Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office action is responsive to the communication filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 on January 8, 2026 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1 and 3 are now amended.
Claims 1–19 are pending in the application, of which claims 10, 11, and 17–19 remain withdrawn from consideration
Response to Arguments
The objection to the title is withdrawn, responsive to the Applicant’s amendment to the title.
The rejection of claims 1–5 and 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Donelli is hereby withdrawn, responsive to the Applicant’s amendment narrowing the scope of claim 1 to require a previously unmet condition precedent.
All of the claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the combination of Donelli and Chen discussed in the previous Office Action’s rejection of claim 6. The Applicant contends that “nothing has been found, or pointed to, in Chen that remedies the deficiencies of Donelli identified above in connection with claim 1.” (Response 10). Respectfully, this is not true, because the prior rejection of claim 6 explained exactly why Chen remedies Donelli’s deficiencies with respect to the cancellation processing. (See Non-Final Office Action 13–16) (September 9, 2025).
Therefore, all of the claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combination of Donelli and Chen, as set forth herein. Accordingly, since all of the claims stand rejected, the application is not in condition for allowance, and the Applicant’s request for a notice thereof (Response 10) is respectfully denied.
Claim Objections
The Examiner objects to the form of the newly added claim element (lines 15–19 of claim 1 as printed in the January 8, 2026 amendment) for the following reasons.
First, as currently recited, the claim language adds a limitation about the end report and pressure data to the receiving step, rather than the transmitting step where the report data was first introduced. This is confusing, because it appears as though the end report was somehow received without ever being transmitted.
Second, from the grammar of the claim language, it is unclear whether the “pressure data indicating a pressure” is recited as an element of the end report, or recited as an element of all of the pieces of report data.1
Third, the phrase “wherein the pieces of report data include an end report” is unclear because it refers back to a differently-named element (i.e., the plurality of pieces of report data). The Examiner recommends the following changes to claim 1:
by the remote computer, sequentially transmitting a plurality of pieces of report data including the plurality of positions and pressure values of the indicator to the host computer, wherein the remote computer transmits one of the pieces of report data each time one of the positions of the indicator is detected[[;]]
and wherein the plurality of pieces of report data include an end report [[including]] that further includes, distinct from the end report’s respective position and pressure data, information indicating that the indicator has been moved away from the sensor surface and pressure data indicating a pressure
by the host computer, receiving the plurality of pieces of report data;
by the host computer, detecting a gesture based on a series of the pieces of report data received from the remote computer;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–9 and 12–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0243560 A1 (“Donelli”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0116975 A1 (“Chen”).
Claim 1
Donelli teaches:
An image drawing method performed by a system, the system including:
Reference is made to FIGS. 9–11, which illustrate a method performed by a system (illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 3 among others), from the perspectives 900, 1000 of a client device 102 and server device 132, respectively.
a host computer that executes an operating system and generates a plurality of images,
“[T]he server device 132 executes [] spatial input software and [a] server app.” Donelli ¶ 26. As will be discussed in greater detail below where affirmatively claimed, the server device 132 generates a “server display” to send to the client, and “this may be done continuously, or quasi-continuously to ensure a high frame rate (e.g., 30, 60 fps).” Donelli ¶ 117.
and a remote computer
“The client device 102 may be a tablet computer, a smartphone, a pen display, or any other direct input device.” Donelli ¶ 26. Client device 102 is a “remote” computer relative to the server device 132, since “[t]he physical distance separating the client device 102 from the server device 132 may range from as little as a few inches to as much as thousands of miles.” Donelli ¶ 27.
that includes an input sensor having a sensor surface and a display
“Being a direct input device, the client device 102 includes a client display 104 that accepts input as well as displays output. The client display 104 may accept input from a variety of spatial input devices 106, such as a pen, a stylus, a finger or thumb, etc.” Donelli ¶ 28.
and that displays at least some of the images generated by the host computer on the display,
“A selected display portion 134 of the server display 135 is displayed on the client display 104.” Donelli ¶ 29.
the image drawing method comprising:
Returning now to FIGS. 9 and 11, the method performed by these devices will now be discussed.
by the remote computer, sequentially detecting a plurality of positions of an indicator on the sensor surface at a predetermined sampling rate using the input sensor;
“At operation 906 an input may be received via an input device (such as a touchscreen from a touch screen display) on the client. The input may include one or more data points that describe one or more properties of the input (such as coordinates of the input).” Donelli ¶ 115. These data points are detected and stored sequentially, in a stream. See Donelli ¶¶ 74–76 and FIG. 5.
by the remote computer, sequentially transmitting a plurality of pieces of report data including the plurality of positions of the indicator to the host computer,
“At operation 908 data describing the input is sent to the server device.” Donelli ¶ 115.
wherein the remote computer transmits one of the pieces of report data each time one of the positions of the indicator is detected;
More specifically, “for each input event generated by client device 102 that contains X,Y position information,” Donelli ¶ 49, the client and server devices perform a process wherein “[t]he client device 102 sends the input event across network link 120.” Donelli ¶ 45.
by the host computer, receiving the pieces of report data,
The input event traverses the network link 120 “to server device 132.” Donelli ¶ 45.
wherein the pieces of report data include an end report including information indicating that the indicator has been moved away from the sensor surface
Each of the input events are defined according to an “event structure,” which includes, among other things, a field for “EventType.” Donelli ¶ 69. On possible value that may be set in the EventType field is “an EventStrokeEnd event type,” which “denotes that the input event 306 was the last input event 306 (e.g., the finger/pen/stylus was lifted off of the client display 104) of the corresponding input stroke on client device 102.” Donelli ¶ 70.
and pressure data indicating a pressure, and wherein the information indicating that the indicator has been moved away from the sensor surface is different from the pressure data;
“Each input event 306 may include an EventPointStruct structure, which includes various values for the input event 306,” including “a value for pressure” for client devices that have a pressure sensor. Donelli ¶ 72. Notably, per the above discussion, the variable that stores the value for EventType is separate from the variable that stores the value for pressure.
by the host computer, detecting a gesture based on a series of the pieces of report data received from the remote computer;
Meanwhile, the server performs operations 1104–1108 of receiving the client event, converting the coordinates, and “consuming” the client event in the same way that a local input would be consumed. Donelli ¶ 117. More specifically, “[t]he scaled input event is delivered through a system Application Programming Interface (API) so that spatial input software executing on the server device 132 consumes the scaled/mapped input event.” Donelli ¶ 48.
by the host computer, generating one or more deformed images by imparting a deformation corresponding to contents and an amount that are indicated by the gesture, to one or more of the images or a previously-transmitted deformed image;
As a result of consuming the event at operation 1108, the server display performs the task of “rendering the event.” Donelli ¶ 117. Specifically, an “event rendering engine 318” executing on the server device 132 “convert[s] a drawing input event received by server EventStream 316 into one or more ‘mouse down’ and ‘mouse move’ events on server device 132.” Donelli ¶ 60.
by the host computer, transmitting the one or more deformed images to the remote computer;
“At operation 1110 an updated display may be sent to the client.” Donelli ¶ 117.
Donelli does not explicitly disclose “performing cancelation processing that cancels the generating of the one or more deformed images in response to receiving the end report including the information indicating that the indicator has been moved away from the sensor surface.”
Chen, however, teaches that the technique of “cancelation processing” was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Specifically, Chen teaches:
An image drawing method performed by a system, the system including: a host computer . . . and a remote computer
Chen’s technique involves two different threads running on the same computer. While this is different from the claimed invention splitting those operations across two different computers rather than two different threads, those reviewing this rejection are reminded that the rejection is based on the combination of Chen with Donelli. That is, this rejection concerns the obviousness of applying the operations of Chen’s input framework 20 to Donelli’s client device 102 (the claimed remote computer), and applying the operations of Chen’s UI framework 30 to Donelli’s server device 132 (the claimed host computer). See, e.g., Chen FIGS. 2B and 12.
the image drawing method comprising:
“FIG. 14 is a flowchart of an[] image processing method.” Chen ¶ 76.
by the remote computer, sequentially detecting a plurality of positions of an indicator on the sensor surface at a predetermined sampling rate using the input sensor;
Prior to step S301, “[a]fter the TP in the TP IC/TP driver 10 captures the touch operation of the user's finger on the TP of the electronic device, the TP driver reports a corresponding touch event to an event hub,” where “[a]n input reader thread of the input framework 20 may read the touch event from the event hub, and then send the touch event to an input dispatcher thread.” Chen ¶ 132. The touch event is a “first UI event,” e.g., a fling operation of the user’s finger sliding against the display. Chen ¶¶ 190–192.
by the remote computer, sequentially transmitting a plurality of pieces of report data including the plurality of positions of the indicator to the host computer, wherein the remote computer transmits one of the pieces of report data each time one of the positions of the indicator is detected;
Next, “the input dispatcher thread sends the touch event up to the UI thread in the UI framework 30.” Chen ¶ 132.
by the host computer, receiving the pieces of report data, wherein the pieces of report data include an end report including information indicating that the indicator has been moved away from the sensor surface
The UI thread receives the a forementioned touch event up. See Chen ¶ 132.
by the host computer, generating one or more deformed images by imparting a deformation corresponding to contents and an amount that are indicated by the gesture, to one or more of the images or a previously-transmitted deformed image;
“The UI thread (for example, a do frame) in the UI framework 30 draws one or more layers corresponding to the touch event,” Chen ¶ 132, thereby performing step S301. Chen ¶ 143. For the sake of this rejection, it will be helpful to consider the example where the UI framework 30 drew more than one layer, e.g., as in the case where the touch event was a fling gesture that caused an animation of the screen scrolling.
by the host computer, transmitting the one or more deformed images to the remote computer; and
“The electronic device finishes drawing the first layer before a first time, and the electronic device draws a second layer, renders the second layer, and buffers the rendered second layer in [a] SF [Surface Flinger] buffer queue before the first time.” Chen ¶ 144. Data is provided to the SF buffer queue so that the Surface Flinger can display it on a physical screen. Chen ¶ 132.
by the host computer, performing cancelation processing that cancels the generating of the one or more deformed images in response to the end report indicating that the indicator has been moved away from the sensor surface.
At step S1301, “[t]he electronic device receives a second UI event, where the second UI event is an interrupt (Down) event used to trigger the electronic device to stop displaying the image content corresponding to the first UI event,” Chen ¶ 279, and “after S1303, if the SF buffer queue includes the layer corresponding to the first UI event, the electronic device may perform S1304,” wherein the device “deletes the layer corresponding to the first UI event that is buffered in the SF buffer queue.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Donelli by applying Chen’s technique of discarding buffered display updates that occurred after a gesture indicating an interruption to an operation. One would have been motivated to improve Donelli with Chen’s technique because this technique “reduce[s] a frame loss possibility in image displaying by the electronic device, ensure[s] smoothness of images displayed on a display, and improve[s] [the] visual experience of a user.” Chen ¶ 5.
Claim 2
Donelli and Chen teach the image drawing method according to claim 1,
wherein the cancelation processing cancels the generating of a plurality of deformed images corresponding to one or more pieces of report data before the end report,
“In some embodiments, the electronic device may delete Q frame layers among the P frame layers buffered in the SF buffer queue, and perform layer composition on a frame layer at a head of the SF buffer queue after the Q frame layers are deleted, to obtain an image frame, and buffer the composited image frame. The P frame layers are the layers corresponding to the first UI event, Q≤P, and both P and Q are positive integers.” Chen ¶ 297.
the one or more pieces of report data corresponding to a length of time required to display one or more of the images corresponding to one or more of the positions of the indicator on the display after the remote computer detects the one or more of position of the indicator.
As shown in both FIGS. 15 and 17, each of the frame layers (image frames) correspond to a full cycle of VSYNC signals. See Chen ¶ 299. Each cycle is a predetermined amount of time, depending on the frame rate of the hardware display. For example, on a 60 Hz display, each VSYNC cycle is 1/60 seconds. Chen ¶ 125.
Claim 3
Donelli and Chen teach the image drawing method according to claim 1,
wherein the host computer includes: a transmission buffer that accumulates the one or more deformed images, and
The server display 135 of server device 132 includes a frame buffer comprising the information for display. See Donelli ¶ 33.
a transmission unit that sequentially reads and transmits the one or more deformed images accumulated in the transmission buffer, and
The server device 132 also includes a server EventStream 316, that communicates with a client EventStream 314 in real-time or near real-time; “thus, the client EventStream 314 and the server EventStream 316 use a real-time (or near real-time) communications protocol over network link 120.” Donelli ¶ 61. Accordingly, to transmit the server’s display data to the client, “server device 132 copies the frame buffer of the server display 135,” feeds it to a video codec, “divides the compressed output into datagrams for transmission to the client device 102,” and finally, “transmits the datagrams to the client device 102.” Donelli ¶¶ 33–37.
Donelli does not explicitly disclose stopping transmission of the deformed images in the buffer in response to receiving the end report.
Chen, however, teaches a method in which the host computer includes:
a transmission buffer that accumulates the one or more deformed images, and
“[T]he electronic device may buffer the rendered layer in the SF buffer queue (Buffer). The SF buffer can buffer the rendered layers in a queue according to a ‘first in first out’ principle.” Chen ¶ 173.
the cancelation processing stops transmission of at least some of the one or more deformed images accumulated in the transmission buffer, in response to receiving the end report including information indicating that the indicator has been moved away from the sensor surface.
“In some embodiments, the electronic device may delete Q frame layers among the P frame layers buffered in the SF buffer queue, and perform layer composition on a frame layer at a head of the SF buffer queue after the Q frame layers are deleted, to obtain an image frame, and buffer the composited image frame. The P frame layers are the layers corresponding to the first UI event, Q≤P, and both P and Q are positive integers.” Chen ¶ 297. “In another implementation of this embodiment, when P≥2, the electronic device performs S1304, and a plurality of frame layers corresponding to the first UI event that are buffered in the SF buffer may be deleted every time, that is, Q≥2.” Chen ¶ 305.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Donelli by applying Chen’s technique of discarding buffered display updates that occurred after a gesture indicating an interruption to an operation. One would have been motivated to improve Donelli with Chen’s technique because this technique “reduce[s] a frame loss possibility in image displaying by the electronic device, ensure[s] smoothness of images displayed on a display, and improve[s] [the] visual experience of a user.” Chen ¶ 5.
Claim 4
Donelli and Chen teach the image drawing method according to claim 3,
wherein the cancelation processing discards, from the transmission buffer, the at least some of the one or more deformed images.
“In some embodiments, the electronic device may delete Q frame layers among the P frame layers buffered in the SF buffer queue, and perform layer composition on a frame layer at a head of the SF buffer queue after the Q frame layers are deleted, to obtain an image frame, and buffer the composited image frame. The P frame layers are the layers corresponding to the first UI event, Q≤P, and both P and Q are positive integers.” Chen ¶ 297. “In another implementation of this embodiment, when P≥2, the electronic device performs S1304, and a plurality of frame layers corresponding to the first UI event that are buffered in the SF buffer may be deleted every time, that is, Q≥2.” Chen ¶ 305.
Claim 5
Donelli and Chen teach the image drawing method according to claim 1 for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1. Donelli and Chen do not need to teach anything further to reach the conclusion of obviousness for claim 5, because the step of generating and transmitting a rewind image to the remote computer is contingent upon “a case where” the gesture has not been made. Claim 5 never requires such a case to ever occur; it only says what happens if such a case were to occur. In fact, such a case can never occur under the current language of parent claim 1, because parent claim 1 requires the host device to “detect[] a gesture.”
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met,” MPEP § 2111.04, and in claim 5, the sole step of generating and transmitting a rewind image to the remote computer is contingent upon an unmet condition precedent, making it optional under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. The rejection does not need to present evidence of method steps “that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” MPEP § 2111.04 (quoting Ex parte Schulhauser, PTAB Appeal No. 2013-007847 (April 28, 2016) (precedential)). Accordingly, since Donelli and Chen teach every required element of claim 5 (i.e., the required elements from claim 1 that claim 5 incorporates by reference), Donelli and Chen teach claim 5 as well.
Claim 6
Donelli and Chen teach the image drawing method according to claim 1,
wherein the cancelation processing cancels a deformation corresponding to a predetermined number of pieces of report data before the end report, and the predetermined number is preliminarily set in a memory of the host computer.
“In some embodiments, the electronic device may delete Q frame layers among the P frame layers buffered in the SF buffer queue, and perform layer composition on a frame layer at a head of the SF buffer queue after the Q frame layers are deleted, to obtain an image frame, and buffer the composited image frame. The P frame layers are the layers corresponding to the first UI event, Q≤P, and both P and Q are positive integers.” Chen ¶ 297. “In another implementation of this embodiment, when P≥2, the electronic device performs S1304, and a plurality of frame layers corresponding to the first UI event that are buffered in the SF buffer may be deleted every time, that is, Q≥2.” Chen ¶ 305.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Donelli by applying Chen’s technique of discarding buffered display updates that occurred after a gesture indicating an interruption to an operation. One would have been motivated to improve Donelli with Chen’s technique because this technique “reduce[s] a frame loss possibility in image displaying by the electronic device, ensure[s] smoothness of images displayed on a display, and improve[s] [the] visual experience of a user.” Chen ¶ 5.
Claim 7
Donelli, as combined with Chen, teaches the image drawing method according to claim 6,
wherein the predetermined number is decided based on environment information indicating an environment of the remote computer.
The number of frames to delete from the buffer is based on the number of frames that the can be drawn between a first and second time, wherein “[t]he second time is a time where a preset percentage of a signal period of the first vertical synchronization signal for triggering the electronic device to draw the first layer has been consumed.” Chen ¶ 11.
Claim 8
Donelli, as combined with Chen, teaches the image drawing method according to claim 7, further comprising:
by the host computer setting whether to perform the cancelation processing, according to the environment information indicating the environment of the remote computer.
“In some embodiments, the electronic device may delete Q frame layers among the P frame layers buffered in the SF buffer queue, and perform layer composition on a frame layer at a head of the SF buffer queue after the Q frame layers are deleted, to obtain an image frame, and buffer the composited image frame. The P frame layers are the layers corresponding to the first UI event, Q≤P, and both P and Q are positive integers.” Chen ¶ 297. “In another implementation of this embodiment, when P≥2, the electronic device performs S1304, and a plurality of frame layers corresponding to the first UI event that are buffered in the SF buffer may be deleted every time, that is, Q≥2.” Chen ¶ 305.
Claim 9
Donelli, as combined with Chen, teaches the image drawing method according to claim 7,
wherein the environment information includes either a size of the display or a length of time required to display one or more of the images corresponding to one or more of the positions of the indicator on the display after the remote computer detects the one or more of positions of the indicator.
As shown in FIG. 15, the number frames deleted from the buffer corresponds to the number of frames that the processor is able to draw in the time between the finger down event tDown and the last VSYNC signal. See Chen ¶¶ 298–299.
Claim 12
Donelli, as combined with Chen, teaches the image drawing method according to claim 1,
wherein the gesture is any of a pinch-out gesture, a pinch-in gesture, a drag gesture, or a rotation gesture.
“Although much of the current disclosure uses example embodiments related to drawing, the system is not limited to drawing events. This system may be used to deliver any kind of user interaction data that must be delivered to another device in real-time (or near real-time). For example, . . . [e]vents may also be created for pinching to zoom on a canvas, panning the canvas, using an eraser on the canvas, etc.” Donelli ¶ 98.
Claim 13
Donelli, as combined with Chen, teaches the image drawing method according to claim 1,
wherein the deformation is any of an enlargement, a reduction, a movement, or a rotation.
“Although much of the current disclosure uses example embodiments related to drawing, the system is not limited to drawing events. This system may be used to deliver any kind of user interaction data that must be delivered to another device in real-time (or near real-time). For example, . . . [e]vents may also be created for pinching to zoom on a canvas, panning the canvas, using an eraser on the canvas, etc.” Donelli ¶ 98.
Claim 14
Donelli, as combined with Chen, teaches the image drawing method according to claim 1,
wherein the deformation is performed by either an application operating on an operating system executed by the host computer or a desktop window manager included in the operating system executed by the host computer.
“The scaled input event is delivered through a system Application Programming Interface (API) so that spatial input software executing on the server device 132 consumes the scaled/mapped input event as if it was generated by an input device connected to the server device 132. For example, a system API provided by an operating system.” Donelli ¶ 48.
Claim 15
Donelli, as combined with Chen, teaches the image drawing method according to claim 1,
wherein the indicator is a finger,
“Returning to FIG. 1, a spatial input device 106, such as a stylus or a user's finger (not shown), may be used by the user to input data into the client device 102.” Donelli ¶ 51.
the method further comprises, by the remote computer, performing tracking processing that tracks a position of the finger,
“As the user inputs data into client device 102, the client app transmits the input data to the server device 132 over the network link 120.” Donelli ¶ 51.
and the end report is data including information indicating that a movement of the finger tracked as a series of positions by the tracking processing has not been detected.
Each of the input events are defined according to an “event structure,” which includes, among other things, a field for “EventType.” Donelli ¶ 69. On possible value that may be set in the EventType field is “an EventStrokeEnd event type,” which “denotes that the input event 306 was the last input event 306 (e.g., the finger/pen/stylus was lifted off of the client display 104) of the corresponding input stroke on client device 102.” Donelli ¶ 70.
Claim 16
Donelli, as combined with Chen, teaches the image drawing method according to claim 1,
wherein the indicator is a pen that detects a pen pressure and transmits the pen pressure to the remote computer,
“Returning to FIG. 1, a spatial input device 106, such as a stylus or a user's finger (not shown), may be used by the user to input data into the client device 102.” Donelli ¶ 51. “If either the client device 102 or the spatial input device 106 has a sensor to detect the pressure with which an event was input, the EventPointStruct structure” (a component of the event data mentioned in the rejection of claim 1) “may include a value for pressure.” Donelli ¶ 72.
and wherein the end report contains data including pen-up information indicating that the pen pressure has changed from a value larger than 0 to 0.
Each of the input events are defined according to an “event structure,” which includes, among other things, a field for “EventType.” Donelli ¶ 69. On possible value that may be set in the EventType field is “an EventStrokeEnd event type,” which “denotes that . . . the finger/pen/stylus was lifted off of the client display 104.” Donelli ¶ 70.
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 Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm 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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 The Examiner acknowledges that FIG. 2A provides an example where all pieces of report data, including the end report, include a pressure data element “PRE,” and where the end report also includes a PenUp element that is
Prosecution Insights