Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to the communication filed on 07/14/2026. Claims 14, 21, 23, 25, and 26 have been amended. Claims 14-36 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 07/14/2026 have been fully considered. Examiner thanks Applicant for the clear and detailed remarks.
Applicant’s argument about amended Claims 14, 21, 23, 25, and 26 are moot based on the new ground rejections utilizing previous prior art and new prior art to address the narrower limitations imposed from the applicant’s specification.
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 14, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Steinberg et al. (US-20180113200-A1; hereinafter, Steinberg) and in view of Lipson et al. (US-20130258166-A1; hereinafter, Lipson) and in further view of Kanko et al. (US-20210323086-A1; hereinafter, Kanko).
Regarding claim 14, Steinberg discloses [Note: what Steinberg fails to disclose is strike-through] (Currently Amended) A method (see at least Figure 7), comprising: receiving, using at least one processor, data characterizing detection of a target by a sensor, (see at least [007]; "Consistent with a disclosed embodiment, a LIDAR system may include at least one processor configured to:... use first detected reflections associated with a scan of a first portion of the field of view to determine an existence of a first object in the first portion at a first distance.)" wherein the target is located within a field of view of detection of the sensor, and (see at least [007]; "Consistent with a disclosed embodiment, a LIDAR system may include at least one processor configured to:... use first detected reflections associated with a scan of a first portion of the field of view to determine an existence of a first object in the first portion at a first distance.)" wherein the target and the sensor are coupled to or adjacent to a portion of a vehicle (see at least Figure 1A and [0123]; "In some embodiments, LIDAR system100 may include one or more scanning units104to scan the environment around vehicle110. LIDAR system100 may be attached or mounted to any part of vehicle110.") to identify a boundary between the target and the vehicle in the field of view; (see at least [0690]; "At step 4404... processor 118 may coordinate the control of the at least one light source with the control of the at least one light deflector to increase light flux, relative to other portions of the field of view, on a side of the vehicle (i.e.,…, angle, region of interest, and not a part of the vehicle) opposite a direction of the cross-lane turn and ... causing a detection range opposing the direction of the cross-lane turn of the vehicle to temporarily exceed a detection range toward a direction of the cross-lane turn.") determining, using the at least one processor, a modified field of view of the sensor, (see at least [0734]; "In some embodiments, processor118 may identify a region of interest in a portion of the FOV and modify, based on the temperature information, the illumination ratio between the portion of the FOV and another portion of the FOV such that during one or more subsequent scanning cycles, more light is directed toward the portion of the FOV containing a region of interest.") wherein the modified field of view is narrower than the field of view, and (see at least [0112]; "for a scanning LIDAR system, the instantaneous field of view is narrower than the entire FOV of the LIDAR system, and it can be moved within the FOV of the LIDAR system in order to enable detection in other parts of the FOV of the LIDAR system.") wherein the determining is based on at least identifying one or more regions in the field of view (see at least [010]: "Consistent with a disclosed embodiment, a LIDAR system may include at least one processor configured to: obtain an identification of at least one distinct region of interest in the field of view;") that include the target (see at least Figure 35C and Figure 37 and [077]; "Fig. 37 is a flow chart illustrating an example of a method for detecting objects in a region of interest using a LIDAR system, consistent with presently disclosed embodiments.") (see at least [0193]; "In one example, processor118C may be the vehicle controller and may have a shared interface between first processor118A and second processor118B." ) a calibration dataset (see at least [0540]; "According to some embodiments, the controller may include a situational assessment unit to receive the detected scene signal and produce a scanning/work plan... The situational assessment unit may receive information stored on a memory. Optionally, the information may be selected from the following list:... calibration data.") that includes data associated with the modified field of view, (see at least [0734]; "In some embodiments, processor118 may identify a region of interest in a portion of the FOV and modify, based on the temperature information, the illumination ratio between the portion of the FOV and another portion of the FOV such that during one or more subsequent scanning cycles, more light is directed toward the portion of the FOV containing a region of interest.")
Examiner’s note: By modifying the claim presented from comprising: receiving, using at least one processor, data characterizing detection of a target by a LiDAR sensor, to comprising: receiving, using at least one processor, data characterizing detection of a target by a sensor, the claim limitations have become broad to encompass any sensor sufficient in “detection of a target by a sensor” which the previous art of Steinburg still is applicable towards, is considered new matter, and is sustained in this rejection.
However, Steinberg does not explicitly teach removing a portion of the field of view or deactivating a beam directed at a field of view. Instead, Steinberg teaches a LiDAR system with multiple field of view.
Steinberg discloses a method to utilize multiple fields of view and Lipson is directed at cropping a field of view and Kanko is directed at deactivating a beam directed at a field of view. Lipson and Kanko both teach:
Lipson teaches cropped field of view (see at least [0104]; “Another way of changing the field of view of an electronic camera in accordance with certain embodiments is to crop, delete and/or clip peripheral regions of the captured scene when it is in electronic format, although cropping is subject to the limitations described above involving the discarding of peripheral image data. However, because a cropped image is smaller than the original, it can be electronically expanded so that it is the equivalent size as the original but, because parts of the scene are now absent, the effective field of view is diminished.”).
Deactivates a beam directed at a field of view (see at least [0083]; "The process beam location in the field of view is achieved by turning off, or reducing to a negligible level, the CI system light source... In SS-OCT systems employing a balanced photodiode detection scheme, for example, one of the inputs to the channel pairs may be disabled (e.g., blocked) to avoid common mode cancellation of the calibration signal.").
Collectively, Steinberg, Lipson, and Kanko can utilize fields of view. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods used in Steinberg to include programming as taught by Lipson and Kanko. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include specific programming from Lipson to allow Steinburg’s field of view to crop regions of the captured scene including parts of the vehicle scanned in the field of view. Further by including the programming from Kanko into Steinburg’s teaching, the system would also be able to turn off or reduce to a negligible level the system light source, light beam, when the field of view is being processed during calibration. Therefore, by including programming from Lipson and Kanko into the programming of Steinburg to make it more robust and elegant will fit the claimed invention and its limitations.
Regarding claim 25, Steinberg discloses [Note: what Steinberg fails to disclose is strike-through] (Currently Amended) A system (see at least Figure 1A and see at least [0129]; "In this figure, LIDAR system100 is connected to a host210. Consistent with the present disclosure, the term "host" refers to any computing environment that may interface with LIDAR system100, it may be a vehicle system (e.g., part of vehicle110), ... , or any system that monitors its surroundings.") comprising: at least one computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions; (see at least [0443]; "Referring to method2400 as a whole, and to any variation of which is discussed above, it is noted that method2400 may be embodied into a computer readable code (a set of instructions) which can be executed by a processor (e.g. a controller of a LIDAR).") one or more processors configured to execute the computer executable instructions comprising: (see at least [0443]; "That non-transitory computer-readable medium may include instructions stored thereon, that when executed on a processor, may perform steps including:")…
The remainder of claim 25 contains analogous limitations to claim 14 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 26, Steinberg discloses [Note: what Steinberg fails to disclose is strike-through] (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, (see at least Figure 1A and [0443]; "That non-transitory computer-readable medium may include instructions stored thereon, that when executed on a processor, may perform steps including:”) comprising at least one program for execution by one or more processors of a first device, the at least one program including instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first device to perform operations comprising: (see at least [0443]; "Referring to method2400 as a whole, and to any variation of which is discussed above, it is noted that method2400 may be embodied into a computer readable code (a set of instructions) which can be executed by a processor (e.g. a controller of a LIDAR).") receiving, using the one or more processors, data characterizing detection of a target by a sensor, (see at least [007]; "Consistent with a disclosed embodiment, a LIDAR system may include at least one processor configured to:... use first detected reflections associated with a scan of a first portion of the field of view to determine an existence of a first object in the first portion at a first distance.")…
The remainder of claim 26 contains analogous limitations to claim 14 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 19-24, 30, 31, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Steinberg.
Regarding claim 19, Steinberg discloses (Previously Presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the at least a portion of the field of view includes a portion of the field of view overlapping the vehicle. (see at least [0518]; "In one example, a region of interest based on a sensed current driving mode may include a one or more portions of a LIDAR FOV overlapping an area that a host vehicle is turning toward (as conveyed by navigation system2910, GPS receiver2908, etc.).").
Regarding claim 20, Steinberg discloses (Previously Presented) The method of claim 14, further comprising conforming the target to the portion of the vehicle. (rejected for same reasons as described herein from Claim 19 and see at least [0518]; "In another example, a region of interest may correspond to one or more portions of a LIDAR FOV in which LIDAR system100 has detected an object, such as another vehicle, a pedestrian, obstacle, etc.").
Regarding claim 21, Steinberg discloses (Currently Amended) The method of claim 14, wherein the sensor is a LiDAR sensor with a 360 degree field of view. (see at least [0123]; "Thus, LIDAR system100 may have a 360-degree horizontal field of view. In one example, as shown in Fig. IA, LIDAR system100 may include a single scanning unit104 mounted on a roof vehicle110.").
Regarding claim 22, Steinberg discloses (Previously Presented) The method of claim 14, wherein the target includes at least a first region of high reflectivity and a second region of low reflectivity. (see at least [0509]; "A computational budget may also be apportioned relative to calculations associated with a particular LIDAR FOV such that computational tasks associated with one portion of the FOV may receive more of the computation budget than computational tasks associated with another portion of the FOV. Some examples of how a computation budget may be apportioned include, for example: detection/clustering (object level from point cloud points);... determining object characteristics (e.g., ..., reflectivity, etc.).").
Regarding claim 23, Steinberg discloses (Previously Presented) The method of claim 14, wherein providing the calibration dataset (see at least [0540]; "According to some embodiments, the controller may include a situational assessment unit to receive the detected scene signal and produce a scanning/work plan... The situational assessment unit may receive information stored on a memory. Optionally, the information may be selected from the following list:... calibration data.") comprises providing instructions for the sensor to generate a point cloud based on the modified field of view. (see at least [0124]; "In one embodiment, LIDAR system100 may generate a plurality of point-cloud data entries from detected reflections of multiple scanning cycles of the field of view to enable, for example, determining a point cloud model of the environment around vehicle110.").
Regarding claim 24, Steinberg discloses (Previously Presented) The method of claim 14, wherein determining the calibration dataset (see at least [0540]; "According to some embodiments, the controller may include a situational assessment unit to receive the detected scene signal and produce a scanning/work plan... The situational assessment unit may receive information stored on a memory. Optionally, the information may be selected from the following list:... calibration data.") comprises pre-processing, using the at least one processor, a point cloud corresponding to the field of view. (see at least [0124]; "In one embodiment, LIDAR system100 may generate a plurality of point-cloud data entries from detected reflections of multiple scanning cycles of the field of view to enable, for example, determining a point cloud model of the environment around vehicle110.").
Claim 30 and 35 contains analogous limitations to claim 22 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 31 and 36 contains analogous limitations to claim 24 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 15-18, 27-29, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Steinberg, Lipson, Kanko and in further view of Cai et al. (US-20210325520-A1; hereinafter, Cai).
Regarding claim 15, Steinberg discloses [Note: what Steinberg fails to disclose is strike-through] (Previously Presented) The method of claim 14, wherein determining the modified field of view comprises: (see at least [0734]; "In some embodiments, processor118 may identify a region of interest in a portion of the FOV and modify, based on the temperature information, the illumination ratio between the portion of the FOV and another portion of the FOV such that during one or more subsequent scanning cycles, more light is directed toward the portion of the FOV containing a region of interest." and Lipson teaches see at least [0104]; “Another way of changing the field of view of an electronic camera in accordance with certain embodiments is to crop, delete and/or clip peripheral regions of the captured scene when it is in electronic format, although cropping is subject to the limitations described above involving the discarding of peripheral image data.”) identifying, based on the data characterizing detection (see at least [0124]; "In addition to location, each gray dot may also be associated with different types of information, for example, intensity (e.g., how much light returns back from that location), reflectivity, proximity to other dots, and more. In one embodiment, LIDAR system100 may generate a plurality of point-cloud data entries from detected reflections of multiple scanning cycles of the field of view to enable, for example, determining a point cloud model of the environment around vehicle110.") of the target, a (see at least [0111]; "The field of view of LIDAR system may be 15defined,or example, by a solid angle (e.g. defined using 0,0 angles, in which 0 and 0 are angles defined in perpendicular planes, e.g. with respect to symmetry axes of the LIDAR system and/or its FOV).") wherein the (see at least [0690]; "At step 4404... processor 118 may coordinate the control of the at least one light source with the control of the at least one light deflector to increase light flux, relative to other portions of the field of view, on a side of the vehicle (i.e.,..., angle, region of interest, and not a part of the vehicle) opposite a direction of the cross-lane turn and ... causing a detection range opposing the direction of the cross-lane turn of the vehicle to temporarily exceed a detection range toward a direction of the cross-lane turn.") wherein the calibration dataset (see at least [0540]; "According to some embodiments, the controller may include a situational assessment unit to receive the detected scene signal and produce a scanning/work plan... The situational assessment unit may receive information stored on a memory. Optionally, the information may be selected from the following list:... calibration data.") includes the (Kanko teaches see at least [0098]; "In an off-axis configuration, multiple 2D cameras may be used to achieve multiple viewing angles during the calibration measurement.").
However, Steinberg, Lipson, and Kanko do not explicitly teach how to identify a calibration azimuth angle. Instead, Steinberg teaches how to modify the field of view, determine an environment around the vehicle using point-cloud data, and define a field of view with a solid angle while Lipson teaches how to crop a field of view and Kanko teaches different angles during calibration.
Steinberg discloses a method to generate field of view data using angles and calibration data from the processor, and Cai is directed at evaluating data via a calibration module to generate azimuths. Cai teaches:
Calibration azimuth angle (see at least [00125]; “the calibration module may use the environmental data E to determine the azimuths (horizontal) from the LiDAR device 512 to each of the reflective panels, and may control each of the channels 102 of the LiDAR device 512 to emit light signals along each of those azimuths. Some examples of techniques for controlling the channels 102 of a LiDAR device to emit light signals along particular azimuths are described above.”).
Collectively Steinberg, Lipson, Kanko, and Cai can define calibration data and angles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Steinberg to include calibration azimuth angle data as taught by Cai. The calibration module taught by Cai includes environmental data to determine azimuths and Steinberg teaches its controller to have a situational assessment unit that can receive information stored on memory which can be calibration data. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include calibration azimuth data with the calibration data as it is generated in the situational assessment unit. Therefore, the calibration azimuth angle can be automatically generated from the calibration data set by having the situational assessment unit calculate it from the determining data set for the modified field of view and associate this angle between the target and the portion of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, Steinberg discloses [Note: what Steinberg fails to disclose is strike-through] (Previously Presented) The method of claim 15, wherein identifying the (Kanko teaches see at least [0098]; "In an off-axis configuration, multiple 2D cameras may be used to achieve multiple viewing angles during the calibration measurement." and Lipson teaches see at least [0007]; "For convenience, field of view is often described as the equivalent solid angle in the horizontal, vertical or diagonal plane.") is based on a difference in reflectivity (see at least [0124]; "In addition to location, each gray dot may also be associated with different types of information, for example, intensity (e.g., how much light returns back from that location), reflectivity, proximity to other dots, and more. In one embodiment, LIDAR system100 may generate a plurality of point-cloud data entries from detected reflections of multiple scanning cycles of the field of view to enable, for example, determining a point cloud model of the environment around vehicle110.") of a beam between the target and the portion of the vehicle, (see at least [0690]; "At step 4404... processor 118 may coordinate the control of the at least one light source with the control of the at least one light deflector to increase light flux, relative to other portions of the field of view, on a side of the vehicle (i.e.,..., angle, region of interest, and not a part of the vehicle) opposite a direction of the cross-lane turn and ... causing a detection range opposing the direction of the cross-lane turn of the vehicle to temporarily exceed a detection range toward a direction of the cross-lane turn.") wherein the beam is generated by the sensor. (see at least [0112]; "The movement of the instantaneous field of view within the FOV of the LIDAR system may be achieved by moving a light deflector of the LIDAR system (or external to the LIDAR system), so as to deflect beams of light to and/or from the LIDAR system in differing directions.").
However, Steinberg, Lipson, and Kanko do not explicitly teach how to identify a calibration azimuth angle from point-cloud data. Instead, Steinberg teaches reflectivity of a beam between the target and the portion of the vehicle from a plurality of point-cloud data entries. Lipson and Kanko both teach angles.
Steinberg discloses a method to use point-cloud data to measure reflectivity from data generated by the LiDAR system, and Cai is directed at evaluating data via a calibration module to generate azimuths. Cai teaches:
Calibration azimuth angle (see at least [00125]; “the calibration module may use the environmental data E to determine the azimuths (horizontal) from the LiDAR device 512 to each of the reflective panels, and may control each of the channels 102 of the LiDAR device 512 to emit light signals along each of those azimuths. Some examples of techniques for controlling the channels 102 of a LiDAR device to emit light signals along particular azimuths are described above.”).
Collectively, Steinberg, Lipson, Kanko, and Cai evaluate data in response to received data. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Steinberg to include calibration azimuth angle data as taught by Cai. The calibration module taught by Cai includes environmental data to determine azimuths and point-cloud data entries can be generated from the LiDAR system as taught by Steinberg. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to calculate calibration azimuth data with the point-cloud data as it is generated by the LiDAR system. Therefore, the calibration azimuth angle can be automatically generated from the point-cloud data set by having the LiDAR system calculate it from the point-cloud data set of the field of view.
Regarding claim 17, Steinberg discloses [Note: what Steinberg fails to disclose is strike-through] (Previously Presented) The method of claim 16, further comprising generating the data characterizing detection of the target, (see at least [007]; "Consistent with a disclosed embodiment, a LIDAR system may include at least one processor configured to:... use first detected reflections associated with a scan of a first portion of the field of view to determine an existence of a first object in the first portion at a first distance.") wherein the generating includes: directing the beam from the sensor at a plurality of (see at least [0223]; "For example, method700 may include generating output data (e.g., a 3D model) in which the differing measurements are associated with different directions with respect to the LIDAR. In such an example, processor118 may create a 3D-model frame (or the like) from the information of different light beams and many pixels from different angles of the FOV." and Kanko teaches see at least [0098]; "In an off-axis configuration, multiple 2D cameras may be used to achieve multiple viewing angles during the calibration measurement." and Lipson teaches see at least [0007]; "For convenience, field of view is often described as the equivalent solid angle in the horizontal, vertical or diagonal plane.") detecting reflection of at least a portion of the beam. (see at least [0109]; "For example, in some cases, light may be reflected from only some sides of the object (e.g., only the side opposing the LIDAR system will be detected); in other cases, light may be projected on only part of the object (e.g. laser beam projected onto a road or a building); in other cases, the object may be partly blocked by another object between the LIDAR system and the detected object; in other cases, the LIDAR's sensor may only detects light reflected from a portion of the object, e.g., because ambient light or other interferences interfere with detection of some portions of the object.").
However, Steinberg, Lipson, and Kanko do not explicitly teach how to identify an azimuth angle. Instead, Steinberg teaches generating angles from a 3D model frame generated by the processor. Lipson and Kanko both teach angles.
Steinberg discloses a method to use detected reflections to detect a target within its field of view and object detection of part of the LiDAR due to interference, and Cai is directed at evaluating data via a calibration module to generate azimuths. Cai teaches:
Azimuth angle (see at least [00125]; “the calibration module may use the environmental data E to determine the azimuths (horizontal) from the LiDAR device 512 to each of the reflective panels, and may control each of the channels 102 of the LiDAR device 512 to emit light signals along each of those azimuths. Some examples of techniques for controlling the channels 102 of a LiDAR device to emit light signals along particular azimuths are described above.”).
Collectively, Steinberg, Lipson, Kanko, and Cai evaluate data and angles. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Steinberg to include azimuth angle data as taught by Cai. The calibration module taught by Cai includes environmental data to determine azimuths and output data from a 3D model as taught by Steinberg already contains information on different angles. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to calculate azimuth data from the plurality of different angles produced of the field of view from the 3D model with respect to the LiDAR. Therefore, a plurality of azimuth angles can be automatically generated from the 3D model generated with respect to the LiDAR sensor’s processor.
Regarding claim 18, Steinberg discloses [Note: what Steinberg fails to disclose is strike-through] (Previously Presented) The method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving, by the sensor, data representing the (Kanko teaches see at least [0098]; "In an off-axis configuration, multiple 2D cameras may be used to achieve multiple viewing angles during the calibration measurement." and Lipson teaches see at least [0007]; "For convenience, field of view is often described as the equivalent solid angle in the horizontal, vertical or diagonal plane.") modifying the field of view (see at least [0734]; "In some embodiments, processor118 may identify a region of interest in a portion of the FOV and modify, based on the temperature information, the illumination ratio between the portion of the FOV and another portion of the FOV such that during one or more subsequent scanning cycles, more light is directed toward the portion of the FOV containing a region of interest." of the sensor based on the (see at least [0223]; "For example, method700 may include generating output data (e.g., a 3D model) in which the differing measurements are associated with different directions with respect to the LIDAR. In such an example, processor118 may create a 3D-model frame (or the like) from the information of different light beams and many pixels from different angles of the FOV.").
However, Steinberg, Lipson, and Kanko do not explicitly teach how to modify a field of view using a calibration azimuth angle. Instead, Steinberg teaches modifying fields of view using other information, for example: illumination and temperature and generating angles from a 3D model frame generated by the processor. Lipson and Kano both teach angles.
Steinberg discloses a method to generate data into a 3D model representation to produce data which one facet is angles, and Cai is directed at evaluating data via a calibration module to generate azimuths. Cai teaches:
Calibration azimuth angle (see at least [00125]; “the calibration module may use the environmental data E to determine the azimuths (horizontal) from the LiDAR device 512 to each of the reflective panels, and may control each of the channels 102 of the LiDAR device 512 to emit light signals along each of those azimuths. Some examples of techniques for controlling the channels 102 of a LiDAR device to emit light signals along particular azimuths are described above.”).
Collectively, Steinberg, Lipson, Kanko, and Cai evaluate data in response to received data. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Steinberg to include calibration azimuth angle data as taught by Cai. The calibration module taught by Cai includes environmental data to determine azimuths and output data from a 3D model as taught by Steinberg already contains information on different angles. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to calculate azimuth data from the 3D model with respect to the LiDAR sensor. Therefore, the LiDAR’s processor can identify regions of interest in a field of view and modify the field of view based on calibration azimuth angle data.
Claim 27 and 32 contains analogous limitations to claim 15 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 28 and 33 contains analogous limitations to claim 16 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 29 and 34 contains analogous limitations to claim 18 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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 Mark A Flores whose telephone number is (571)272-9693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am - 6pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/MARK ANTHONY FLORES/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
