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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-8 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferens (PG-Pub. US 20170285345), in view of Gibbs (US 20160341959), and further in view of Burgos (WO 2015185537).
Regarding claim 1:
Ferens teaches: a method comprising: at a processor (FIGS 1A and 3, ¶ [0028] “Turning now to FIG. 3, a method 76 is shown to augment reality according to an embodiment.”):
identifying replacement content to replace a head of a user and an electronic device worn by a user in a first view of a computer-generated reality (CGR) environment (FIGS. 1A and 3, ¶ [0030] “…In one example, block 82 may identify a device on a user [worn by a user], identify a body position of a user, identify a face of a user, identify a gesture by a user, and so on.”; ¶ [0031] “Illustrated processing block 84 provides for generating an augmented reality (AR) object [similar to replacement content including a representation of the electronic device (see electronic device in annotated FIG. 1 below (eyeglasses 26))]. Block 84 may, for example, generate an AR object based on an identification of an object in a field of view.”); comprising:
first replacement content corresponding to a user appearance of the head of the user based on first sensor data from a body facing sensor (FIGS. 1A and 3, ¶ [0012] “…Moreover, a real object in a field of view of the image capture device 34 [body facing sensor], such as the user 12 and/or the wearable device 22, may be identified.”; ¶ [0031] “Illustrated processing block 84 provides for generating an augmented reality (AR) object [similar to replacement content including a representation of the electronic device (see electronic device in annotated FIG. 1 below (eyeglasses 26))]. Block 84 may, for example, generate an AR object based on an identification of an object in a field of view [this includes a real object in a field of view of the image capture device 34].”);
second replacement content corresponding to an environment appearance based on second sensor data from a second sensor different than the body-facing sensor (FIGS. 1A and 3, ¶ [0011] “Objects in a field of view of the user 12 and/or in a field of view of the image capture devices 32 [second sensor different than the body-facing sensor], 34 may be identified. For example, a virtual object corresponding to the reflection 30 in the field of view of the user 12 may be identified.”; ¶ [0031] “Illustrated processing block 84 provides for generating an augmented reality (AR) object. Block 84 may, for example, generate an AR object based on an identification of an object in a field of view [of sensors 32 and 34 see ¶ [0011] and ¶ [0012]].” See element 40 in FIG. 1 that includes replacement data from both sensors 32 and 34. And see ¶ [0024]);
generating a second view of the CGR environment based on the first view of the CGR environment and the replacement content (FIGS. 1A and 3, ¶ [0032] … In this regard, block 86 may generate a map from image data of a scene, extract a feature from the image data of the scene, position a user in the map based on a displacement of the feature in the map, and position the augmented reality object in the map based on the position of the user.” Also see ¶ [0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
699
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ferens does not expressly teach: the body facing sensor of the electronic device; generating a second view of the CGR environment replacing the head of the user based on the first view of the CGR environment and the replacement content ; and wherein the electronic device is erased in the second view by presenting the first replacement content corresponding to the user appearance of the head of the user and the second replacement content corresponding to the environment appearance.
However, in related field, Gibbs teaches: the body facing sensor of the electronic device (¶ [0088] “…In some embodiments, for example, the sensor unit 1930 includes one or more cameras that are arranged to track gaze, eye rotation, eyelid movement and/or other facial features that underlie the HMD device 1600 when the device is worn by a user. An example arrangement of such tracking devices (e.g., tracking cameras 1615) are shown in FIG. 17”);
generating a second view of the CGR environment replacing the head of the user based on the first view of the CGR environment and the replacement content (FIGS. 7B and 9B, ¶ [0041] “Initially, at step 305, a three dimensional (3D) model 405 of the face of the user 105a is obtained. Generally, the model 405 may be any software model, graphical model and/or mathematical/virtual representation of any part of the user 105a (e.g., the face, head, eyes, eyebrows, any part of the body, etc.) A simplified example is illustrated in FIG. 4. In this example, the 3D model indicates, shows and/or represents the head, face and various facial features of the user 105a (e.g., surface and shape of the head and face, eyes, nose, mouth, skin texture, color, light level, shading, etc.”); ¶ [0042] “…The 3D model 405 may simulate the entire face, head or body, or any portion of the head or body of the user 105a.”; ¶ [0061] “…In this particular example, there is a difference between the two sets of feature points, since the head depicted in the 3D model 405, unlike the head in the image 410, is oriented more to one side, rather than looking straight ahead [the head is replaced].”; ¶ [0066] “FIG. 9B represents an image of the corresponding rendered model 905, which due to the real time adjustments made in steps 325 and 340, closely resembles the actual face of the user 105a in the image 410 in terms of pose, orientation and light levels. In contrast to the actual face of the user 105a as seen by the camera device 115a in image 410 or 505, the face of the rendered model 905 is not covered with an HMD device 110a. Additionally, due in part to adjustments made to the model in step 325, the facial features (e.g., eyes, eyebrows, eyebrow position, eyelids, gaze, eye rotation, etc.) of the user 105a which are hidden in image 410 (FIG. 9A) by the HMD device 110a are simulated in the rendered model 905 of FIG. 9B.”; ¶ [0069] “One example approach for generating a patch image is illustrated in FIG. 10. FIG. 10 illustrates the rendered 3D model 905 of the head of the user [replaced head]. The model 905 has been adjusted based on tracking/lighting data obtained by the camera device 115a (e.g., as discussed in steps 315-450 of FIG. 3A).”; ¶ [0104] “The techniques described herein can be used to merge a patch image (e.g., a rendered model of a user's eyes or eye region) with the facial/background image (e.g., a rendered model of at least other portions of the user's face or head.)”);
including replacing an entire face of the user (¶ [0042] “…The 3D model 405 may simulate the entire face, head or body, or any portion of the head or body of the user 105a.”);
and wherein the electronic device is erased in the second view by presenting the first replacement content corresponding to the user appearance and the second replacement content corresponding to the environment appearance (FIGS. 3A and 3B, steps 310, 320, 335, 350, 370, 375, and 385, and FIG 17; ¶ [0074] “Alternatively, a portion of the facial/background image 1205 containing the HMD device 110a is removed and the patch image 1105 is inserted, blended and/or merged into the facial/background image 1205 into the same position that the HMD device 110a previously occupied. An example of this merging process is illustrated in FIG. 13, in which the patch image 1105 has taken the place of the HMD device 110a illustrated in FIG. 12.”; ¶ [0076] “…at step 370, a background patch image is obtained. To do this, the camera device 115a analyzes the background image 510 obtained in step 310. This background image 510, which is illustrated FIG. 5, is an image of the background without the presence of the user 105a. Generally, the background image 510 covers at least some of the same parts of the background that were shown in the facial/background image 1205, as well as parts of the background that are hidden or covered in image 1205 by the user 105a and/or the HMD device 110a. Thus, the background image 510 contains the information that is needed to fill in the non-facial regions 1310 i.e., the color or texture of the background that would lie behind the non-facial regions which were covered by the HMD device 110a in the facial/background image 1205.”; ¶ [0078] “At step 375, the background patch image(s) and the composite image 1305 are combined or merged. An example of this is illustrated in FIG. 15. The non-facial regions have now been filled in with background patch image(s) 1415 [includes first (facial features) and second replacement (background) contents]” Also see ¶ [0082]
PNG
media_image2.png
350
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferens to incorporate the teachings of Gibbs by including: the body facing sensor of the electronic device; and wherein the electronic device is erased in the second view by presenting the first replacement content corresponding to the user appearance and the second replacement content corresponding to the environment appearance in order to t to see the entire face of the other conference participant, as represented by the face illustrated in FIG. 2B of Gibbs. That is, it is generally preferred that the HMD device be removed and that the eyes and facial expressions of the user be visible to see the entire face of the other conference participant, as represented by the face illustrated in FIG. 2B for better immersed experience.
Ferens in view of the Gibbs does not expressly teach: replacing an entire face of the user with a representation depicting the entire face of the user that is generated based on images of the face of the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Burgos teaches: reconstruct the face of a user occulted at least in part by a head-mounted display. Specifically, a method of reconstructing a face of a user wearing a head mounted display in at least a first image comprising the face of the user acquired with a camera in ¶ [0008].
Burgos further teaches: replacing an entire face of the user with a representation depicting the entire face of the user that is generated based on images of the face of the user (¶¶ [0050], [0060], [0093] – [0095] disclose replacing the whole face of the user is with texture information of the face, and ¶¶ [0040] – [0041], ¶ [0044], and [0095] disclose that the replacement information is based on images of the face of the user. Also see FIGS. 1A-1B, 2, and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferens in view of Gibbs to incorporate the teachings of Burgos by including: replacing an entire face of the user with a representation depicting the entire face of the user that is generated based on images of the face of the user in order to improve realism, preserve the user’s facial appearance, and allow the reflected CGR view to present the user without the occluding HMD.
Regarding claim 2:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Ferens further teaches: wherein the view comprises pass-through video of a physical environment (FIG. 1A shows a view comprises pass-through video of a physical environment. See element 28a. ¶ [0009] “The user 12 wears eyeglasses 26 that include a transparent display screen 28 (28a-28b) through which images of objects pass to eyes of the user 12 during natural visual perception of the objects by the user 12. The transparent display screen 28 may include, for example, a transparent organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display screen having a relatively low reflectance.”).
Regarding claim 3:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Ferens further teaches: wherein the electronic device is a head-mounted device (HMD) (FIG. 1, ¶ [0009] “The user 12 wears eyeglasses 26 that include a transparent display screen 28 (28a-28b) through which images of objects pass to eyes of the user 12 during natural visual perception of the objects by the user 12… The eyeglasses 26 further include an image capture device 32”).
Regarding claim 4-7:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Ferens further teaches: wherein the electronic device is a head-mounted device (HMD) and identifying the replacement content includes identifying virtual representations of the user's cheek (claim 4), identifying virtual representations of the user's ears (claim 5), identifying virtual representations of the user's hair (claim6), and identifying virtual representations of the user's eyes and eyebrows (claim 7) (¶ [0023] “In the illustrated example, the object identifier 58 includes a device identifier 60 to identify a device on a user. For example, the device identifier 60 may identify a device (e.g., a smart watch, etc.) that the user is wearing. The object identifier 58 further includes a skeletal identifier 62 to identify a body position of a user. For example, the skeletal identifier 62 may identify a position of joints of the user's body (e.g., “tracked” position, etc.). Moreover, the object identifier 58 includes a facial identifier 64 to identify a face of a user. For example, the facial identifier 64 may identify a nose of the user, a lip of the user, hair of the user, and so on. The object identifier 58 further includes a gesture identifier 66 to identify a gesture by a user. For example, the gesture identifier 66 may identify a facial gesture movement by the user (e.g., a smile, etc.), a hand or finger gesture movement by the user (e.g., a thumbs-up, etc.), an arm gesture movement by the user (e.g., waive, etc.), and so on.” ¶ [0024] “The controller 46 further includes a reality augmenter 68 to generate an AR object based on, for example, an identification of an object in a field of view. The reality augmenter 68 may, for example, generate an augmented facial appearance (e.g., facial hair deletion, eye color change, etc.) for a reflection based on an identification of a face of a user from the reflection. The reality augmenter 68 may further, for example, generate an augmented clothing appearance (e.g., different pants, etc.) for a reflection based on an identification of a garment of a user from the reflection. The reality augmenter 68 may further, for example, generate an augmented wall appearance (e.g., a GUI, data from a wearable device, data for the environment, etc.) for an image of a wall based on an identification of the wall from the image of the wall”).
Although Ferens in view of Gibbs does not specifically teach: all of replacement content includes identifying virtual representations of the user's cheek, the user's ears , the user's hair, and the user's eyes and eyebrows, these limitations are merely a matter of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Ferens’ teachings. Ferens teaches that the system is capable of replacing contents such as an electronic device, facial features including nose and hair, clothing, and background as shown above, which renders replacing other facial features by another to be an obvious option among many a designer may choose from.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferens by including: identifying the replacement content includes identifying virtual representations of the user's cheek, the user's ears , the user's hair, and the user's eyes in order to show an augmented person that looks more cartoonish and like an avatar for example.
Regarding claim 8:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Ferens further teaches: wherein the replacement content replaces the electronic device in the modified view (¶ [0023] “In the illustrated example, the object identifier 58 includes a device identifier 60 to identify a device on a user. For example, the device identifier 60 may identify a device (e.g., a smart watch, etc.) that the user is wearing” ¶ [0024] “The controller 46 further includes a reality augmenter 68 to generate an AR object based on, for example, an identification of an object in a field of view…”).
Regarding claim 11:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Ferens further teaches: estimating a background of the user, wherein the replacement content includes the estimated background. (¶ [0024] “…The reality augmenter 68 may further, for example, generate an augmented wall appearance (e.g., a GUI, data from a wearable device, data for the environment, etc.) for an image of a wall based on an identification of the wall from the image of the wall.”).
Regarding claim 12:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: a system comprising: a processor and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that upon execution by the processor cause the system to perform operations (¶ [0036] “FIG. 4 also illustrates a memory 270 coupled to the processor core 200. The memory 270 may be any of a wide variety of memories (including various layers of memory hierarchy) as are known or otherwise available to those of skill in the art. The memory 270 may include one or more code 213 instruction(s) to be executed by the processor core 200, wherein the code 213 may implement the approach 10 (FIG. 1)”);
The operation limitations are similar to those of claim 1; therefore rejected in the same manner as applied above.
Regarding claim 13:
The claim limitations are similar to those of claim 2; therefore rejected in the same manner as applied above.
Regarding claim 14:
The claim limitations are similar to those of claim 3; therefore rejected in the same manner as applied above.
Regarding claim 15-18:
The claim limitations are similar to those of claim 4-7; therefore rejected in the same manner as applied above.
Regarding claim 19:
The claim limitations are similar to those of claim 8; therefore rejected in the same manner as applied above.
Regarding claim 20:
Ferens teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that are executable to perform operations (¶ [0051] “Example 12 may include the at least one computer readable storage medium of Example 11, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to capture the reflection of the user);
the operation limitations are similar to those of claim 1; therefore rejected in the same manner as applied above.
Regarding claim 21:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: the method of claim 1 as applied above.
PNG
media_image2.png
350
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gibbs further teachers: the replacement content depicts a portion of the user that becomes visible based on the erasing of the electronic device (FIG. 15
).
Regarding claim 22:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Burgos further teaches: wherein the representation depicting the entire face of the user depicts an appearance of the face of the user (¶¶ [0040]. [0041] , [0044] , [0049], [0050], [0060], [0042, and [0047] disclose that the representation used for the face replacement depicts the appearance of the face of the user, because the replacement content is derived from images of that user’s own face and/or a 3D model built from images of that same user’s face).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferens (PG-Pub. US 20170285345) in view of Gibbs (US 20160341959), Burgos (WO 2015185537) and further in view of Jeong et al. (PG-Pub. US 20170316617).
Regarding claim 9:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Ferens further teaches in ¶ [0024] “…The reality augmenter 68 may, for example, generate an augmented facial appearance (e.g., facial hair deletion, eye color change, etc.) for a reflection based on an identification of a face of a user from the reflection. The reality augmenter 68 may further, for example, generate an augmented clothing appearance (e.g., different pants, etc.) for a reflection based on an identification of a garment of a user from the reflection” It is implied that in order to generate augmented facial and clothing appearance, the size and shape would match the real object in the avatar.
Nonetheless, in a related field, Jeong teaches: identifying an avatar, wherein identifying the replacement content includes matching a size or shape of the avatar with the user (¶ [0005] “…The VR method includes acquiring a video including a body shape and a movement of a user from a camera, generating an avatar with the same body shape as the user, clothing the avatar in virtual clothes and displaying the clothed avatar.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferens with Jeong by including: identifying an avatar, wherein identifying the replacement content includes matching a size or shape of the avatar with the user in order to visualize clothes that the user wishes by trying it on the avatar as disclosed by Jeong in ¶ [0112].
Regarding claim 10:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos and Jeong teaches: the method of claim 9 as applied above;
Ferens further teaches: wherein identifying the avatar is based on stored data or an image collected by one or more cameras facing the user (¶ [0010] In the illustrated example, the mirror 16 also includes an image capture device 34 that faces the user 12 to generate image data and/or depth data for objects in a field of view of the image capture device 34.” And in ¶ [0013] “In the illustrated example, objects in a field of view of the user 12 may be augmented with augmented reality (AR) objects 36, 38. In one example, the reflection 30 may be augmented with the AR object 36 (e.g., printed pattern, color change, etc.) based on an identification of the garment 20 as a sweater from the reflection 30. For example, the garment 20 in the reflection 30 may be augmented with the AR object 36 so that the user 12 observes an augmented sweater (e.g., a sweater with a printed pattern, etc.) when the eyeglasses 26 are worn by the user 12. Moreover, an identification of the arm 18 and/or the body position of the user 12 may allow the AR object 36 to be properly positioned when the user 12 moves. In this regard, synchronization among the image capture devices 32, 34 may facilitate object recognition, AR object positioning, etc.”).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferens (PG-Pub. US 20170285345) in view of Gibbs (US 20160341959), Burgos (WO 2015185537) and further in view of Yu et al. (PG-Pub. US 20170091535).
Regarding claim 23:
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos teaches: the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos does not explicitly teach: wherein the representation is a user depiction generated based on concurrently-captured images from inward-facing and downward-facing sensors of a head-mounted device.
Nonetheless, in a related field, Yu teaches: wherein the representation is a user depiction generated based on concurrently-captured images from inward-facing and downward-facing sensors of a head-mounted device (¶¶ [0007], [0010], [0014] , [0015] , [0044], [0048], [0051], [0052], [0060], [0047], and [0091] – [0092] disclose a user depiction (digital/graphical representation of the user) based on images captured from an inward and downward sensors (The first capturing device captures an upper portion of a user's face including an eye region. The second capturing device is at a location below the first capturing device and captures a lower portion of the user's face, the first images and the second images to extract facial expression parameters representing a facial expression of the use, and the extracted facial expression parameters are applied to a digital representation of the user to generate a graphical representation of the user). Also see FIG. 2A and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferens in view of Gibbs and Burgos with the teachings of Yu by including: wherein the representation is a user depiction generated based on concurrently-captured images from inward-facing and downward-facing sensors of a head-mounted device in order to generate a digital/graphical representation of the uwer with richer and more accurate facial information, especially for social VR/AR interaction. See Yu ¶¶ [0005] – [0007], [0044], and [0092].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11462000; and/or over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11462000 in view of the cited prior art including
Ferens (PG-Pub. US 20170285345);
Gibbs (US 20160341959);
Burgos (WO 2015185537) and
Jeong et al. (PG-Pub. US 20170316617);
Motivation to combine these references with reference patent is similar to those found throughout the office action above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are broader in scope and are encompassed in the claims of the reference patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 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 WASSIM MAHROUKA whose telephone number is (571)272-2945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached on (408) 918-7630. 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.
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights