DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 05/18/2026. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered; and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1-24 have been amended. Claims 1-24 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous Claim Objections has been withdrawn.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uneno et al. (WO2018101457A1 -hereinafter Uneno -Note: As the machine translation attached) in view of Jones (US20230111754A1 -hereinafter Jones).
Regarding Claim 1, Uneno teaches a method for predicting anomalies in a manufacturing line (see Abstract; Uneno: “a manufacturing line control system (10), comprising a processing unit (20) wherefrom a processed article (101) is obtained … The manufacturing line control system (10) further comprises an inspection unit (40) which inspects the processed article (101).”), the method comprising operating at least one processor to:
receive a sequence of images of one or more workpieces in the manufacturing line; (see page 8, first paragraph; Uneno: “The inspection unit 40 includes an imaging unit 41 that images the workpiece 101 processed by the processing unit 20 and an illumination unit 42 that illuminates the workpiece 101.” See page 13, third paragraph: “The inspection unit 40 stores inspection data while sequentially inspecting the workpiece 101 (imaging and image processing).”)
generate one or more annotations to locate the one or more anomalies within the images of the manufacturing line; and (see page 11, last paragraph; Uneno: “When the difference value for each unit identification code is out of the range, it is determined that an abnormality has occurred, and the minute chip occurrence flag and the unit identification code of the unit 30 in which the minute chip has occurred (concave portion 141 for fiber stacking) The detected information is transmitted to the notification unit 80 and the control unit 90. The notification unit 80 displays whether it is normal or abnormal on the screen of the display unit 81. In the case of an abnormality, a message based on the detection information is displayed, so that the operator can easily know the location where the abnormality has occurred and the content of the abnormality.”)
generate at least one notification to identify the anomalies, the at least one notification comprising the one or more annotations. (see page 8, paragraph 6; Uneno: “The notification unit 80 notifies the unit identification code and the determination result. A display unit 81 for displaying the unit identification code corresponding to the determination result and the determination result is provided. The notification unit 80 causes the screen of the display unit 81 to display whether it is normal or abnormal at an appropriately set timing such as every hour, every hour, every day, or the like.”)
However, it does not explicitly teach:
extract feature data from the sequence of images by concatenating feature data representative of a motion of the one or more workpieces with feature data representative of an appearance of the one or more workpieces in the manufacturing line; apply the feature data to a predictive model trained based on spatio-temporal patterns and process flows to detect one or more anomalies in the manufacturing line;
Jones from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
extract feature data from the sequence of images by concatenating feature data representative of a motion of the one or more workpieces with feature data representative of an appearance of the one or more workpieces in the manufacturing line; (see [0030]; Jones: “the input video 202 may include the set of video frames that correspond to the scene including one or more machines performing the task.”. See [0031]: “The set of training features 204 may be derived from a training video. The training video may include a set of video frames that correspond to a normal operation of the one or more machines performing the task... As used herein, ‘training features’ may correspond to values or information extracted from the video frames of the training video.” See [0012]: “each training feature vector consists of an appearance feature vector and a motion feature vector;”. See [0025]: “According to an embodiment, the video 102 may include a set of video frames that correspond to an automation scene, such as a factory automation scene. As used herein, ‘factory automation’ may be a process of automatically manufacturing a complex system using one or more machines. For example, the factory automation may be realized as a factory assembly line, where various raw materials of the complex system are automatically assembled using the one or more machines to manufacture the complex system. For instance, the complex system may be a vehicle or the like. The one or more machines may include, but are not limited to, robot arm(s), a conveyor, and/or the like.”)
apply the feature data to a predictive model trained based on spatio-temporal patterns and process flows to detect one or more anomalies in the manufacturing line; (see [0012]; Jones: “compute a minimum distance between the input appearance feature vector of each of the video volumes and the appearance feature vector of the training feature vectors associated with corresponding spatio-temporal regions in the scene to produce a set of appearance distances; and compare each motion and appearance distance from the set of motion and appearance distances with at least one anomaly detection threshold to detect anomalies in the input video of the scene.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Uneno to include Jone’s features of extract feature data from the sequence of images by concatenating feature data representative of a motion of the one or more workpieces with feature data representative of an appearance of the one or more workpieces in the manufacturing line; apply the feature data to a predictive model trained based on spatio-temporal patterns and process flows to detect one or more anomalies in the manufacturing line. Doing so would detect expected and unexpected faults associated with such automation in an efficient and feasible manner. (Jones, [0004])
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Uneno and Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Uneno further teaches further comprising operating the at least one processor to pre-process the sequence of images. (see page 8, paragraph 3; Uneno: “The image processing unit 43 processes the captured image obtained by the imaging unit 41 with preset contents to obtain processed data. Processed data refers to data obtained as a result of image processing. For example, an image obtained by performing various types of filter processing (for example, binarization processing, averaging processing, expansion processing, contraction processing, etc.) on a captured image.”)
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Uneno and Jones as discussed connection with claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-7, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uneno in view of Jones in view of Tsai et al. (US 20220051014 A1 -hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Uneno and Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach comprising operating the at least one processor to: for each anomaly of the one or more anomalies, identify at least one image amongst the sequence of images showing the anomaly; select feature data associated with the anomaly; and apply the feature data associated with the anomaly to the predictive model to determine a classification to be associated with the anomaly.
Tsai from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches comprising operating the at least one processor to:
for each anomaly of the one or more anomalies, identify at least one image amongst the sequence of images showing the anomaly; (see [0039]; Tsai: “instructions 716 may include scanning an image to verify whether an object within the image includes any defects, such as a disk misalignment, broken parts, or the like.”)
select feature data associated with the anomaly; and (see [0040]; Tsai: “Data 718 may be retrieved, stored, and modified by the one or more processors 712 in accordance with the instructions 716.”)
apply the feature data associated with the anomaly to the predictive model to determine a classification to be associated with the anomaly. (see [0055]; Tsai: “Computing device 710 can classify any differences between the images as a defect …Additionally, using machine learning the system can be automatically tuned to detect more and different types of defects.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Uneno and Jones to include Tsai’s features of operating the at least one processor to: for each anomaly of the one or more anomalies, identify at least one image amongst the sequence of images showing the anomaly; select feature data associated with the anomaly; and apply the feature data associated with the anomaly to the predictive model to determine a classification to be associated with the anomaly. Doing so would improve the defect detection and save on costs in the long term as these defects can be fixed before they become a larger issue. (Tsai, [0061] and [0070])
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Uneno, Jones, and Tsai teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one notification comprises an indication of the classification associated with the anomaly.
Tsai from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the at least one notification comprises an indication of the classification associated with the anomaly. (see [0060]; Tsai: “a computer vision algorithm can be trained to notice different types of common defects on an object based on a detected defect image portion on an image containing the object.”)
The same motivation to combine Uneno, Jones, and Tsai a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Uneno, Jones, and Tsai teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above, Uneno further teaches wherein the manufacturing line comprises a transport mechanism. (see page 10, paragraph 7; Uneno: “the manufacturing apparatus 110 includes a transport device 170 as a transfer transport mechanism that separates the absorber 105 from the concave portion 141 for stacking fibers and transfers it to the mount 109.”)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Uneno, Jones, and Tsai teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above; however, it does not explicitly teach comprising operating the at least one processor to classify the anomaly as at least one of a missing part of a workpiece or a change in a synchronous speed of a workpiece along the transport mechanism.
Tsai from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches comprising operating the at least one processor to classify the anomaly as at least one of a missing part of a workpiece or a change in a synchronous speed of a workpiece along the transport mechanism. (see [0061]; Tsai: “computing device 710 can classify the defect type of a defect image as being a missing part.”)
The same motivation to combine Uneno, Jones, and Tsai a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Uneno, Jones, and Tsai as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Uneno, Jones, and Tsai as discussed connection with claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Uneno, Jones, and Tsai as discussed connection with claim 7.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uneno in view of Jones in view of Tsai in view of Agerstam et al. (US20190138423A1 -hereinafter Agerstam) in view of O’Connor (US 6551422 B1 -hereinafter O’Connor).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Uneno, Jones, and Tsai teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising operating the at least one processor to: determine one or more corrective actions for the one or more anomalies based on the classifications associated with the one or more anomalies; define a set of operating commands for one or more actuators of the manufacturing line based on the one or more corrective actions; and operate the one or more actuators to implement the one or more corrective actions.
Agerstam from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising operating the at least one processor to: determine one or more corrective actions for the one or more anomalies based on the classifications associated with the one or more anomalies; (see [0104]; Agerstam: “The anomalous output of the example hybrid model 1048 is defined as a sensor anomaly and is represented as anomalous to indicate that the monitored system 108 is malfunctioning and a corrective action should be applied to the anomalous sensors.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Uneno, Jones, and Tsai to include Agerstam’s features of determining one or more corrective actions for the one or more anomalies based on the classifications associated with the one or more anomalies. Doing so would improve the likelihood that the system operates as intended with substantially few or no errors. (Agerstam, [0016])
However, it does not explicitly teach:
define a set of operating commands for one or more actuators of the manufacturing line based on the one or more corrective actions; and
operate the one or more actuators to implement the one or more corrective actions.
O’Connor from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
define a set of operating commands for one or more actuators of the manufacturing line based on the one or more corrective actions; and (see Abstract; O’Conner: “a controller for selectively monitoring the sensors and controlling output actuators to maintain desired parameters of the metal treatment process,”)
operate the one or more actuators to implement the one or more corrective actions. (see column 4, lines 1-6; O’Conner: “if the controller receives input from the sensors indicating that a particular parameter is straying from its desired value, (e.g., pH is straying from the desired pH range), then the controller, via the output actuators, can take corrective or preventive action to keep the particular parameter within its desired value”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Uneno, Jones, Tsai, and Agerstam to include O’Conner’s features of defining a set of operating commands for one or more actuators of the manufacturing line based on the one or more corrective actions; and operating the one or more actuators to implement the one or more corrective actions. Doing so would operate smoothly, efficiently, and on time. (O’Conner, column 1, lines 27-29)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Uneno, Jones, Tsai, Agerstam, and O’Connor teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above, Agerstam further teaches wherein the at least one notification comprises an indication of the one or more corrective actions. (see [0030]; Agerstam: “the system applicator 118 is provided with a description of an anomaly and determines how to modify operation of the monitored system 108 to correct the error detected by the anomaly detector 114.”)
The same motivation to combine Uneno, Jones, Tsai, and Agerstam a set forth for Claim 4 equally applies to Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Uneno, Jones, Tsai, Agerstam, and O’Connor as discussed connection with claim 4.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uneno in view of Jones in view of Tsai in view of Yang (US20180194095A1 -hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Uneno, Jones, and Tsai teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the manufacturing line comprises a bowl feeder.
Yang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the manufacturing line comprises a bowl feeder. (see [0060]; Yang: “An sixth alternative of the first embodiment further comprises a bowl feeder capable of feeding a plurality of pins to the press head 15.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Uneno and Jones to include Yang’s features of operating the at least one processor to pre-process the sequence of images comprises operating the at least one processor to align each image of the sequence of images. Doing so would issue an error message that the workpiece pair has a probable cracking event. (Yang, [0052])
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Uneno, Jones, Tsai, and Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above, Yang further teaches comprising operating the at least one processor to classify the anomaly as at least one of an accumulation of workpieces within the bowl feeder, a misalignment of workpieces within the bowl feeder (see [0008]; Yang: “the controller unit is capable of detecting from at least one position alignment image a misalignment between the workpiece pair and issuing an error message that the alignment range is not met.”), or insufficient workpieces within a lower portion of the bowl feeder.
The same motivation to combine Uneno, Jones, Tsai, and Yang set forth for Claim 8 equally applies to Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Uneno and Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein operating the at least one processor to pre-process the sequence of images comprises operating the at least one processor to align each image of the sequence of images.
Yang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein operating the at least one processor to pre-process the sequence of images comprises operating the at least one processor to align each image of the sequence of images. (see [0004]; Yang: “a position control camera capable of taking a plurality of position alignment images. The platform includes: (i) a base; (ii) an x-y stage including a floor with a central opening, a y-axis datum aligned along a first axis and an x-axis datum aligned along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis.”)
The same motivation to combine Uneno, Jones, Tsai, and Yang set forth for Claim 8 equally applies to Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Uneno, Jones, Tsai, and Yang as discussed connection with claim 8.
Regarding Claim 22, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Uneno, Jones, Tsai, and Yang as discussed connection with claim 9.
Claim(s) 12 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uneno in view of Jones in view of Naruse (US20210364447A1 -hereinafter Naruse).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Uneno and Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein operating the at least one processor to pre-process the sequence of images comprises operating the at least one processor to: detect one or more moving workpieces in the sequence of images; segment each moving workpiece of the one or more moving workpieces in a first image of the sequence of images; select at least one moving workpiece of the one or more moving workpieces; and identify a region of interest for each selected moving workpiece in each image of the sequence of images.
Naruse from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein operating the at least one processor to pre-process the sequence of images comprises operating the at least one processor to:
detect one or more moving workpieces in the sequence of images; (see [0011]; Naruse: “an image-capturing unit which has a sensor that images at least one workpiece illuminated in a plurality of predetermined illumination light emission patterns and obtains a plurality of evaluation workpiece images that are associated with the predetermined illumination light emission patterns and the workpiece;”)
segment each moving workpiece of the one or more moving workpieces in a first image of the sequence of images; (see [0029]; Naruse: “by the image-capturing unit, imaging at least one workpiece illuminated in a plurality of predetermined illumination light emission patterns to acquire a plurality of evaluation workpiece images, each of which is associated with each predetermined illumination light emission pattern and each workpiece;”)
select at least one moving workpiece of the one or more moving workpieces; and (see [0108]; Naruse: “An image obtained by aligning, as column vectors, the evaluation workpiece images captured in these predetermined illumination light emission patterns is defined as fi, and a multi-channel image vector obtained by vertically aligning and organizing N (N patterns of) fi is defined as Expression (9) described below.”)
identify a region of interest for each selected moving workpiece in each image of the sequence of images. (see [0113]; Naruse: “Next, in Step S412 (image area setting step), the image area setting unit 142 extracts, for a combination of a plurality of different labels and at least one region of interest (ROI) with a predetermined shape (for example, a rectangular shape, a circular shape, or an oval shape), images in the predetermined region of interest from the evaluation workpiece images acquired in Step S410 on the basis of a user's instruction, for example, and sets image areas.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Uneno and Jones to include Naruse’s features of operating the at least one processor to pre-process the sequence of images comprises operating the at least one processor to: detect one or more moving workpieces in the sequence of images; segment each moving workpiece of the one or more moving workpieces in a first image of the sequence of images; select at least one moving workpiece of the one or more moving workpieces; and identify a region of interest for each selected moving workpiece in each image of the sequence of images. Doing so would reduce missing of defects in workpieces and determination errors and thereby to improve inspection performance and inspection efficiency of workpieces. (Naruse, [0013])
Regarding Claim 23, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Uneno, Jones, and Naruse as discussed connection with claim 12.
Claim(s) 13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uneno in view of Jones in view of Langle et al. (US20200388042A1 -hereinafter Langle) in view of Greenwald et al. (US20200250455A1 -Greenwald).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Uneno and Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach comprising operating the at least one processor to: identify a plurality of images amongst the sequence of images showing a same moving workpiece of the one or more moving workpieces; select feature data associated with the moving workpiece comprising a position and a timing associated with the position of the moving workpiece in each image of the plurality of images; and apply the feature data associated with the moving workpiece to a regression model to determine the velocity of the moving workpiece.
Langle from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches comprising operating the at least one processor to:
identify a plurality of images amongst the sequence of images showing a same moving workpiece of the one or more moving workpieces; (see [0050]; Langle: “A plurality of images 23 a, 23 b, 23 c are recorded of the observation situation, which depict the movement of the object 21.”)
select feature data associated with the moving workpiece comprising a position and a timing associated with the position of the moving workpiece in each image of the plurality of images; and (see [0054]; Langle: “An object is observed at multiple points in time t. Every observation of an object is described by a feature vector ft.”)
…determine the velocity of the moving workpiece. (see [0019]; Langle: “apply the feature data associated with the moving workpiece to a regression model to determine the velocity of the moving workpiece.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Uneno and Jones to include Langle’s features of identifying a plurality of images amongst the sequence of images showing a same moving workpiece of the one or more moving workpieces; selecting feature data associated with the moving workpiece comprising a position and a timing associated with the position of the moving workpiece in each image of the plurality of images, and determining the velocity of the moving workpiece. Doing so would detect with greatest accuracy for all observed camera positions and provide a cost-effective option to be able to determine at least one mechanical property of at least one object. (Langle, [0010] and [0096])
However, it does not explicitly teach: apply the feature data associated with the moving workpiece to a regression model to determine the velocity...
Greenwald from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches apply the feature data associated with the moving workpiece to a regression model to determine the velocity… (see [0068]; Greenwald: “processor 134 trains a machine learning model to determine a velocity factor for each of multiple attributes of a particular physical item. The machine learning model may use any of a variety of techniques such as decision trees, linear regression models, logistic regression models”. See [0079]: “Processor 134 can apply machine learning to determine the weights for each velocity factor.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Uneno, Jones, and Langle to include Greenwald’s features of applying the feature data associated with the moving workpiece to a regression model to determine the velocity. Doing so would optimize a recommendation provided to source. (Greenwald, [0061])
Regarding Claim 24, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Uneno, Jones, Langle, and Greenwald as discussed connection with claim 13.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uneno in view of Jones in view of Langle in view of Greenwald in view of Ikeda et al. (US 20140301632 A1 -hereinafter Ikeda).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Uneno, Jones, Langle, and Greenwald teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above; however, it does not explicitly teach comprising operating the at least one processor to reconstruct the motion of the moving workpiece across the plurality of images.
Ikeda from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches comprising operating the at least one processor to reconstruct the motion of the moving workpiece across the plurality of images. (see [0087]; Ikeda: “The "visual servo" is a method of continuously imaging a moving workpiece by a camera, and momentarily adjusting the direction and speed of the motion of the workpiece from the result of the image processing.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Uneno, Jones, Langle, and Greenwald to include Ikeda’s features of operating the at least one processor to reconstruct the motion of the moving workpiece across the plurality of images. Doing so would realize positioning using image processing at higher speed and with higher accuracy. (Ikeda, [0009])
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Uneno, Jones, Langle, and Greenwald teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above; however, it does not explicitly teach comprising operating the at least one processor to detect and mask the moving workpiece within each image of the plurality of images.
Ikeda from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches comprising operating the at least one processor to detect and mask the moving workpiece within each image of the plurality of images. (see [0048]; Ikeda: “comprising operating the at least one processor to detect and mask the moving workpiece within each image of the plurality of images.”)
The same motivation to combine Uneno, Jones, Langle, Greenwald, and Ikeda a set forth for Claim 14 equally applies to Claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) of the independent claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cella et al. (US20220108262A1) discloses using the spatiotemporal imaging data to automatically select and configure the selection and arrangement of the set of neural network types to initiate learning.
Watson (US11430105B2) discloses running mode images of workpieces are acquired with the camera, and based on determined features from the images, the anomaly detector classification characteristics are utilized to determine if the images of the workpieces are classified as anomalous.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights