DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment submitted on December 16, 2025.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are currently amended.
The objection to the title of the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention.
The objections to Claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 12 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8 recite “the parameter value.” It should read -- the parameter value of the robot command --.
Claim 3 recites “different from the robot command to the robot program.” It should read -- different from the robot command --.
Claim 3 contains a typographical error: a colon (:) should be added after the word “wherein.”
Claims 5 and 7 recite “the processor.” It should read -- the at least one processor --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0030278 (hereinafter “Sakuma”).
As per Claim 2, Sakuma discloses:
A robot teaching device (Figure 1), comprising:
a display (Figure 1: 160);
at least one memory (Figure 1: 120 and 130) configured to store a program; and
at least one processor (Figure 1: 110) configured to:
cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [an editing screen]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed [cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program].”); and
add, when a robot command is added to the robot program on the editing screen, at least one other robot command different from the robot command (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [the editing screen]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [add, when a robot command is added to the robot program on the editing screen, at least one other robot command different from the robot command] (emphasis added).”),
wherein the robot command added to the robot program on the editing screen is a representative command accompanied by addition of the at least one other robot command (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [the editing screen]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [wherein the robot command added to the robot program on the editing screen is a representative command accompanied by addition of the at least one other robot command] (emphasis added).”).
Claim 9 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
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, 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0320211 (hereinafter “Akan”) in view of US 2023/0030278 (hereinafter “Sakuma”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating a robot program for teaching a robot to move (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Akan is generally directed to programming an industrial robot to perform work in a robot cell including a plurality of workstations (Akan, paragraph [0001]). And Sakuma is generally directed to creating a program that defines a movement of a robot without being connected to the actual robot (Sakuma, paragraph [0028]). Thus, Akan and Sakuma are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 1, Akan discloses:
A robot teaching device (Figure 1), comprising:
a display (Figure 1: 6a);
at least one memory configured to store a program (paragraph [0064], “The first and second computing unit include data processing means, such as such as a central processing unit (CPU) and memory means, such as ROM and RAM.”); and
at least one processor (paragraph [0064], “The first and second computing unit include data processing means, such as such as a central processing unit (CPU) and memory means, such as ROM and RAM.”) configured to:
cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program (Figures 6a and 6b; paragraph [0094], “FIG. 6a and 6b are screenshots from the first graphical user interface. FIG. 6a shows programming of an input pallet. On the left panel the robot cell and the workstations in the robot cell are shown. On the right side, the task parts building up the task to be carried out by the robot at the input palette are shown. FIG. 6b shows a drop down list with a plurality of task parts, which can be selected for programming a workstation [cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program].”); and
cause the display to display, when a robot command is added to the robot program on the editing screen (paragraph [0069], “FIG. 3 shows an example of a sequence of programming blocks 14a-c selected for a workstation ‘Input palette’. Each of the programming blocks includes robot code 15 for carrying out one of the task parts ‘Approach the palette’, ‘Pick from stack’, and ‘Retract’, and program code 16 for generating a graphical user interface (GUI) for guiding a user to program the task part [cause the display to display, when a robot command is added to the robot program on the editing screen].”; paragraph [0073], “The system further comprises a programming tool generator 20 configured to generate a guiding tool 22 for programming a specific robot cell based on the program code in the selected sequences of programming blocks for the workstations in the specific robot cell. The guiding tool 22 includes program code for generating a second wizard including a second graphical user interface for guiding a user to program the specific robot cell (emphasis added).”), a wizard for setting at least a parameter value of the robot command (paragraph [0073], “The second wizard allows the user to select one or more of the workstations in the specific robot cell and to input parameters in response to the displayed instructions (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0078], “The second graphical user interface allows a user to specify movement paths for the robot for carrying out the tasks at the selected workstations. This is, for example, done teaching the robot a plurality of waypoints on the movement paths. In this case, the parameters are the positions and orientations of the waypoints [setting at least a parameter value of the robot command].”; paragraph [0089], “The programming of the robot cell is split up into two parts, assisted by a first wizard for the integrator and a second wizard for the operator (emphasis added).”).
Akan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of at least one other robot command different from the robot command, and the at least one other robot command is added to the robot program based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard.
However, Sakuma discloses:
wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of at least one other robot command different from the robot command, and the at least one other robot command is added to the robot program based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [the wizard]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of at least one other robot command different from the robot command, and the at least one other robot command is added to the robot program] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0076], “In adding a command, a teaching point is set at the selected point in time. Moreover, the movement direction of the robot and the type of work included in the new command are specified by the user [based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard].”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Akan and Sakuma are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sakuma into the teaching of Akan to include “wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of at least one other robot command different from the robot command, and the at least one other robot command is added to the robot program based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to edit an operation program and change a part of a movement trajectory of a robot (Sakuma, paragraph [0073]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Akan further discloses:
wherein the robot command is indicated by an icon or a block (paragraph [0069], “FIG. 3 shows an example of a sequence of programming blocks 14a-c selected for a workstation ‘Input palette’. Each of the programming blocks includes robot code 15 for carrying out one of the task parts ‘Approach the palette’, ‘Pick from stack’, and ‘Retract’, and program code 16 for generating a graphical user interface (GUI) for guiding a user to program the task part.”), and
the processor is configured to edit the robot program by the icon or the block being added (paragraph [0073], “The system further comprises a programming tool generator 20 configured to generate a guiding tool 22 for programming a specific robot cell based on the program code in the selected sequences of programming blocks for the workstations in the specific robot cell. The guiding tool 22 includes program code for generating a second wizard including a second graphical user interface for guiding a user to program the specific robot cell.”).
Claims 8 and 14 are non-transitory computer readable recording medium claims corresponding to the robot teaching device claims hereinabove (Claims 1 and 7, respectively). Therefore, Claims 8 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 7, respectively.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0030278 (hereinafter “Sakuma”) in view of US 2003/0048300 (hereinafter “Li”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating a robot program for teaching a robot to move (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Sakuma is generally directed to creating a program that defines a movement of a robot without being connected to the actual robot (Sakuma, paragraph [0028]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Li is generally directed to using a wizard user interface to facilitate generation of a system product (Li, paragraph [0009]). Thus, Sakuma and Li are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 3, Sakuma discloses:
A robot teaching device (Figure 1), comprising:
a display (Figure 1: 160);
at least one memory (Figure 1: 120 and 130) configured to store a program; and
at least one processor (Figure 1: 110) configured to:
cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [an editing screen]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed [cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program].”); and
cause the display to display, when a robot command is added to the robot program on the editing screen, a wizard for adding at least one other robot command different from the robot command to the robot program (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [a wizard]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [cause the display to display, when a robot command is added to the robot program on the editing screen, a wizard for adding at least one other robot command different from the robot command to the robot program] (emphasis added).”),
wherein the robot command added to the robot program on the editing screen is a representative command accompanied by addition of the at least one other robot command (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [the editing screen]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [wherein the robot command added to the robot program on the editing screen is a representative command accompanied by addition of the at least one other robot command] (emphasis added).”).
Sakuma discloses “a robot program,” but Sakuma does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the representative command is deleted from the robot program after input to the wizard ends.
However, Li discloses:
wherein the representative command is deleted […] after input to the wizard ends (paragraph [0065], “Third instance 28" of the product generation command stack 28, which is illustrated below the state transition arrow 74 in FIG. 4 in dotted outline, is not an instance per se, but rather merely indicates that the product generation command stack 28 is deleted upon wizard completion [wherein the representative command is deleted from the robot program after input to the wizard ends].”; paragraph [0071], “At this stage, control reverts to the wizard UI mechanism, which displays the second wizard page 240 and awaits input from the user 18 [after input to the wizard ends].”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sakuma and Li are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Li into the teaching of Sakuma to include “wherein the representative command is deleted from the robot program after input to the wizard ends.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to remove a command from a robot program that is not being used.
Claim 10 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akan in view of Sakuma as applied to Claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 2018/0222048 (hereinafter “Hasegawa”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating a robot program for teaching a robot to move (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Hasegawa is generally directed to controlling a robot (Hasegawa, Abstract). Thus, Hasegawa is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Akan further discloses:
the wizard sets a parameter value of the representative command and a parameter value of the at least one other robot command (paragraph [0073], “The second wizard allows the user to select one or more of the workstations in the specific robot cell and to input parameters in response to the displayed instructions.”; paragraph [0078], “The second graphical user interface allows a user to specify movement paths for the robot for carrying out the tasks at the selected workstations. This is, for example, done teaching the robot a plurality of waypoints on the movement paths. In this case, the parameters are the positions and orientations of the waypoints.”; paragraph [0089], “The programming of the robot cell is split up into two parts, assisted by a first wizard for the integrator and a second wizard for the operator.”).
Akan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the representative command is added to the robot program, the wizard adds the at least one other robot command.
However, Sakuma discloses:
wherein when the representative command is added to the robot program, the wizard adds the at least one other robot command (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sakuma is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sakuma into the teaching of Akan to include “wherein when the representative command is added to the robot program, the wizard adds the at least one other robot command.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to edit an operation program and change a part of a movement trajectory of a robot (Sakuma, paragraph [0073]).
The combination of Akan and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose:
the wizard combines the representative command and the at least one other robot command added concomitantly with the representative command.
However, Hasegawa discloses:
the wizard combines the representative command and the at least one other robot command added concomitantly with the representative command (paragraph [0051], “The control device 40 can be communicably connected to a teaching device (not illustrated) via a cable or wireless communication. The teaching device may be a dedicated computer, and may be a general purpose computer in which a program for teaching the robot 1 is installed. The control device 40 and the teaching device may be integrally formed with each other.”; paragraph [0079], “The robot program 44b mainly indicates the sequence of work (an order of steps) performed by the robots 1 to 3, and is described by a combination of predefined commands.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Hasegawa is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hasegawa into the combined teachings of Akan and Sakuma to include “the wizard combines the representative command and the at least one other robot command added concomitantly with the representative command.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform a sequence of work (an order of steps) described by a combination of predefined commands by a robot (Hasegawa, paragraph [0079]).
Claim 11 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of US 2017/0320211 (hereinafter “Akan”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to set a parameter of the representative command and a parameter of the at least one other robot command.
However, Akan discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to set a parameter of the representative command and a parameter of the at least one other robot command (paragraph [0073], “The second wizard allows the user to select one or more of the workstations in the specific robot cell and to input parameters in response to the displayed instructions.”; paragraph [0078], “The second graphical user interface allows a user to specify movement paths for the robot for carrying out the tasks at the selected workstations. This is, for example, done teaching the robot a plurality of waypoints on the movement paths. In this case, the parameters are the positions and orientations of the waypoints.”; paragraph [0089], “The programming of the robot cell is split up into two parts, assisted by a first wizard for the integrator and a second wizard for the operator.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Akan is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Akan into the teaching of Sakuma to include “wherein the processor is configured to set a parameter of the representative command and a parameter of the at least one other robot command.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable a user to input or adjust parameters needed for carrying out a part of a task (Akan, paragraph [0017]).
Claim 12 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Li as applied to Claims 3 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2017/0320211 (hereinafter “Akan”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of Sakuma and Li does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the wizard sets a parameter value of the at least one other robot command.
However, Akan discloses:
wherein the wizard sets a parameter value of the at least one other robot command (paragraph [0073], “The second wizard allows the user to select one or more of the workstations in the specific robot cell and to input parameters in response to the displayed instructions.”; paragraph [0078], “The second graphical user interface allows a user to specify movement paths for the robot for carrying out the tasks at the selected workstations. This is, for example, done teaching the robot a plurality of waypoints on the movement paths. In this case, the parameters are the positions and orientations of the waypoints.”; paragraph [0089], “The programming of the robot cell is split up into two parts, assisted by a first wizard for the integrator and a second wizard for the operator.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Akan is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Akan into the combined teachings of Sakuma and Li to include “wherein the wizard sets a parameter value of the at least one other robot command.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable a user to input or adjust parameters needed for carrying out a part of a task (Akan, paragraph [0017]).
Claim 13 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-3 and 8-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191