y direction. 5A, a band-shaped bright region located at the center with respect to the Y direction of the two-dimensional image B and extending in the X direction is the illumination image B1, and a dark region Is the first defective pixel group B21, and the bright region existing in the vicinity of the illumination image B1 is the second defective pixel group B22.", Translated Document, lines 302 - 309; "In the case of using the defect detection algorithm by the peak method, the processed image generating section 61 first divides the two-dimensional image B into data of one column of pixels along the Y direction.", Translated Document, lines 310 - 312);
PNG
media_image1.png
624
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
469
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the operation processor scanning each of the plurality of pixel groups to transformat least one of the plurality of pixel groups into a distribution curve ("Next, the processed image generating section 61 generates the processed image data by using the data of the luminance value at the position along the straight line L parallel to the Y direction of the two-dimensional image B, And the curve connecting them is created as the brightness profile P3 shown in Fig. 5B.", Translated Document, lines 312 - 315), where that curve is the distribution curve and the process is performed continuously;
PNG
media_image3.png
306
709
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the operation processor comparing the distribution curve with a reference curve ("When there is no defective pixel in the two-dimensional image B, the brightness profile P3 shows a profile of a single peak in which no valley portion appears, but when there is a defective pixel, 5B, a profile of a bimodal in which the valley portion P31 appears is shown.", Translated Document, lines 316 - 318), where the brightness profile is determined to have a defect when a valley is present when compared with the luminance values of the previous profile data (reference curve); and
the operation processor determining whether an area of the detection image conforming to a specific section of the distribution curve has defect according to a comparison result of [when] a difference between the specific section of the distribution curve and a related section of the reference curve to [[is greater than]] a predefined threshold ("The brightness difference profile P4 shown in Fig. 5D is created. In the brightness value difference profile P4 shown in Fig. 5D, the first defective pixel group B21 in the two-dimensional image B corresponds to the valley portion P31 in the brightness profile P3 shown in Fig. 5B, ), A peak P41 having a characteristic amount P42 (with a large difference in brightness value) equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value appears.", Translated Document, lines 349 - 354).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2 (as best understood), dependent on claim 1, Ozaki teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Ozaki further teaches the operation processor determining the area of the detection image conforming to the specific section of the distribution curve has the defect when the difference is greater than the predefined threshold (Rejected as applied to claim 1); or
the operation processor generating another distribution curve different from the distribution curve another distribution curve with the reference curve to verify whether the area of the detection image conforming to the specific section has the defect when the difference is smaller than or equal to the predefined threshold.
Examiner notes that a rejection was not required for second limitation behind the “or” as the first part was rejected which satisfied the rejection of claim 2 as a whole.
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, Ozaki teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Ozaki further teaches wherein the reference curve is defined as parameter distribution variation of any pixel group of a reference image, the predefined threshold is a mean difference between all pixels of the detection image and the reference image ("The processed image generating unit 61 generates the processed image data for each pixel column based on the luminance of the central pixel in the kernel C31 at a position along the straight line L parallel to the Y direction of the two- And the average value of the luminance values of all the pixels in the kernel C31 are continuously drawn as points and the curve connecting them is created as the smoothing profile P5 shown in Fig. 6B. In the smoothing profile P5 shown in FIG. 6B, a peak (a peak value) having a feature amount P52 (a difference in luminance value) larger than a predetermined threshold value is corresponding to the first defect pixel group C21 in the two- P51) is emerging. Based on the smoothing profile P5, the processed image generating unit 61 generates a processed image P51 as a pixel in the two-dimensional image C corresponding to a peak P51 having a feature amount P52 of a predetermined threshold value or more. In the example of the smoothing profile P5 shown in Fig. 6B, the processed image generating unit 61 extracts the first defective pixel group C21 as defective pixels.", Translated Document, lines 378 - 390).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7 (as best understood), dependent on claim 1, Ozaki teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Ozaki further teaches the operation processor dividing the foresaid one pixel group into an initial pixel set, a middle pixel set and a rear pixel set (figure displayed below “Figure 10A”), where any of the sequential groupings of G can be defined as the “initial”, “middle”, and “rear” pixel set with respect to the other G’s in the sequential order; and
PNG
media_image4.png
650
493
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the operation processor transforming the middle pixel set into the distribution curve (Rejected as applied to claim 1), where each of the profiles have a curve (distribution curve) associated with respect to the brightness.
Claim 11, an independent device claim, is rejected (as best understood) for the same reasons as applied to claim 1.
Claims 12 – 13 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as applied to the above rejected 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 4, 8 – 9, 14, and 18 – 19 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR Publication No. 2015/0114464 A) to Ozaki in view of (US Publication No. 2007/0071304 A1) to Kuchii et al. (hereinafter Kuchii).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, dependent on claim 1, Ozaki teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Although it is implied, Ozaki does not explicitly teach the operation processor utilizing the Gaussian filter matrix, [[a]] the mean filter matrix, [[a]] the median filter matrix, the [[and a]] bilateral filter matrix, or any applicable filter matrix to transform the foresaid one pixel group into the distribution curve.
However, Kuchii the operation processor utilizing the Gaussian filter matrix, [[a]] the mean filter matrix, [[a]] the median filter matrix, the [[and a]] bilateral filter matrix, or any applicable filter matrix to transform the foresaid one pixel group into the distribution curve ("The shading correction step, for example, calculates average pixel data for 9 pixels in a 3.times.3 pixel matrix with a target pixel at its center and replaces the pixel data of the target pixel with that pixel data divided by the average pixel data.". Paragraph [0018]; "The noise removing step (S130) removes noise from the inspection image with, for example, a smoothing filter. The smoothing filter refers to a filter capable of removing high frequency components from the image, thus removing noise. FIG. 24(a) shows an example of this filtering, where the smoothing filter has calculated average pixel data for the 9 pixels in a 3.times.3 pixel region with a target pixel at its center and replaced the pixel data of the target pixel with the average pixel data.", Paragraph [0019]).
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 teachings of Ozaki to incorporate the use of a filter matrix on the groups of pixels, as disclosed by Kuchii. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to use specific filters on the pixels to increase the chances of being able to detect a specific defect or a variety of defects.
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, dependent on claim 7, Ozaki teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7.
Ozaki does not teach the operation processor utilizing a transforming parameter or a transformation algorithm different from the middle pixel set to transform the initial pixel set and the rear pixel set into another distribution curve.
However, Kuchii teaches the operation processor utilizing a transforming parameter or a transformation algorithm different from the middle pixel set to transform the initial pixel set and the rear pixel set into another distribution curve (Rejected as applied to claim 4), where a mean average matrix and a smoothing filter are used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply different smoothing filters to the plurality of pixel groups if needed.
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, dependent on claim 1, Ozaki teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Ozaki does not teach the operation processor utilizing a filter algorithm to remove noise of the detection image;
transforming the foresaid one pixel group of the filtered detection image into the distribution curve.
However, Kuchii teaches the operation processor utilizing a filter algorithm to remove noise of the detection image (Rejected as applied to claim 4);
transforming the foresaid one pixel group of the filtered detection image into the distribution curve (Rejected as applied to claim 4).
Claims 14 and 18 – 19 are rejected for the same reasons as applied to the above claims.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR Publication No. 2015/0114464 A) to Ozaki in view of (US Publication No. 2007/0071304 A1) to Kuchii et al. (hereinafter Kuchii) in further view of (US Publication No. 2023/0385989 A1) to Park et al. (hereinafter Park).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, dependent on claim 4, Ozaki, in view of Kuchii, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 4.
Neither Ozaki, or Kuchii, or the combination teach the operation processor further applying different matrix parameters into the utilized filter matrix to generate the reference curve.
However, Park teaches the operation processor further applying different matrix parameters into the utilized filter matrix to generate the reference curve ("In an embodiment of the present invention, in order to complement the characteristics of Anscombe transform, a threshold value reference curve depending on pixel values is experimentally determined in advance and an adaptive thresholding is performed depending on to pixel values. FIG. 7 is a graph showing a result of drawing a trend line after sampling an appropriate threshold value for an arbitrary pixel value in pixel value distribution data of a subtraction image obtained after Anscombe transform in FIGS. 5A and 5B. The trend line was expressed as a form of a power in the form of y=α.Math.x.sup.β, and in FIG. 7 y=18.64.Math.x.sup.−0.209 was used as a threshold reference curve.", Paragrapgh [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of Ozaki, in view of Kuchii, to incorporate applying different parameters into the matrix, as disclosed by Park. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to apply various parameters to increase the accuracy percentage of detecting specific defects on a lens or sensor.
Claim 15, dependent on claim 14, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to the claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR Publication No. 2015/0114464 A) to Ozaki in view of Non Patent Literature "Reference-based linear curve fitting for bolus arrival time estimation in 4D MRA and MR perfusion-weighted image sequences" to Forkert et al. (hereinafter Forkert).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, dependent on claim 1, Ozaki teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Ozaki does not teach the operation processor computing intensity distribution of the foresaid one pixel group to set as the distribution curve, and further utilizing a curve fitting algorithm to generate the reference curve.
However, Forkert teaches the operation processor computing intensity distribution of the foresaid one pixel group to set as the distribution curve, and further utilizing a curve fitting algorithm to generate the reference curve ("For every simulation run, n = 500, randomly selected signal curves with a σ > 15 were used for reference curve generation for the proposed reference-based linear curve-fitting approach.", Materials and Methods - Experiments and Evaluation).
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 teachings of Ozaki to incorporate the use of curve fitting algorithm, as disclosed by Forkert. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to use the fitting method to align the reference and captured image to detect the defects with higher precision.
Claim 16, dependent on claim 11, is rejected for the same reason as applied to claim 6.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR Publication No. 2015/0114464 A) to Ozaki in view of (US Patent No. 7369236 B1) to Sali et al. (hereinafter Sali).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, dependent on claim 1, Ozaki teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Ozaki does not teach the operation processor computing a slope of the specific section of the distribution curve; and
the operation processor determining the area of the detection image conforming to the specific section of the distribution curve has dirt when a difference between the slope of the specific section and a slope of an adjacent section of the distribution curve conforms to a predefined condition.
However, Sali teaches further comprising: the operation processor computing a slope of the specific section of the distribution curve ("For each suspected defect, an area surrounding the defect in the inspection image and a corresponding area in the reference image may be selected. For each pixel in each selected area, slope values for the pixel relative to its surrounding pixels may be established.", Column 3, lines 27-32); and
the operation processor determining the area of the detection image conforming to the specific section of the distribution curve has dirt when a difference between the slope of the specific section and a slope of an adjacent section of the distribution curve conforms to a predefined condition ("The reference image and inspection image may be compared by a gray level comparison. Each pixel of the subtraction image from that comparison may be divided by a factor, with the resulting image added to the pixel slope correlation image to obtain a total comparison image. A sum operator may be applied to the total comparison image. The average of the five highest values in the area after the sum operator has been applied may be compared to determine if the average exceeds a threshold value. For example, the area may be indicated as containing a defect, or may be highlighted for further analysis and/or processing if the threshold is exceeded.", Column 3, lines 35 - 46).
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 teachings of Ozaki to incorporate computing and utilizing slopes for defect detection, as disclosed by Sali. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately determine if a defect is present based on if the slopes are varying when specific areas are compared.
Claim 20, dependent on claim 11, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 10.
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 Ronde Miller whose telephone number is (703) 756-5686 The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/RONDE LEE MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698