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
Examiner acknowledges response to election/restriction filed 6/8/26. The arguments set for are addressed herein below. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-11) and withdrawal of Groups 2-3 (claims 12-21) in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are pending and Claims 12-21 are withdrawn.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,656,155. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matters as it relates to the method and system of claims 1-11 of the instant application No. 17/959594 are encompassed within the subject matters as it relates to the method and system of claims of 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,656,155.
The following is an example of claim correspondence to illustrate the similarities and/or overlapping subject matter (noting that ranking is based on numeric value or face value of a card).
Application 18/443,731
U.S. Patent No. 9,656,155
Claim 1: A method of delivering cards from a card shooter during a card game, the method comprising:
automatically reading, using one or more processors, numbers of the cards as the cards are sequentially taken out from the card shooter to a game table and storing results of the reading;
determining, using the one or more processors, whether or not the card game is ended and results of the card game based on the reading of the numbers of the cards;
automatically detecting, using the one or more processors and based on optically sensing a card, movement of the card manually drawn along a dealing direction after a determination that the card game has ended; and
generating a signal, using the one or more processors, based on the automatic detection.
Claim 1: A method of delivering cards from a card shooter during a card game, comprising:
automatically reading, using one or more processors of the card shooter, a rank of the cards as the cards are sequentially taken out from a card guide unit in the card shooter along a dealing direction to a game table and storing results of the reading;
determining, using one or more processors of the card shooter, whether or not the card game is ended and results of the card game based on the reading of the rank of the cards;
automatically detecting, using an object detecting sensor of the card shooter disposed at the card guide unit, movement of a card manually drawn along the dealing direction and movement of a card in an opposite direction, by optically sensing the card; and
generating a signal, using one or more processors of the card shooter, based on the automatic detection of card movement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) with respect to at least:
Independent Claim 1:
A method of delivering cards from a card shooter during a card game, the method comprising: automatically reading, using one or more processors, numbers of the cards as the cards are sequentially taken out from the card shooter to a game table and storing results of the reading; determining, using the one or more processors, whether or not the card game is ended and results of the card game based on the reading of the numbers of the cards; automatically detecting, using the one or more processors and based on optically sensing a card, movement of the card manually drawn along a dealing direction after a determination that the card game has ended; and generating a signal, using the one or more processors, based on the automatic detection.
In summary, in regards to claims 1-4, with emphasis on at least Independent Claim 1, the claimed invention focuses on a method of delivering cards from a card shooter during a card game, the method comprising: automatically reading, using one or more processors, numbers of the cards as the cards are sequentially taken out from the card shooter to a game table and storing results of the reading; determining, using the one or more processors, whether or not the card game is ended and results of the card game based on the reading of the numbers of the cards; automatically detecting, using the one or more processors and based on optically sensing a card, movement of the card manually drawn along a dealing direction after a determination that the card game has ended; and generating a signal, using the one or more processors, based on the automatic detection. Such claimed features, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be non-statutory because they are considered to be drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The claimed limitations of at least “automatically reading…. numbers of the cards as the cards are sequentially taken out from the card shooter to a game table and storing results of the reading; determining…. whether or not the card game is ended and results of the card game based on the reading of the numbers of the cards; automatically detecting, using the one or more processors and based on optically sensing a card, movement of the card manually drawn along a dealing direction after a determination that the card game has ended; and generating a signal, using the one or more processors, based on the automatic detection.” relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing/conducting the bets) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The interactions encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping. For example, a person can read the cards as they are taken out of a card shoe and memorize the results of the reading, determine whether the card game has ended and the results of the card game based on the card readings, detect that a card was dealt in error after the card game ended and indicate such an error.
Similarly, the limitations pertaining to dependent claims 2-4 merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing bets) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer and/or conventional components (one or more processors or optical components) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “one or more processors” or “optically” used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method and/or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the functions of the method. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
In addition to the above, Robinson (US 6,637,622)(Col. 2:17-45, Col. 4:67-40) and Fleckenstein (US 2007/0138743)(¶ 5-6, 8-9) teach that card shoes are well-known or conventional in the art. Kuhn (US 2009/0017888) teaches that conventional card shoes includes a cpu, memory, and card readers including optical card readers (¶ 6).
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 2002/0068635) in view of Downs (US 2007/0018389).
Claim 1: Hill teaches a method of delivering cards from a card shooter during a card game comprising automatically reading, using one or more processors, numbers of the cards as the cards are sequentially taken out from the card shooter to a game table and storing results of the readings; determining, using one or more processors, whether or not the card game is ended and results of the card game based on the readings of the numbers of the cards (¶ 60, 65, 67, 74, 75, 77, 88, 97-99).
Hill teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting automatically detecting, using one or more processors, movement of a card manually drawn along a dealing direction, after a determination that the card game has ended, by optically sensing the card; and generating a signal, using one or more processors, based on the automatic detection. Hill at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 169) and a need to prevent dealer or bankers errors, cheating, and improving security (¶ 13-15, 21, 24). Furthermore, an analogous art of Down teaches a card shooter, wherein the card shooter includes an object detecting sensor to automatically detect movement of a card of the playing cards manually drawn from the card shooter along a dealing direction, after a determination that the card game has ended, based on detection of the card by the optical card sensor; and generating a signal based on the automatic detection (¶ 235-247, “End of Round Missing" ¶ 248). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card shooter of Hill with automated detecting means and signal generating means of Down to provide a more fault tolerant system. Such a modification makes it easier for the dealer to conduct the game and prevents mistakes while allowing an automated run of the game. Furthermore, such a modification lowers the possibility of tampering by providing a more all-in-one card system e.g. makes the system more secure.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 2002/0068635) in view of Downs (US 2007/0018389), and in further view of Grauzer (US 2005/0062227).
Claim 2: Hill in view of Downs teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting delaying, using the one or more processors, display of the results of the card game on a monitor until operation of a changeover switch. At least Hill teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 169) and a need to prevent dealer or bankers errors, cheating, and improving security (¶ 13-15, 21, 24). Furthermore, an analogous art of Grauzer teaches it is well known in the art to provide card shooters, wherein the shooter includes a display and is programmed to delay display of the results of the card game on a the display until operation of a changeover switch (¶ 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card shooter of Hill in view of Downs with the display and delay means of Grauzer to improve the overall enjoyment of the game system. Such a modification would maintain the mysterious atmosphere of the game e.g. increase anticipation of the player.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 2002/0068635) in view of Downs (US 2007/0018389), and in further view of Hill (US 2003/0195025).
Claim 3: Hill ‘635 in view of Downs teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting in response to the generated signal during movement of the detected card, activating, using the one or more processors, a card lock member to restrict movement of the detected card. At least Hill teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 169) and a need to prevent dealer or bankers errors, cheating, and improving security (¶ 13-15, 21, 24). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hill ‘025 teaches it is well known in the art to provide a card lock member disposed at the card guide unit configured to restrict movement of the detected card in response to a detected error occurring such as a misdeal (¶ 154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card shooter of Hill ‘635 in view of Downs with the barrier means activated upon an error of Hill ‘025, wherein the error relates to dealing an extra card at the end of a game round to improve the security of the game system. Such a modification makes it easier for the dealer to conduct the game and prevents mistakes while allowing an automated run of the game. Furthermore, such a modification lowers the possibility of tampering by providing a more all-in-one card system e.g. makes the system more secure.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 2002/0068635) in view of Downs (US 2007/0018389) in view of Hill (US 2003/0195025), and in further view of Krishnamurty (US 2012/0306152).
Claim 4: Hill '635 in view of Downs in view of Hill '025 teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the activating of the card lock member preventing the automatic reading of the detected card. At least Hill teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 169) and a need to prevent dealer or bankers errors, cheating, and improving security (¶ 13-15, 21, 24). Furthermore, an analogous art of Krishnamurty teaches it is well known in the art to provide a card shooter having a structure such that when the card lock member is activated automatic reading of the detected card is prevented (Figs. 6-7, ¶ 70-77, 82-86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card shooter of Hill ‘635 in view of Downs in view of Hill ‘025 with the card structure and card lock member, as taught by Krishnamurty, such that when the card lock member is activated automatic reading of the cards is prevented. Such a modification prevents erroneous errors while allowing an automated run of the game. Furthermore, such a modification lowers the possibility of tampering by providing a more all-in-one card system e.g. makes the system more secure.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 2002/0068635) in view of McCrea (US 5,707,287), and in further view of Downs (US 2007/0018389).
Claim 5: Hill discloses a method and system comprising a table game system comprising: a plurality of playing cards; a card shooter (10) comprising: a card housing for containing the playing cards; a card guide unit that guides the playing cards one by one from the card housing unit; an object detecting sensor (65 and/or 40) configured to detect movement of the playing cards from the card housing unit; one or more readers (41) that read/identify each card of the playing cards guided by the card guide unit (¶ 59-61, 64, 67). Hill teaches a card shooter that one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions that are read by the one or more processors to perform the steps of configuring the one or more readers to automatically read numbers of the playing cards as the playing cards are sequentially taken out from the card shooter to a game table and storing results of the reading; determining whether or not the card game is ended and results of the card game based on the reading of the numbers of the playing cards (¶ 60, 65, 67, 74, 75, 77, 88, 97-99).
Hill teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting each of the playing cards including an invisible code representing at least a number of the playing card and the one or more readers configured to read the invisible code from each card. Hill at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 169) and determining/identifying the number/value and suit of each card as it is dealt (¶ 59-60). Furthermore, an analogous art of McCrea teaches a similarly structured table game system, wherein each of the plurality of playing cards of the table game system includes an invisible code representing at least a number of the playing card and one or more readers of the table game system are configured to read the invisible code from each card (Fig. 16, Col. 7:5-65, Col. 18:56-65, Col. 20:39-63, Col. 21:40-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the playing cards and/or one or more readers of Hill with invisible code means of McCrea because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means if identifying at least a number/value of each of the playing cards as they are dealt from the card shooter. Such a modification prevents unauthorized interchanging of playing cards e.g. prevents cheating (McCrea – Col. 7:5-65).
Hill in view of McCrea teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting configuring the object detecting sensor to automatically detect movement of a card of the playing cards manually drawn from the card shooter along a dealing direction, after a determination that the card game has ended, based on detection of the card by the optical card sensor; and generating a signal based on the automatic detection. At least Hill teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 169) and a need to prevent dealer or bankers errors, cheating, and improving security (¶ 13-15, 21, 24). Furthermore, an analogous art of Down teaches a card shooter, wherein the card shooter includes an object detecting sensor to automatically detect movement of a card of the playing cards manually drawn from the card shooter along a dealing direction, after a determination that the card game has ended, based on detection of the card by the optical card sensor; and generating a signal based on the automatic detection (¶ 235-247, “End of Round Missing" ¶ 248). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card shooter of Hill in view of McCrea automated detecting means and signal generating means of Down to provide a more fault tolerant system. Such a modification makes it easier for the dealer to conduct the game and prevents mistakes while allowing an automated run of the game. Furthermore, such a modification lowers the possibility of tampering by providing a more all-in-one card system e.g. makes the system more secure.
Claim 7: Hill teaches the use of a reset switch that is activated to reset the table game system (¶ 99).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 2002/0068635) in view of McCrea (US 5,707,287) in view of Downs (US 2007/0018389) and in further view of Grauzer (US 2005/0062227).
Claim 6: Hill in view of McCrea in view of Downs teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to delay display of the results of the card game on a monitor until operation of a changeover switch. At least Hill teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 169) and a need to prevent dealer or bankers errors, cheating, and improving security (¶ 13-15, 21, 24). Furthermore, an analogous art of Grauzer teaches it is well known in the art to provide card shooters, wherein the shooter includes a display and is programmed to delay display of the results of the card game on a the display until operation of a changeover switch (¶ 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card shooter of Hill in view of McCrea in view of Downs with the display and delay means of Grauzer to improve the overall enjoyment of the game system. Such a modification would maintain the mysterious atmosphere of the game e.g. increase anticipation of the player.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 2002/0068635) in view of McCrea (US 5,707,287) in view of Downs (US 2007/0018389) and in further view of Hill (US 2003/0195025).
Claim 8: Hill ‘635 in view of McCrea in view of Downs teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting a card lock member disposed at the card guide unit and configured to restrict movement of the detected card in response to the generated signal. At least Hill teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 169) and a need to prevent dealer or bankers errors, cheating, and improving security (¶ 13-15, 21, 24). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hill ‘025 teaches it is well known in the art to provide a card lock member disposed at the card guide unit configured to restrict movement of the detected card in response to a detected error occurring such as a misdeal (¶ 154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card shooter of Hill ‘635 in view of McCrea in view of Downs with the barrier means activated upon an error of Hill ‘025, wherein the error relates to dealing an extra card at the end of a game round to improve the security of the game system. Such a modification makes it easier for the dealer to conduct the game and prevents mistakes while allowing an automated run of the game. Furthermore, such a modification lowers the possibility of tampering by providing a more all-in-one card system e.g. makes the system more secure.
Claim 9: Hill ‘025 teaches that the card lock member is activated so as to prevent the card from passing through the one or more readers (Fig. 22, ¶ 178, if the barriers 116 and 119 are in the locked position the card never actually passes completely through the card reader (41)).
Claim 11: Hill ‘635 in view of McCrea in view of Downs in view of Hill ‘025 teaches the card lock member is arranged at the card guide unit further along a drawing direction of the playing cards as compared to a position of the object detecting sensor (Hill ‘025 - ¶ 116-119, 178, Fig. 22, illustrates the card lock member arranged at the end of the opening/slot of the card shooter or at the end of the card guide unit, Hill ‘635 – Fig. 4, ¶ 61, illustrates the object detecting ((65) and/or (40) located near the end of the card slot or card guide unit)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 2002/0068635) in view of McCrea (US 5,707,287) in view of Downs (US 2007/0018389) in view of Hill (US 2003/0195025) and in further view of Krishnamurty (US 2012/0306152).
Claim 10: Hill ‘635 in view of McCrea in view of Downs in view of Hill '025 teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to activate the card lock member to prevent the automatic reading of the detected card. At least Hill teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 169) and a need to prevent dealer or bankers errors, cheating, and improving security (¶ 13-15, 21, 24). Furthermore, an analogous art of Krishnamurty teaches it is well known in the art to provide a card shooter having a structure such that when the card lock member is activated automatic reading of the detected card is prevented (Figs. 6-7, ¶ 70-77, 82-86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card shooter of Hill ‘635 in view of McCrea in view of Downs in view of Hill ‘025 with the card structure and card lock member, as taught by Krishnamurty, such that when the card lock member is activated automatic reading of the cards is prevented. Such a modification prevents erroneous errors while allowing an automated run of the game. Furthermore, such a modification lowers the possibility of tampering by providing a more all-in-one card system e.g. makes the system more secure.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges response to election/restriction filed 6/08/26. The arguments set for are addressed herein below. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-11) and withdrawal of Groups 2-3 (claims 12-21) in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are pending and Claims 12-21 are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/959594. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights