DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following has been determined to be new matter, appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 11 and 19 recite : “… a specified threshold ratio is between 0.80 and 0.95.”
However, the specification does not disclose “a specified threshold ratio is between 0.80 and 0.95”. The limitations describes the threshold as a range in between however the closest disclosure the Examiner can find is in paragraphs [0079], disclosing “The method 700 can further include removing any of the offsets corresponding to a peak ratio less than a specified threshold ratio.” [0090] “In Example 3, Example 2 further includes removing any of the offsets corresponding to a peak ratio less than a specified threshold ratio.” However it does not disclose the ratio is between 0.80 and 0.95 . [0034] – “…A desired percentage set to a first threshold ( e.g., 9%, 10%, 11 %, 12%, 15%, a larger or smaller percentage, or some other percentage therebetween) for template sizes less than a specified size (e.g., 16,384 pixels (e.g., 128Xl28 pixels, or other number of pixels) and smaller) and a second, smaller threshold for larger templates sizes (e.g., 4%, 5%, 6%, a larger or smaller percentage, or some other percentage therebetween)….” The related language is not on the specification that describes the language .
Dependent claims not mentioned specifically above inherit the deficiencies from the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely (Publication: US 2020/0020115 A1) in view of Sivaramakrishna et al. (Publication: US 2004/0101184 A1).
Regarding claim 1, see rejection on claim 17.
Regarding claim 2, see rejection on claim 18.
Regarding claim 3, see rejection on claim 19.
Regarding claim 4, see rejection on claim 20.
Regarding claim 5, Ely in view of Sivaramakrishna disclose all the limitation of claim 1.
Ely discloses wherein determining the quality score for each candidate offsets includes determining a combined score including a combination of two or more score parameters([0039] - The score at each offset can be the sum over all the pixels of the template at that offset of the gradient magnitude times the phase match. The offset with the highest score can be taken to be the correct registration offset.
[0047] An adjudication to determine the correct offset, at operation 240 can include determining a median TP offset, an affine transformation computed based on the trusted TPs, and an offset associated with a top peak from a combined score surface of all TPs. To determine the trustworthiness of the offset, the maximum offset from the peak whose score is at least a specified percentage (e.g., 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, a greater or lesser percentage, or some percentage therebetween) of a maximum correlation score may be computed. If the maximum offset is more than a specified threshold of a search radius (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or a greater or lesser percentage), then the maximum combined score offset can be considered untrustworthy and discarded. If the distance is less than, or equal to, the specified threshold, the offset can be considered to pass the test and be used to determine a final offset value.).
Regarding claim 6, Ely in view of Sivaramakrishna disclose all the limitation of claim 5 including the candidate offset.
Ely discloses wherein the combined score includes a combination of score parameters includes two or more of a ratio of a highest value of highest values of the combined correlation scores to a peak value of the combined correlation scores, a number of tie points between the 2D image and the synthetic image at the offset, an average peak ratio over all tie points where the peak ratio is the combined correlation score at the tie point to the peak value, an average phase match over tie points between the synthetic image at the offset and the 2D image, or an average affine fit residual over the tie points at the offset ([0039] - The score at each offset can be the sum over all the pixels of the template at that offset of the gradient magnitude times the phase match. The offset with the highest score can be taken to be the correct registration offset.
[0040] - A blunder metric (whose thresholds can be sensor dependent) can include a) a registration score, b) peak sharpness as the ratio of the score at the second highest peak to the highest score, c) an average gradient magnitude over all the edge pixels at the registered location, d) an average gradient phase match over all the template edge pixels at the registered location, e) a difference between a tile's registration offset and a median offset computed based on all TPS 114, or f) an average (e.g., a weighted average) gradient phase match. The weighted average, gradient magnitudes can be used as the weights. Another metric that may be used is the difference between a registration offset of the image tile 222 and a median offset computed from all TPS 114.).
Regarding claim 7, Ely in view of Sivaramakrishna disclose all the limitation of claim 1.
Ely discloses wherein the weight used in determining the weighted combination is based on a ratio of a peak correlation value in a correlation score array of the correlation score arrays to a second highest correlation value in the correlation score array of the correlation score arrays ([0040] A blunder metric (whose thresholds can be sensor dependent) can include peak sharpness as the ratio of the score at the second highest peak to the highest score. The weighted average, gradient magnitudes can be used as the weights. Another metric that may be used is the difference between a registration offset of the image tile 222 and a median offset computed from all TPS 114.
[0004] FIG. 1 illustrates, by way of example, a flow diagram of an embodiment of a method for 2D image registration to a 3D point set.).
Regarding claim 8, Ely in view of Sivaramakrishna disclose all the limitation of claim 7.
Ely discloses wherein the weight is further based on an average phase match over tie points between the synthetic image at the offset corresponding to the peak correlation value and the 2D image ([0040] A blunder metric (whose thresholds can be sensor dependent) can include a) a registration score, b) peak sharpness as the ratio of the score at the second highest peak to the highest score, c) an average gradient magnitude over all the edge pixels at the registered location, d) an average gradient phase match over all the template edge pixels at the registered location, e) a difference between a tile's registration offset and a median offset computed based on all TPS 114, or f) an average (e.g., a weighted average) gradient phase match. The weighted average, gradient magnitudes can be used as the weights. Another metric that may be used is the difference between a registration offset of the image tile 222 and a median offset computed from all TPS 114.
[0004] FIG. 1 illustrates, by way of example, a flow diagram of an embodiment of a method for 2D image registration to a 3D point set.).
Regarding claim 9, see rejection on claim 17.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection on claim 18.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection on claim 19.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection on claim 20.
Regarding claim 13, See rejection on claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, See rejection on claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, See rejection on claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, See rejection on claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, Ely discloses a system comprising ([0066], [0011] - A system comprising: a memory including a three-dimensional (3D) point set of a first geographical region stored thereon; processing circuitry coupled to the memory, the processing circuitry configured to: generate a synthetic image by projecting a three-dimensional (3D) point set of a geographical region to an image space of a two-dimensional (2D) image of the geographical region):
a memory including a three-dimensional (3D) point set of a first geographical region and a two-dimensional (2D) image stored thereon ([0066], [0011] - A system comprising: a memory including a three-dimensional (3D) point set of a first geographical region stored thereon; processing circuitry coupled to the memory, the processing circuitry configured to: generate a synthetic image by projecting a three-dimensional (3D) point set of a geographical region to an image space of a two-dimensional (2D) image of the geographical region);
processing circuitry coupled to the memory, the processing circuitry configured to ([0066], [0011] - A system comprising: a memory including a three-dimensional (3D) point set of a first geographical region stored thereon; processing circuitry coupled to the memory, the processing circuitry configured to: generate a synthetic image by projecting a three-dimensional (3D) point set of a geographical region to an image space of a two-dimensional (2D) image of the geographical region):
generate a synthetic image based on the 3D point set of the same geographical region as the 2D image ([0011] register a two-dimensional (2D) image to a three-dimensional (3D) point set. , can be used in a geometric bundle adjustment to bring the 2D image into alignment with the 3D source.); and
perform a coarse registration to grossly register the synthetic image to the 2D image, the coarse registration including ([0022] - performing a coarse registration to grossly register the synthetic image to the 2D image; and performing a fine registration following the coarse registration to improve the registration between the synthetic image and the 2D image.):
determine, for a plurality of synthetic image tiles that span the synthetic image and at each of a plurality of offsets in a search region, a correlation score resulting in a plurality of correlation score arrays ([0026] One aspect of the method 100 is how the TPS 114 from coarse or fine registration are used to determine an offset for each tile between the synthetic image data 110 and the image 102. A synthetic image edge pixel template can be correlated as a rigid group (without rotation or scaling, only translation) with a gradient magnitude and phase of the image 102. A registration score at each possible translation offset can be a sum over all template pixels of an image gradient times a phase match.
[0043] - the maximum offset from the peak whose score is at least a specified percentage (e.g., 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, a greater or lesser percentage, or some percentage therebetween) of a maximum correlation score may be computed. If the maximum offset is more than a specified threshold of a search radius (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or a greater or lesser percentage), then the maximum combined score offset can be considered untrustworthy and discarded. "search"
[0042] - an estimate of the gross offset may be computed by combining the registration scores of all the trusted tiles at each offset into one unified total score. The offset with the maximum unified score can be another gross offset estimate. “a correlation score resulting in a plurality of correlation score arrays”);
determine a weighted combination of scores in the correlation score arrays resulting in a combined correlation score array ([0039] - The phase match can be used to lower the weight of the contribution (in the sum) of pixels whose edge directions are very different from the template pixels. The score at each offset can be the sum over all the pixels of the template at that offset of the gradient magnitude times the phase match. The offset with the highest score can be taken to be the correct registration offset.
[0042] - The weight for each TP 114 can be a function of one or more blunder metrics above. Finally, a third estimate of the gross offset may be computed by combining the registration scores of all the trusted tiles at each offset into one unified total score. The offset with the maximum unified score can be another gross offset estimate. A determination of which offset is correct can be performed only in coarse registration and not in fine registration. For fine registration, each tile is registered independently and gets its own offset. All tiles that pass the blunder thresholds can be converted to CPS and used in the geometric bundle adjustment.);
identify a plurality of candidate offsets from the combined correlation score array (
[0030] – determine an offset for each tile, plurality of tiles.
[0043] An adjudication to determine the correct offset, at operation 240 can include determining a median TP offset, an affine transformation computed based on the trusted TPs, and an offset associated with a top peak from a combined score surface of all TPs. To determine the trustworthiness of the offset, the maximum offset from the peak whose score is at least a specified percentage (e.g., 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, a greater or lesser percentage, or some percentage therebetween) of a maximum correlation score may be computed.
[0044] – Fig. 2, Several metrics (blunder metrics) may be used to assess the quality of the TPS 114.),
each candidate offset corresponding to a peak value that passes one or more metrics (
[0044] – A blunder metric (whose thresholds can be sensor dependent) can include a) a registration score, b) peak sharpness as the ratio of the score at the second highest peak to the highest score, c) an average gradient magnitude over all the edge pixels at the registered location, d) an average gradient phase match over all the template edge pixels at the registered location, e) a difference between a tile's registration offset and a median offset computed based on all TPS 114, or f) an average (e.g., a weighted average) gradient phase match. The weighted average, gradient magnitudes can be used as the weights. Another metric that may be used is the difference between a registration offset of the image tile 222 and a median offset computed from all TPS 114.
);
for each candidate offset of the plurality of candidate offsets, perform a fine registration
to identify tie points at that candidate offset (
[0024], [0026] - Identify the Tie Points (TPS), tie points can be identified, based on the fine registration. Fine registration can use a smaller image tile size (and image template size) and a smaller search region to identify a set of TPS 114. The term coarse registration offset means a registration offset that grossly aligns the synthetic image data 110 with the image, “identify tie points at that candidate offset”.
[0045] to [0047] , See Fig. 2 - The operation 220 can then be performed to get a next image tile 222 if there are more tiles to process, operation 220 to 238 involves plurality of offsets “for each candidate offset of the plurality of candidate offsets” can be read on.
[0044] – Fig. 2, Several metrics (blunder metrics) may be used to assess the quality of the TPS 114.);
determine, for each candidate offset, a quality score based on the identified tie points at
that candidate offset (
[0047] An adjudication to determine the correct offset, at operation 240 can include determining a median TP offset, an affine transformation computed based on the trusted TPs, and an offset associated with a top peak from a combined score surface of all TPs. To determine the trustworthiness of the offset, the maximum offset from the peak whose score is at least a specified percentage (e.g., 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, a greater or lesser percentage, or some percentage therebetween) of a maximum correlation score may be computed. If the maximum offset is more than a specified threshold of a search radius (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or a greater or lesser percentage), then the maximum combined score offset can be considered untrustworthy and discarded. If the distance is less than, or equal to, the specified threshold, the offset can be considered to pass the test and be used to determine a final offset value. );
select a final offset from the plurality of candidate offsets based on the quality scores
([0047] - If the distance is less than, or equal to, the specified threshold, the offset can be considered to pass the test and be used to determine a final offset value.
[0045] to [0047] , See Fig. 2 - At operation 238, it can be determined if there are more tiles to process. The operation 220 can then be performed to get a next image tile 222 if there are more tiles to process, operation 220 to 238 involves plurality of offsets and its associated scores thus “from the plurality of candidate offsets based on the quality scores” can be read on.) ; and
move the synthetic image relative to the 2D image by the selected final offset (
[0047] - If the distance is less than, or equal to, the specified threshold, the offset can be considered to pass the test and be used to determine a final offset value.
[0043] - the synthetic image data 110 can be moved relative to the image 102 by the offset. [0011] - register a two-dimensional (2D) image to a three-dimensional (3D) point set.).
Ely does not however Sivaramakrishna discloses
two-dimensional (2D) real image([0024] – 2-dimensional images slices ae fed into a programmable computer that are stored in the memory.);
two-dimensional (2D) real image stored in the memory ([0024] – 2-dimensional images slices ae fed into a programmable computer that are stored in the memory.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ely with two-dimensional (2D) real image; two-dimensional (2D) real image stored in the memory as taught by Sivaramakrishna. The motivation for doing is to provide higher accuracy of image.
Regarding claim 18, Ely in view of Sivaramakrishna disclose all the limitation of claim 17.
Ely discloses identifying, in the combined correlation score array, highest values including a peak value ([0047], [0049] - An adjudication to determine the correct offset, at operation 240 can include determining a median TP offset, an affine transformation computed based on the trusted TPs, and an offset associated with a top peak from a combined score surface of all TPs.);
removing from the highest values any values having a peak ratio less than a specified threshold ratio, wherein the peak ratio is a ratio of a respective highest value to the peak value ([0047], [0049] - An adjudication to determine the correct offset, at operation 240 can include determining a median TP offset, an affine transformation computed based on the trusted TPs, and an offset associated with a top peak from a combined score surface of all TPs. To determine the trustworthiness of the offset, the maximum offset from the peak whose score is at least a specified percentage (e.g., 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, a greater or lesser percentage, or some percentage therebetween) of a maximum correlation score may be computed. If the maximum offset is more than a specified threshold of a search radius (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or a greater or lesser percentage), then the maximum combined score offset can be considered untrustworthy and discarded “removing from the highest values any values having a peak ratio less than a specified threshold ratio, in this case 95%, maximum” .);
removing from the highest values any values within a minimum separation distance from a higher value in the combined correlation score array (
[0047], [0049] - An adjudication to determine the correct offset, at operation 240 can include determining a median TP offset, an affine transformation computed based on the trusted TPs, and an offset associated with a top peak from a combined score surface of all TPs. To determine the trustworthiness of the offset, the maximum offset from the peak whose score is at least a specified percentage (e.g., 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, a greater or lesser percentage, or some percentage therebetween) of a maximum correlation score may be computed. If the maximum offset is more than a specified threshold of a search radius (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or a greater or lesser percentage), then the maximum combined score offset can be considered untrustworthy and discarded “removing from the highest values any values having a peak ratio less than a specified threshold ratio, in this case 25%, minimum” .); and
identifying the plurality of candidate offsets based on remaining highest values after the
removing ([0046] - a third estimate of the gross offset may be computed by combining the registration scores of all the trusted tiles at each offset into one unified total score. The offset with the maximum unified score can be another gross offset estimate
[0049] To determine the trustworthiness of the gross offset of the combined registration score surface, the maximum offset distance from the peak whose score is at least 90% of a maximum correlation score may be computed. If the distance is more than a specified threshold of the search radius (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or a greater or lesser percentage), then the maximum combined score offset can be considered untrustworthy. If the distance is less than, or equal to, the specified threshold, the offset can be considered to pass the test. If the distance passes the test, a median TP offset may be used. If this value is at least 95% of the maximum score, then the median offset replaces the combined score offset. The offset computed from an affine transformation at the center of the image can be compared against the chosen offset. If the affine transformation produces a smaller offset, then the affine transformation offset can be selected.).
Regarding claim 19, Ely in view of Sivaramakrishna disclose all the limitation of claim 18.
Ely discloses the specified threshold ratio is between 0.80 and 0.95 ([0043], [0047] - To determine the trustworthiness of the offset, the maximum offset from the peak whose score is at least a specified percentage (e.g., 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%. If the maximum offset is more than a specified threshold of a search radius (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or a greater or lesser percentage), then the maximum combined score offset can be considered untrustworthy and discarded. If the median TP offset value is at least a specified percentage (e.g., 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, a greater or lesser percentage, or some percentage therebetween) of the maximum score, then the median offset can replace the combined score offset.).
Regarding claim 20, Ely in view of Sivaramakrishna disclose all the limitation of claim 18.
Sivaramakrishna discloses the minimum separation distance is between 3 and 10 pixel ([0066] - finding the minimum gradient value within a +/-4-pixel distance.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ely in view Sivaramakrishna with two-dimensional (2D) real image; two-dimensional (2D) real image stored in the memory as taught by Sivaramakrishna. The motivation for doing is to provide higher accuracy of image.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant asserts “Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection to the extent the rejection is applicable to the claims as amended. The cited documents, alone or in combination, have not been show to teach or suggest each and every recitation of the claims as amended. Further, there would be no motivation to combine Mahdizadehaghdam with Ely. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a prima facie case of obviousness requires not only that the prior art teaches all claim limitations, but also that there be "some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the prior art references." KSR Int'/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). The Supreme Court has emphasized that the analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. However, the motivation to combine must be found in the prior art, the nature of the problem, or the knowledge of one skilled in the art-not in the applicant's disclosure. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Importantly, "[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). Ely and Mahdizadehaghdam Address Fundamentally Different Technical Problems .The Examiner Has Not Articulated a Motivation to Combine The Office Action states that the claims are rejected over Ely "in view of'' Mahdizadehaghdam, but provides no explanation of: What gap in Ely does Mahdizadehaghdam fill? What problem would motivate looking to Mahdizadehaghdam? What teaching in either reference suggests combining them? What benefit would result from the combination? Without such articulation, the rejection amounts to an improper use of hindsightcombining the references only because the applicant's disclosure shows they can be combined, not because a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so. A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Not Combine These References Consider the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art of geospatial image registration (the relevant field for this application). The Combination Represents Impermissible Hindsight Reconstruction The Supreme Court has cautioned that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results," but emphasized that the predictability must come from the prior art, not from the applicant's disclosure. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Here, the only reason to combine Ely and Mahdizadehaghdam is hindsight knowledge of Applicant's invention. The references themselves provide no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine them. They address different problems in different fields using different technologies for different purposes. This is precisely the type of improper hindsight reconstruction that the Federal Circuit has repeatedly rejected. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant."); In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("The examiner has the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, and all the claimed limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art.").”
Applicant’s arguments have been rendered moot, as the rejection is now based on newly cited references, Ely in view of Sivaramakrishna, that address the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16, and 18 – 20, the Applicant asserts that they are not obvious over based on their dependency from independent claims 1, 9, and 17 respectively. The examiner cannot concur with the Applicant respectfully from same reason noted in the examiner’s response to argument asserted from claims 1, 9, and 17 respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ming Wu whose telephone number is (571) 270-0724. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on 571-272-7642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ming Wu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights