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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Where applicant argues, “In contrast, the references cited in the Office Action, whether considered separately or in a combination, fail to disclose, teach or suggest at least the aforementioned features as recited in the independent claims of the present application. Specifically, for example, according to claim 1, a marked position of at least one charging station which is detected by the cleaning robot during a cleaning process is acquired, and a finding path is generated based on the aforementioned marked position of the at least one charging station which is detected by the cleaning robot during the cleaning process when the charging station is not identified in a case where the cleaning robot is controlled to travel to a front position of the marked position.”
Applicant is directed to Kwak where in at least Figure 9 element s600 and paragraph 211-212 where they cite, “disclosing storing the initial position of a station prior to driving”, reads upon applicant claim above. Kwak also discloses in at least paragraphs 217-218, where they cite generating a map of robot trajectory, i.e., a finding path via the controller when the first position information, i.e., the position information of the charging station in relation to the robot, is different from the actual position of the robot. Furthermore, it is disclosed by Kwak in at least paragraphs 221-222 and figure 9 element s640 to disclose the moving robot until a position of the docking station is acquired, which is read upon applicants claim above. Where it is disclosed by Kwak in at least paragraphs 230-234, where the robotic device does not have an accurate position of the docking station and thus roams around to find the signal to bring it back home to the initial position which is the start/docking station location. This allows the system to update the actual location of the docking station in the robot, for the robot to be able to carry this out the robot has to move around to reacquire the signal from the docking station. The marked position of the docking station is interpreted to be the start position of the robot as it leaves the docking station.
Where applicant argues, “Kwak is therefore silent about the use of the marked position of the at least one charging station which is detected during the cleaning process, and is silent about generation of the finding path based on the marked position of at least one charging station detected during the cleaning process without identifying the charging station.”
Applicants arguments are not persuasive as the “marked position” under BRI has been read to mean the starting position of the robot when it was at the docking station as this is where the robot would want to return to. Applicant does not have a specific definition as to what this should mean and if they believe they do then it is respectfully requested that applicant point to the specific area in their filed specification to where it is. The robot as indicated below in the rejection is able to find a path back to the robot docking station and thus is read upon by applicants claim to “generation of the finding path”.
Where applicants argue, “More specifically, Kwak fails to disclose, teach or suggest at least "acquire a marked position of at least one charging station which is detected by the cleaning robot during a cleaning process; generate a finding path based on the marked position of the at least one charging station when the charging station is not identified" as recited in independent claim 1, or similar features as recited in independent claims 7 and 13 of the present application.”
This is found not persuasive as it is disclosed by Kwak in at least paragraphs 221-222 and figure 9 element s640 to disclose the moving robot until a position of the docking station is acquired, which is read upon applicants claim above. Where it is disclosed by Kwak in at least paragraphs 230-234, where the robotic device does not have an accurate position of the docking station and thus roams around to find the signal to bring it back home to the initial position which is the start/docking station location. This allows the system to update the actual location of the docking station in the robot, for the robot to be able to carry this out the robot has to move around to reacquire the signal from the docking station. The marked position of the docking station is interpreted to be the start position of the robot as it leaves the docking station.
Applicant did not provide any additional arguments directed to the dependent claims specifically and hence the rejections have been maintained.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being read upon by Kwak et al., US PG Pub 2017/0102709., (hereafter Kwak).
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Kwak to have a robotic cleaning device and the control of said device as shown in at least figures 1, 6 & 9. It is further disclosed by Kwak to have their system include, “A cleaning robot [at least figure 1 element 100 as described in paragraphs 0054-0055], comprising: a controller [at least figure 6, element labeled “CONTROLLER 110” described in paragraph 0060], configured to: acquire a marked position of a charging station in a map [at least Fig. 9, element s600; paragraph 0211, disclosing storing the initial position of a station prior to driving, i.e. a marked position]; control the cleaning robot to travel to a front position of the marked position and to identify the charging station [at least paragraphs 0213-0214, disclosing the robot starts driving in an initial position, i.e. in front of a charging station, and stores first position information of the robot with respect to the docking station, i.e., identifies the charging station]; acquire a marked position of at least one charging station which is detected by the cleaning robot during a cleaning process [at least paragraphs 0008-0010, 0060 & 0089]; generate a finding path based on the marked position of the at least one charging station when the charging station is not identified [at least paragraphs 0217-0218, disclosing generating a map of robot trajectory, i.e. a finding path, via the controller when the first position information, i.e. the position information of the charging station in relation to the robot, is different from the actual position of the robot, i.e. the charging station is not identified]; and control the cleaning robot to travel according to the finding path and to identify the charging station during a traveling process [at least 0221-0222; Fig. 9, element s640, disclosing moving the robot until a position of the docking station is acquired].”
Regarding claim 7 which is the corresponding method limitation for system claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13 where it is further disclosed by Kwak to have, “A cleaning robot [at least figure 1 element 100 as described in paragraphs 0054-0055], comprising: a controller [at least figure 6, element labeled “CONTROLLER 110” described in paragraph 0060]; a sensor carried by the cleaning robot [at least paragraphs 0057 and 0069-0070], configured to detect light patterns of a charging station [at least paragraphs 0069-007 & 0137-0143, where light modulation is considered to be a pattern of light that is emitted from the LED to indicate the position of the docking station to the robot cleaner]; wherein the controller is configured to: acquire a marked position of a charging station in a map [at least paragraphs 0008-0010, 0060 & 0089]; control the cleaning robot to travel to a front position of the marked position and to identify the charging station [at least paragraphs 0213-0214, disclosing the robot starts driving in an initial position, i.e., in front of a charging station, and stores first position information of the robot with respect to the docking station, i.e., identifies the charging station]; acquire a marked position of at least one charging station which is detected by the cleaning robot during a cleaning process [at least paragraphs 0008-0010, 0060 & 0089]; generate a finding path based on the marked position when the charging station is not identified [at least paragraphs 0217-0218, disclosing generating a map of robot trajectory, i.e. a finding path, via the controller when the first position information, i.e. the position information of the charging station in relation to the robot, is different from the actual position of the robot, i.e. the charging station is not identified]; and control the cleaning robot to travel according to the finding path and to identify the charging station during a traveling process [at least 0221-0222; Fig. 9, element s640, disclosing moving the robot until a position of the docking station is acquired]; wherein, the controller is configured to: based on the light received by the sensor, determine whether the charging station is identified [at least paragraphs 0213-0214, disclosing the robot starts driving in an initial position, i.e., in front of a charging station, and stores first position information of the robot with respect to the docking station, i.e., identifies the charging station].”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8, 9 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Lim et al., US PG Pub 2007/0050086 A1., (hereafter Lim).
Regarding claim 2 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Kwak as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by Kwak to have, “the controller is further configured to: control the cleaning robot to travel a first distance along a first direction and to identify the charging station during the traveling process; control the cleaning robot to return to the front position of the marked position when the charging station is not identified; and control the cleaning robot to travel a second distance along a second direction and to identify the charging station during the traveling process.”
Lim is directed to a system and method for returning a robot cleaner to a charging station/docking station. It is disclosed by Lim to have, “the controller is further configured to: control the cleaning robot to travel a first distance along a first direction and to identify the charging station during the traveling process [at least figures 8-12 and paragraphs 43-45, 49 & 53-60]; control the cleaning robot to return to the front position of the marked position when the charging station is not identified [at least paragraphs 53-60 & 38]; and control the cleaning robot to travel a second distance along a second direction and to identify the charging station during the traveling process [at least paragraphs 38 & 53-60].”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was field to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic cleaning systems and the movement of the said robot to the docking station. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim by the use of a well-known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance where Kwak does not have specifics of how their system can find the docking station when it might be obstructed by obstacles so that the robot cannot sense the homing signal from the docking station. Where Lim does allow for the robotic device to move around to detect the docking station hence allowing it to see the docking station even if it is initially obstructed by an obstacle thus allowing the robot to return to the station for charging, see at least paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 5 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Kwak as escribed above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by Kwak to have, “the controller is configured to determine that the charging station is identified when a pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to a pattern of the charging station, wherein a light point with a brightness value higher than a predetermined brightness value is called as a bright point, a light point with a brightness value lower than the predetermined brightness value is called as a dark point.”
Lim is directed to a system and method for returning a robot cleaner to a charging station/docking station. It is disclosed by Lim to have, “the controller is configured to determine that the charging station is identified when a pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to a pattern of the charging station [at least paragraphs 23-29, where they describe IR sensors and also figure 6 shows pattern that is emitted from the docking station], wherein a light point with a brightness value higher than a predetermined brightness value is called as a bright point, a light point with a brightness value lower than the predetermined brightness value is called as a dark point [at least paragraphs 44, 57 & 59, the pattern is the signal modulation that is emitted from the LED].”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was field to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic cleaning systems and the movement of the said robot to the docking station. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim by the use of a well-known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance where Kwak does not have specifics of how their system can find the docking station when it might be obstructed by obstacles so that the robot cannot sense the homing signal from the docking station. Where Lim does allow for the robotic device to move around to detect the docking station hence allowing it to see the docking station even if it is initially obstructed by an obstacle thus allowing the robot to return to the station for charging, see at least paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 8 where all the limitations of claim 7 are disclosed by Kwak as escribed above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by Kwak to have, “the identifying the charging station comprises: determining that the charging station is identified when a pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to a pattern of the charging station, wherein lights emitted by the cleaning robot are reflected by a pattern region of the charging station, and the pattern received by the cleaning robot is determined based on lights reflected off the pattern region of the charging station.”
Lim is directed to a system and method for returning a robot cleaner to a charging station/docking station. It is disclosed by Lim to have, “the identifying the charging station comprises: determining that the charging station is identified when a pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to a pattern of the charging station, wherein lights emitted by the cleaning robot are reflected by a pattern region of the charging station, and the pattern received by the cleaning robot is determined based on lights reflected off the pattern region of the charging station [at least paragraphs 44, 57 & 59, the pattern is the signal modulation that is emitted from the LED].”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was field to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic cleaning systems and the movement of the said robot to the docking station. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim by the use of a well-known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance where Kwak does not have specifics of how their system can find the docking station when it might be obstructed by obstacles so that the robot cannot sense the homing signal from the docking station. Where Lim does allow for the robotic device to move around to detect the docking station hence allowing it to see the docking station even if it is initially obstructed by an obstacle thus allowing the robot to return to the station for charging, see at least paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 9 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Kwak as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by Kwak to have, “the controlling the cleaning robot to travel according to the finding path and identifying the charging station during the traveling process comprises: controlling the cleaning robot to travel a first distance along a first direction and identifying the charging station during the traveling process; controlling the cleaning robot to return to the front position of the marked position when the charging station is not identified; and controlling the cleaning robot to travel a second distance along a second direction and identifying the charging station during the traveling process..”
Lim is directed to a system and method for returning a robot cleaner to a charging station/docking station. It is disclosed by Lim to have, “the controlling the cleaning robot to travel according to the finding path and identifying the charging station during the traveling process comprises: controlling the cleaning robot to travel a first distance along a first direction and identifying the charging station during the traveling process [at least figures 8-12 and paragraphs 43-45, 49 & 53-60]; controlling the cleaning robot to return to the front position of the marked position when the charging station is not identified [at least paragraphs 53-60 & 38]; and controlling the cleaning robot to travel a second distance along a second direction and identifying the charging station during the traveling process [at least paragraphs 38 & 53-6].”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was field to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic cleaning systems and the movement of the said robot to the docking station. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim by the use of a well-known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance where Kwak does not have specifics of how their system can find the docking station when it might be obstructed by obstacles so that the robot cannot sense the homing signal from the docking station. Where Lim does allow for the robotic device to move around to detect the docking station hence allowing it to see the docking station even if it is initially obstructed by an obstacle thus allowing the robot to return to the station for charging, see at least paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 14 where all the limitations of claim 13 are disclosed by Kwak as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by Kwak to have, “the controller is further configured to: control the cleaning robot to travel a first distance along a first direction and to identify the charging station during the traveling process; control the cleaning robot to return to the front position of the marked position when the charging station is not identified; and control the cleaning robot to travel a second distance along a second direction and to identify the charging station during the traveling process.”
Lim is directed to a system and method for returning a robot cleaner to a charging station/docking station. It is disclosed by Lim to have, “the controller is further configured to: control the cleaning robot to travel a first distance along a first direction and to identify the charging station during the traveling process [at least figures 8-12 and paragraphs 43-45, 49 & 53-60]; control the cleaning robot to return to the front position of the marked position when the charging station is not identified [at least paragraphs 53-60 & 38]; and control the cleaning robot to travel a second distance along a second direction and to identify the charging station during the traveling process [at least paragraphs 38 & 53-60].”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was field to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic cleaning systems and the movement of the said robot to the docking station. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Kwak by the teachings of Lim by the use of a well-known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance where Kwak does not have specifics of how their system can find the docking station when it might be obstructed by obstacles so that the robot cannot sense the homing signal from the docking station. Where Lim does allow for the robotic device to move around to detect the docking station hence allowing it to see the docking station even if it is initially obstructed by an obstacle thus allowing the robot to return to the station for charging, see at least paragraph 5.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of DiBernado et al., US PG Pub 2014/0268179 A1., (hereafter DiBernado).
Regarding claim 12 where all the limitations of claim 8 are disclosed by Kwak as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by Kwak to have, “determining that the charging station is identified when a pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to the pattern of the charging station comprises: identifying whether a retroreflective light pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to a retroreflective light pattern of the charging station; and determining that the charging station is identified when the retroreflective light pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to the retroreflective light pattern of the charging station.”
DiBernado is directed to a method and system for position estimation for robotic cleaning devices using reflected light sources as shown in at least figures 1-3. Where it is disclosed by DiBernado in at least paragraphs 10, 34-40, 43, 45 & 77-80 to have their system also have, “determining that the charging station is identified when a pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to the pattern of the charging station comprises: identifying whether a retroreflective light pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to a retroreflective light pattern of the charging station; and determining that the charging station is identified when the retroreflective light pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to the retroreflective light pattern of the charging station.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kwak by the teachings of DiBernado, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling robotic devices. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have wanted to modify Kwak by the teachings of DiBernado by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance where Kwak does not specifically have their system use retroreflective light pattern to determine the docking station to help the robotic device easily return to the docking station. Furthermore, please see paragraph [0028], as follows: “Embodiments advantageously use active optical beacons in position estimation. Advantageously, disclosed techniques minimize or reduce the line-of-sight limitation of conventional active optical beacon-based localization by projecting the light sources onto a surface that is observable from a relatively large portion of the environment. It will be understood that the light sources can include sources of light that are not visible to the naked eye, such as, for example, infrared (IR) sources. For example, in an indoor environment, it can be advantageous to project the emitted light from the beacon onto the ceiling. In many indoor environments, the ceiling of a room is observable from most locations with the room.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6, 10-11 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3 where applicant claims, “wherein intensities of lights reflected off by different parts of a pattern of the charging station are different.” This is deemed to be indefinite as it is unclear what applicant is specifically claiming and what “by different parts of a pattern of the charging station are different” actually means? What are they reflected from? What does applicant mean by claiming, “by different parts of a pattern of the charging station are different.” What is the docking station if it is a pattern of the docking station? The currently presented claim is ambiguous and indefinite, hence the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 4 where applicant claims, “wherein a reflective light pattern is generated by sensing lights reflected off through an image sensor.” This is deemed to be indefinite as it is unclear what applicant is specifically claiming as what is generating the light pattern is unclear. How does the sensor detect a light pattern as what is generating the light has not been claimed? What emits the light to produce the pattern or how is the pattern generated with out some sort of light source that can high light the pattern for the robot? The currently presented claim is ambiguous and indefinite, hence the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 5 where applicant claims, “determine that the charging station is identified when a pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to a pattern of the charging.” This claim limitation is indefinite as it is unclear as to what applicant is claiming when they state, “the charging station is identified when a pattern received by the cleaning robot conforms to a pattern of the charging.” Where is the pattern received from? How does the robot detect the pattern when no specific detector/sensor has been claimed. What is the pattern? How does the robot know the pattern is associated with the docking station? How did the pattern show up around the robot/docking station, is it placed there? The currently presented claim is ambiguous and indefinite, hence the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 6 where applicant claims, “wherein lights reflected off a region of the reflective light pattern form bright points on the image sensor, while lights reflected off another region of the reflective light pattern form dark points on the image sensor, wherein a light point with a brightness value higher than a predetermined brightness value is referred to as a bright point, a light point with a brightness value lower than the predetermined brightness value is referred to as a dark point.” This is deemed to be indefinite as it is unclear what applicant is specifically claiming by, “lights reflected off a region of the reflective light pattern” What is the reflective light pattern if only part of it reflects? What actual is the device or object that the pattern is on? How does the pattern only reflect partially, is it a specific device, material or design? What is “another region of the reflective light pattern”? Is not the whole pattern reflective?
Regarding claim 10 where applicant claims, “a reflective light pattern is generated by sensing lights reflected off through an image sensor.” This is deemed to be indefinite as it is unclear what applicant is specifically claiming as what is generating the light pattern is unclear. How does the sensor detect a light pattern as what is generating the light has not been claimed? What emits the light to produce the pattern or how is the pattern generated without some sort of light source that can high light the pattern for the robot? The currently presented claim is ambiguous and indefinite, hence the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 11 where applicant claims, “wherein lights reflected off a region of the reflective light pattern form bright points on the image sensor, while lights reflected off another region of the reflective light pattern form dark points on the image sensor; wherein a light point with a brightness value higher than a predetermined brightness value referred to as a bright point, a light point with a brightness value lower than the predetermined brightness value referred to as a dark point.” This is deemed to be indefinite as it is unclear what applicant is specifically claiming by, “lights reflected off a region of the reflective light pattern” What is the reflective light pattern if only part of it reflects? What actual is the device or object that the pattern is on? How does the pattern only reflect partially, is it a specific device, material or design? What is “another region of the reflective light pattern”? Is not the whole pattern reflective?
Regarding claim 15 where applicant claim, “wherein intensities of lights reflected off by different parts of a pattern of the charging station are different in different parts.” This is deemed to be indefinite as it is unclear what applicant is specifically claiming and what “by different parts of a pattern of the charging station are different” actually means? What are they reflected from? What does applicant mean by claiming, “by different parts of a pattern of the charging station are different.” What is the docking station if it is a pattern of the docking station? The currently presented claim is ambiguous and indefinite, hence the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 16 where applicants claim, “wherein a reflective light pattern is generated by sensing lights reflected off through an image sensor.” This is deemed to be indefinite as it is unclear what applicant is specifically claiming as what is generating the light pattern is unclear. How does the sensor detect a light pattern as what is generating the light has not been claimed? What emits the light to produce the pattern or how is the pattern generated without some sort of light source that can high light the pattern for the robot? The currently presented claim is ambiguous and indefinite, hence the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 17 where applicant claims, “wherein lights reflected off a region of the reflective light pattern form bright points on the image sensor, while lights reflected off another region of the reflective light pattern form dark points on the image sensor.” This is deemed to be indefinite as it is unclear what applicant is specifically claiming by, “lights reflected off a region of the reflective light pattern” What is the reflective light pattern if only part of it reflects? What actual is the device or object that the pattern is on? How does the pattern only reflect partially, is it a specific device, material or design? What is “another region of the reflective light pattern”? Is not the whole pattern reflective?
Claims 3-6, 10-11 & 15-17 have not been treated on the merits as the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be ascertained and hence the claims were found to be indefinite.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, 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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657