DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 25 FEBRUARY 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 21-40 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Application 15/930,712. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
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 21-23, 28-30, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumeier et al., US 2019/0379467 in view of Altman, US 2016/0154089 and further in view of Cho et al., US 2011/0055538 and Giusti et al., US 2020/0125158.
Regarding claim 21, Neumeier discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: determining whether a television is turned on or off (can determine power status of device; page 12, paragraph 108, and page 13, paragraphs 111 and 116, and wherein with a television; page 6, paragraph 54);
when the television is determined to be turned on (when determining power on and based on detection, can perform an action such as displaying alternative content and/or performing the recognitions/determinations; page 12, paragraph 108, and page 13, paragraph 111, and again with a television; page 6, paragraph 54): sending a different/other signal (sent/received signals are different, i.e. some based on WiFi frequencies and others not in the WiFi frequencies; page 7, paragraph 63, and page 11, paragraph 98, and page 10, paragraph 93);
receiving, by at least one computer processor (with at least system including at least one processor; page 1, paragraph 7, and page 4, paragraph 41), a plurality of first received signal strength indications (RSSIs) respectively associated with a plurality of first radio frequency (RF) signals, wherein each first RF signal of the plurality of first RF signals is transmitted by a respective module in a plurality of modules and wherein each first RF signal of the plurality of first RF signals is transmitted during a first period of time when there are no humans present in the user space, wherein the plurality of modules are positioned (baseline signals may be received during a time of day/period of time when no users are present; page 5, paragraph 49, and page 7, paragraph 64, and page 10, paragraphs 89-90, and page 13, paragraph 110, and wherein with RF signals; page 7, paragraph 64, and page 10, paragraph 89, and characteristic relating to signal strength, i.e. RSSI; page 9, paragraph 82, and page 11, paragraph 99, and page 12, paragraph 101, and wherein from plurality of sources positioned in an area for the signals; page 6, paragraph 53);
generating a first score based at least on the plurality of first RSSIs (aggregating/averaging the signals, i.e. generating/creating aggregated/averaged values, i.e. score(s), based on the received baseline signals; page 4, paragraph 39, and page 5, paragraph 49, and page 8, paragraph 64, and page 10, paragraph 91);
receiving a plurality of second RSSIs respectively associated with a plurality of second RF signals and a different/other signal, wherein each second RF signal of the plurality of second RF signals is transmitted by a respective module in the plurality of modules and wherein each second RF signal of the plurality of second RF signals is transmitted during a second period of time (new signals are received at a different/later time/time period; page 11, paragraph 98, and page 13, paragraph 111, and wherein with RF signals; page 7, paragraph 64, and page 10, paragraph 89, and characteristic relating to signal strength, i.e. RSSI; page 9, paragraph 82, and page 11, paragraph 99, and page 12, paragraph 101, and wherein from plurality of sources for the signals; page 6, paragraph 53, and again can also include signals that are different, i.e. some based on WiFi frequencies and others not in the WiFi frequencies; page 7, paragraph 63, and page 11, paragraph 98, and page 10, paragraph 93);
generating a second score based at least on the plurality of second RSSIs (aggregating/averaging the signals, i.e. generating/creating aggregated/averaged values, i.e. score(s) based on the received additional/new signals; page 4, paragraph 39, and pages 11-12, paragraph 100);
comparing the second score to the first score (comparison of the new with the baseline; page 12, paragraph 101, and page 13, paragraph 112);
determining that a human is present in the user space based at least on a result of the comparison of the second score to the first score (determining a change in occupancy, i.e. presence, based on the comparison(s); page 12, paragraph 106, and page 13, paragraph 113); and
executing a first action (can perform an action such as displaying alternative content and/or performing the recognitions/determinations; page 12, paragraph 108, and page 13, paragraph 111, and other actions that can be performed based on detection; page 13, paragraph 114); and
when the television is determined to be turned off, executing a second action (when power is determined to be off, the recognitions/determinations will cease, i.e. particular operation performed; page 13, paragraph 116).
While Neumeier also discloses sending a signal using a WiFi module associated with the television (antenna array as part of the television; page 6, paragraph 54, and antenna array is at least a transceiver that can send and receive; page 11, paragraph 95, and wherein with antenna array that is for at least WiFi signals, i.e. WiFi module; page 4, paragraph 40, and page 11, paragraph 99), as well as force-sending a signal (operations occurring automatically and/or in response to an event, i.e. interpreted as signals are force-sent to be received either automatically and/or because of something happening; page 11, paragraph 98, and page 13, paragraph 116), Neumeier does not explicitly disclose determining, based on a variable stored in a television, wherein the variable is indicative of a power state of the television;
modules that are arranged to form a detection zone around a user space, wherein the modules are positioned in a plane at a same height; and
sending a boosted signal, and the boosted signal.
In a related art, Altman does disclose modules that are arranged to form a detection zone around a user space (based on plurality of device(s) that are arranged around a user space in order to aid in user detection/recognition; page 5, paragraph 48, and page 2, paragraph 19, and Fig. 2, see at least elements 250, 215, 220), wherein the modules are positioned in a plane at a same height (device(s) can be placed in a same plane at a same height, see Fig. 2, elements 220 in a same plane at a same height, or when implemented with elements 215, those are also in a same plane at a same height, or when implemented with elements 220, those are also in a same plane at a same height; and see page 5, paragraph 48); and
RSSI (page 4, paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Neumeier and Altman by allowing certain arrangements of devices to be utilized when determining presence/positioning of a user, in order to provide an improved system and method for detection and tracking of persons or objects within a room (Altman; page 1, paragraph 7).
Neumeier in view of Altman does not explicitly disclose determining, based on a variable stored in a television, wherein the variable is indicative of a power state of the television; and
sending a boosted signal, and the boosted signal.
In a related art, Cho does disclose determining, based on a variable stored in a television, wherein the variable is indicative of a power state of the television (determining based on flag/status information on the power status of the system, which can be stored in memory of the system; page 2, paragraph 32, and page 3, paragraphs 39-40, and wherein including a television; page 1, paragraph 8, and page 2, paragraph 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Neumeier, Altman, and Cho by allowing power status of a device, as already disclosed in Neumeier in view of Altman, to be determined based on stored information in the device, in order to provide an improved system and method for controlling an operation of booting an image reproducing apparatus by using a fast-booting sequence when a power-on signal is received (Cho; page 1, paragraphs 8-9).
Neumeier in view of Altman and Cho does not explicitly disclose sending a boosted signal, and the boosted signal.
In a related art, Giusti does disclose sending a boosted signal from a module associated with a television (device can modify the power of transmitted, i.e. sending/sent, signals by amplifying them, i.e. boosting; page 9, paragraph 67, and wherein the device can be a television instead of a smartphone; page 7, paragraph 52), signals associated with WiFi (the boosted signals can be sent with frequencies that are in the WiFi range, i.e. 1 GHz – 400 GHz encompasses at least WiFi signals corresponding to 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz; page 8, paragraph 64), and the boosted signal (again, modified the power of transmitted, i.e. sending/sent, signals by amplifying them, i.e. boosted; page 9, paragraph 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Neumeier, Altman, Cho, and Giusti by allowing different power levels/strengths of signals to be transmitted with the already present transmitters of Neumeier, Altman, and Cho, in order to provide an improved system and method for using a device to accurately determine the presence or absence of a user and further determine the intention of the user to interact with the device (Giusti; page 1, paragraph 3).
Examiner’s Note: While prior art has been utilized to address each and every limitation of the independent claims, it is noted that, based on the structure of the currently presented claim language and a broadest reasonable interpretation, when at least one of the operational modes of the television and its corresponding steps is met, the entire claims would be met as well. That is, prior art that discloses determining that a television is off, and then executing a second action would be all that is needed to cover the currently presented claims, as the on operations would not be needed because of that determination. In a similar interpretation, prior art that discloses determining that a television is on, and then performing the operations related to the on status would be all that is needed to cover the currently presented claims as no off operations would be needed because of that determination.
Regarding claim 22, Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti discloses each first RF signal of the plurality of first RF signals and each second RF signal of the plurality of second RF signals comprises: a Wi-Fi signal or a Bluetooth signal (Neumeier; again with RF signals; page 7, paragraph 64, and page 10, paragraph 89, and can include at least WiFi signal(s); page 4, paragraphs 40-41).
Regarding claim 23, Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti discloses generating the first score based at least on the plurality of first RSSIs comprises generating the first score based at least on the plurality of first RSSIs and a plurality of first received signal destinations respectively associated with the plurality of first RF signals (Neumeier; aggregating/averaging the signals, i.e. generating/creating aggregated/averaged values, i.e. score, based on the received baseline signals; page 4, paragraph 39, and page 5, paragraph 49, and page 8, paragraph 64, and page 10, paragraph 91, and wherein based on reception at specific antenna of antenna array, i.e. destination; Fig. 4, and page 6, paragraphs 52-53, and wherein based on signal(s) destined for particular destination; page 11, paragraph 94, and again characteristic relating to signal strength, i.e. RSSI; page 9, paragraph 82, and page 11, paragraph 99, and page 12, paragraph 101, and Altman; with RSSI; page 4, paragraph 31); and
wherein generating the second score based at least on the plurality of second RSSIs comprises generating the second score based at least on the plurality of second RSSIs and a plurality of second received signal destinations respectively associated with the plurality of second RF signals (Neumeier; aggregating/averaging the signals, i.e. generating/creating aggregated/averaged values, i.e. score, based on the received additional/new signals; page 4, paragraph 39, and pages 11-12, paragraph 100, and wherein based on reception at specific antenna of antenna array, i.e. destination; Fig. 4, and page 6, paragraphs 52-53, and wherein based on signal(s) destined for particular destination; page 11, paragraph 99, and again characteristic relating to signal strength, i.e. RSSI; page 9, paragraph 82, and page 11, paragraph 99, and page 12, paragraph 101, and Altman; with RSSI; page 4, paragraph 31).
Claim 28, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 21. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a memory (Neumeier; including at least memory; page 14, paragraphs 120 and 127); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform operations (Neumeier; with at least processor and processor executable instructions from memory; page 14, paragraph 127).
Claim 29, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 22.
Claim 30, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 23.
Claim 35, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 21. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon (Neumeier; with executable instructions on a non-transitory medium; page 2, paragraph 10).
Claim 36, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 22.
Claim 37, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 23.
Claims 24-25, 31-32, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumeier et al., US 2019/0379467 in view of Altman, US 2016/0154089, Cho et al., US 2011/0055538, and Giusti et al., US 2020/0125158, and further in view of Chung, US 10,334,303.
Regarding claim 24, Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 21 as well as generating a third score over a third period of time and generating a fourth score over a fourth period of time (Neumeier; repeating the steps, i.e. third/fourth values/scores over third/fourth time/time periods; page 13, paragraphs 109 and 116, and again with aggregating/averaging the signals, i.e. generating/creating aggregated/averaged values, i.e. score based on the received additional/new signals; page 4, paragraph 39, and pages 11-12, paragraph 100), and
wherein determining that the human is present in the user space based at least on the result of the comparison of the second score to the first score comprises: determining that the human is present in the user space based at least on the result of the comparison of the second score to the first score, and a result of additional information (Neumeier; determining a change in occupancy, i.e. presence, based on the comparison(s) relating to the baseline and new signals; page 12, paragraph 106, and page 13, paragraph 113, and wherein when operations are repeated, the additional, i.e. third/fourth data will also be utilized for determining change in occupancy, i.e. presence; page 13, paragraphs 109 and 116).
While Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti also discloses cell phone use (Neumeier; use of mobile source such as a cellular phone; page 11, paragraph 93), Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti does not explicitly disclose data based on one or more of movement of a cell phone or handling of the cell phone over a period of time;
additional data based on one or more of movement of the cell phone or handling of the cell phone over a different period of time;
comparing the additional data to the data; and
a result of the comparison of the additional data to the data.
In a related art, Chung does disclose data based on one or more of movement of a cell phone or handling of the cell phone over a period of time (system can collect and utilize previous range values, i.e. movement/handling, of a mobile device, wherein the "previous" range values are considered those over at least a first period of time; col. 17, line 55 - col. 18, line 10, and col. 20, lines 35-44, and wherein the mobile device can be a cellular phone; col. 5, lines 55-57);
additional data based on one or more of movement of the cell phone or handling of the cell phone over a different period of time (system can collect and utilize current range values, i.e. movement/handling, of a mobile device, wherein the "current" range values are considered those over at least a different period of time than the previous; col. 17, line 55 - col. 18, line 10, and col. 20, lines 35-44, and wherein the mobile device can be a cellular phone; col. 5, lines 55-57);
comparing the additional data to the data (comparing the current and previous data; 17, line 55 - col. 18, line 19, and col. 20, lines 35-44); and
a result of the comparison of the additional data to the data (operations performed based on comparing the current and previous data; col. 18, lines 1-10, and col. 20, lines 35-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Neumeier, Altman, Cho, Giusti, and Chung by allowing certain device movement(s) to be utilized when determining presence/positioning of a user, in order to provide an improved system and method for controlling, based on one or more mobile devices being in proximity of a user receiving device (Chung; col. 1, lines 55-57).
Regarding claim 25, Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 21, as well as generating a third score over a third period of time and generating a fourth score over a fourth period of time (Neumeier; repeating the steps, i.e. third/fourth values/scores over third/fourth time/time periods; page 13, paragraphs 109 and 116, and again with aggregating/averaging the signals, i.e. generating/creating aggregated/averaged values, i.e. score based on the received additional/new signals; page 4, paragraph 39, and pages 11-12, paragraph 100), and
wherein determining that the human is present in the user space based at least on the result of the comparison of the second score to the first score comprises: determining that the human is present in the user space based at least on the result of the comparison of the second score to the first score, and a result of additional information (Neumeier; determining a change in occupancy, i.e. presence, based on the comparison(s) relating to the baseline and new signals; page 12, paragraph 106, and page 13, paragraph 113, and wherein when operations are repeated, the additional, i.e. third/fourth data will also be utilized for determining change in occupancy, i.e. presence; page 13, paragraphs 109 and 116).
While Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti also discloses remote commands (Neumeier; use of a remote commands from device(s); page 11, paragraph 94), Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti does not explicitly disclose data based on one or more of movement of a remote control, handling of the remote control, or infrared (IR) transmission activity of the remote control over a period of time;
additional data based on one or more of movement of the remote control, handling of the remote control, or IR transmission activity of the remote control over a different period of time;
comparing the additional data to the data; and
a result of the comparison of the additional data to the data.
In a related art, Chung does disclose data based on one or more of movement of a remote control, handling of the remote control, or infrared (IR) transmission activity of the remote control over a period of time (system can collect and utilize previous range values, i.e. movement/handling, of a mobile device, wherein the "previous" range values are considered those over at least a first period of time; col. 17, line 55 - col. 18, line 10, and col. 20, lines 35-44, and wherein the mobile device can be a remote control device; col. 5, lines 55-57);
additional data based on one or more of movement of the remote control, handling of the remote control, or IR transmission activity of the remote control over a different period of time (system can collect and utilize current range values, i.e. movement/handling, of a mobile device, wherein the "current" range values are considered those over at least a different period of time than the previous; col. 17, line 55 - col. 18, line 10, and col. 20, lines 35-44, and wherein the mobile device can be a remote control device; col. 5, lines 55-57);
comparing the additional data to the data (comparing the current and previous data; 17, line 55 - col. 18, line 19, and col. 20, lines 35-44); and
a result of the comparison of the additional data to the data (operations performed based on comparing the current and previous data; col. 18, lines 1-10, and col. 20, lines 35-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Neumeier, Altman, Cho, Giusti, and Chung by allowing certain device movement(s) to be utilized when determining presence/positioning of a user, in order to provide an improved system and method for controlling, based on one or more mobile devices being in proximity of a user receiving device (Chung; col. 1, lines 55-57).
Claim 31, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 24.
Claim 32, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 25.
Claim 38, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 24.
Claim 39, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 25.
Claims 26, 33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumeier et al., US 2019/0379467 in view of Altman, US 2016/0154089, Cho et al., US 2011/0055538, and Giusti et al., US 2020/0125158, and further in view of Frank, US 10,277,981.
Regarding claim 26, Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 21, as well as generating a third score over a third period of time and generating a fourth score over a fourth period of time (Neumeier; repeating the steps, i.e. third/fourth values/scores over third/fourth time/time periods; page 13, paragraphs 109 and 116, and again with aggregating/averaging the signals, i.e. generating/creating aggregated/averaged values, i.e. score based on the received additional/new signals; page 4, paragraph 39, and pages 11-12, paragraph 100), and
wherein determining that the human is present in the user space based at least on the result of the comparison of the second score to the first score comprises: determining that the human is present in the user space based at least on the result of the comparison of the second score to the first score, and a result of additional information (Neumeier; determining a change in occupancy, i.e. presence, based on the comparison(s) relating to the baseline and new signals; page 12, paragraph 106, and page 13, paragraph 113, and wherein when operations are repeated, the additional, i.e. third/fourth data will also be utilized for determining change in occupancy, i.e. presence; page 13, paragraphs 109 and 116).
Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti does not explicitly disclose data based on ambient sound recorded over a period of time;
additional data based on ambient sound recorded over a different period of time; and
comparing the additional data to the data; and
a result of the comparison of the additional data to the data.
In a related art, Frank does disclose data based on ambient sound recorded over a period of time (baseline sound signal received when no person is present, i.e. over a particular time period; col. 24, lines 33-62, and wherein including ambient sound(s); col. 12, lines 50-53);
additional data based on ambient sound recorded over a different period of time (currently received sound signal, i.e. after the baseline and therefore over a different period of time; col. 24, lines 15-46, and again including ambient sound(s); col. 12, lines 50-53); and
comparing the additional data to the data (comparing the currently received with the baseline; col. 24, lines 15-62); and
a result of the comparison of the additional data to the data (determination(s) based on the comparison(s); col. 24, lines 15-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Neumeier, Altman, Cho, Giusti, and Frank by allowing acoustic information to also be utilized with the already present detection system of Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti, in order to provide an improved system and method for determining a location of a person within a playback environment in order to effectively operate the playback device (Frank; col. 2, lines 36-43).
Claim 33, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 26.
Claim 40, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 26.
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumeier et al., US 2019/0379467 in view of Altman, US 2016/0154089, Cho et al., US 2011/0055538, and Giusti et al., US 2020/0125158, and further in view of Kadous, US 8,639,640.
Regarding claim 27, Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 21, as well as generating the first score and generating the second score each comprise using particular processes (Neumeier; aggregating/averaging the signals, i.e. generating/creating aggregated/averaged values, i.e. score, based on the received baseline signals, wherein the averaging is considered a particular mathematical process; page 4, paragraph 39, and page 5, paragraph 49, and page 8, paragraph 64, and page 10, paragraph 91, and aggregating/averaging the signals, i.e. generating/creating aggregated/averaged values, i.e. score based on the received additional/new signals, wherein the averaging is again considered a particular mathematical process; page 4, paragraph 39, and pages 11-12, paragraph 100).
Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti does not explicitly disclose operations based on one of logistical regression or a decision tree.
In a related art, Kadous does disclose operations based on one of logistical regression or a decision tree (determination of positioning based on received signals and operations/calculations performed with use of at least a decision tree; col. 3, lines 8-12, and col. 6, lines 49-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Neumeier, Altman, Cho, Giusti, and Kadous, by allowing particular determination/calculation processes to be utilized with the received data and operations already being performed in Neumeier in view of Altman, Cho, and Giusti, in order to provide an improved system and method for determining a location within an indoor area (Kadous; col. 1, lines 26-31).
Claim 34, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 27.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights