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 .
With regards to claims 1-15, the prior 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn, in view of applicant’s amendments.
With regards to claims 1-15, the following prior art rejections are withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12, 14 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al (US Application: US 2016/0203625, published: Jul. 14, 2016, filed: Jan . 9, 2015) in view of Aksan et al (“DeepWriting: Making Digital Ink Editable via Deep Generative Modeling”, published: 2018, pages 1-14).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al (US Application: US 2016/0203625, published: Jul. 14, 2016, filed: Jan . 9, 2015) in view of Aksan et al (“DeepWriting: Making Digital Ink Editable via Deep Generative Modeling”, published: 2018, pages 1-14) in view of Chang et al (US Application: US 20210349627, published: Nov. 11, 2021, filed: Sep. 24, 2020).
Claim(s) 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al (US Application: US 2016/0203625, published: Jul. 14, 2016, filed: Jan . 9, 2015) in view of Aksan et al (“DeepWriting: Making Digital Ink Editable via Deep Generative Modeling”, published: 2018, pages 1-14) in view of Kansal et al (US Application: US 2008/0273796, published: Nov. 6, 2008, filed: May 1, 2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-7, 14 and 15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites an apparatus and is directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following for which the bolded items are interpreted to encompass steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including: observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
“An electronic apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to: obtain, for a document including handwritten text, document data including a text layer including text corresponding to the handwritten text and an image layer including a handwritten image corresponding to the handwritten text, wherein the text layer and the image layer are mapped to each other; detect text related to an edit request input by a user; retrieve, in the text layer, at least one character constituting the detected text, retrieve, in the image layer, at least one character image mapped to the retrieved at least one character; identify a first handwritten image related to the detected text of the edit request; perform an operation corresponding to the edit request on the at least one character of the detected text in the text layer; and apply the first handwritten image including the retrieved at least one character image to the image layer based on the edit request”.
More specifically, the limitations of “detect text related to an edit request input by a user” may be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human can mentally evaluate an edit request and make a judgement to corresponding text (it is noted that the claim does not necessitate where the text is from nor how the text is detected, other than it being based on user request). With regards to “identify a first handwritten image related to the detected text of the edit request; perform an operation corresponding to the edit request on the at least one character of the detected text in the text layer”, these limitations may be practically performed in the human mind (for example, a human can mentally evaluate text associated with the edit request and make a judgement to identify a handwritten image related to the detected text and also a human can mentally evaluate the edit request and make a judgement to follow additional mental steps (the claimed ‘operation’ is interpreted to encompass mental operation steps)). Furthermore, with respect to the limitation “apply a first handwritten image including the retrieved at least one character image to the image layer based on the edit request”, this limitation may also be practically performed in the human mind. For example a human can mentally evaluate at least one character image and make a judgment to associate the first handwritten image to a set of recorded data (image layer). It is also noted the claim does not necessitated how the action of ‘apply’ is implemented and thus, it can be interpreted as making an association.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites additional elements/limitations of:
“An electronic apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to …”. These additional elements are considered merely recited the words ‘apply it’ with the judicial exception or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea”. The courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“obtain, for a document including handwritten text, a text layer including text and an image layer including a handwritten image corresponding to the text”, “retrieve, in the text layer, at least one character constituting the detected text”, “retrieve, in the image layer, at least one character image mapped to the retrieved at least one character”. These additional elements are considered as adding insignificant extra solution activity (‘Mere Data Gathering’) to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, these additional elements identified above when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are three additional elements. The additional elements of:
“An electronic apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to …”, as explained in step 2A, Prong Two, these additional elements are considered adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract on a computer. The courts have found this type of limitation as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“obtain, for a document including handwritten text, a text layer including text and an image layer including a handwritten image corresponding to the text”, “retrieve, in the text layer, at least one character constituting the detected text”, “retrieve, in the image layer, at least one character image mapped to the retrieved at least one character”, these additional elements are considered insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/outputting and also selection of a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated respectively. The courts have found limitations that adding limitations that add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Thus, when considered, individually and in combination, these additional elements fail to amount to ‘significantly more’.
Claims 5-7
With regards to claims 5-7, they recite further judicial exceptions of mental steps (i.e. : they address mental steps for 1) evaluating hand written image data and making judgment to ‘connect’/associate images with each other, 2) evaluating a character that can be interpreted as categorized as text layer data, 3) evaluating font data ), and do not recite any additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (i.e.: retrieving at least one character image, which is adding insignificant extra solution activity (‘Mere Data Gathering’)), and do not recite any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (The courts have found limitations that adding limitations that add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception).
Claim 14
With regards to claim 14, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 15
With regards to claim 15, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al (US Application: US 2016/0203625, published: Jul. 14, 2016, filed: Jan . 9, 2015) in view of Brown et al (US Application: US 2021/0264556, published: Aug. 26, 2021, filed: May 11, 2021) in view of Aksan et al (“DeepWriting: Making Digital Ink Editable via Deep Generative Modeling”, published: 2018, pages 1-14).
With regards to claim 1, Kahn et al teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
a processor; and a memory to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to:
obtain, for a document including [source text], document data including a text layer including text … and an image layer including a [source-text] image corresponding to the text (paragraph 0027, 0031, 0034 and 0041: text using OCR of source- text-image is obtained and is included in a text layer as a machine readable document and an image layer is obtained as a preview source text image with positional metadata );
detect text related to an edit request input by user (0027: a user provides input to request to edit text through at least cursor indication);
retrieve, in the text layer, at least one character constituting the detected text, retrieve, in the image layer, at least one character image mapped to the retrieved at least one character (paragraph 0029, 0037, and 0041: in the machine readable text content, the user can edit text by at least specifying a position and image data of the source image/page is retrieved with respect to the position, the image retrieved includes images of character(s) located at the user specified location); and apply … (paragraph 0041: the user requested/inputted text edit(s) is/are applied).
However although Kahn et al teaches source text in a source text image, Kahn et al does not expressly teach: the source text image is a handwritten image. More specifically, Kahn et al does not teach a text layer including text corresponding to the handwritten text and an image layer including a handwritten text, wherein the text layer and the image layer are mapped to each other; identify a first handwritten image related to the detected text of the edit request; perform an operation corresponding to the edit request on the at least one character of the detected text in the text layer; and apply a first handwritten image including the retrieved at least one character image to the image layer based on the edit request.
Yet Brown et al teaches a text layer including text corresponding to the [source] text and an image layer including a [source] text, wherein the text layer and the image layer are mapped to each other; perform an operation corresponding to the edit request on the at least one character of the detected text in the text layer (paragraph 0032, 0039, 0041: a text metadata layer corresponding to recognized source text is implemented and an edit operation to change a digit can be performed such that the text metadata layer can be further updated to reflect the change/edit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Kahn et al’s ability to obtain source text in a line and digitize text as detected text in a text layer (from a source image to text data obtained from OCR) and allow a user to apply edits to detected text correlated to the source image/page, such that the text layer and image layer are mapped to each other and operations can be performed on a character of detected text in the text layer, as taught by Brown et al. The combination would have made it easier to access data associated with an image (Brown et al, paragraphs 0002 and 0003).
However the combination does not expressly teach the source text image is a handwritten image. Additionally Kah et al does not teach identify a first handwritten image related to the detected text of the edit request; and apply the first handwritten image including the retrieved at least one character image to the image layer based on the edit request.
Yet Aksan et al teaches a source text image is a handwritten image. Also Aksan et al teaches apply the first handwritten image including the retrieved at least one character image to the image layer based on the edit request(page 8, Figure 10: an image having the detected text handwritten text with hand written character images that are retrieved and displayed together in a line (where hand written character ‘g’ is next to ‘e’ and ‘t’ respectively). Edit(s) including one or more character images corresponding to user selected/applied edit(s) are applied to the original source image/page in the same line having the handwriting, and the edits can include operations such as further including/adding characters not part of the detected text layer (extracted from source document), for example, the character ‘w’ in ‘write’ was not part of original detected ‘get’). The new character(s) not part of the detected text are obtained/retrieved and displayed /rendered as hand written image as shown in Figure 10, where the hand written character (‘w’) is obtained displayed (and the characters of the word ‘enough’ are shifted to the right based on the user edit to change/replace the word ‘get’ to ‘write’ due to more characters in the word ‘write’)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Kahn et al and Brown et al’s ability to obtain source text and allow a user to apply edits to detected text correlated to the source image/page by implementing a text layer to image layer mapping, such that the source image could have been a hand written image of the detected text, and the source image could have been updated in response to the user hand written characters being updated based upon the user’s applied edits in the same line, as taught by Aksan et al. The combination would have allowed Kahn et al to have implemented an ability to edit digital ink at the same level of fidelity as typed text, allowing users to change, delete or replace … content (Aksan et al, page 8).
With regards to claim 5. the electronic apparatus of claim 1, Kahn et al and Aksan et al teaches wherein the at least one character constituting the detected text comprises a first character and a second character, wherein the at least one character image comprises a first character image and a second character image respectively corresponding to the first character and the second character, and wherein the first handwritten image is completed by connecting the first handwritten image and a second handwritten image , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Kahn et al’s ability to allow a user to apply an edit to detected text (the detected text from a text layer of a machine readable document) having a correlated source image, was modified such that the detected text further includes a plurality of hand written characters corresponding to detected text characters (and user edited characters), for which the characters are displayed to be adjacent to each other in a word, as explained to be taught by Aksan et al. It is noted that when hand written images for interpreted as the claimed ‘connected’ when they are grouped as related to an edit of focus/attention (i.e. when hand written characters of the detected text are connected to a same image by being displayed next to each other (where hand written ‘g’ is next to ‘e’ and ‘t’) in Figure 10 of Aksan et al)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 6. The electronic apparatus of claim 1, the combination of Kahn et al and Aksan et al teaches wherein the at least one character constituting the detected text is included in the text layer, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (as explained Kahn et al’s detected text can be in a text layer of a machine readable document), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 7. The electronic apparatus of claim 1, the combination of Kahn et al and Aksan et al teaches wherein, in a case in which the at least one character constituting the detected text is not included in the text layer, the processor, by executing the instructions, is to: determine font data corresponding to the handwritten image in a font database; and retrieve, in the font data, at least one character image corresponding to the at least one character constituting the detected text, and wherein the first handwritten image comprises the at least one character image retrieved in the font data, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (as explained: Aksan et al in page 8 , and figure 10 teaches edit(s) including one or more character images corresponding to user selected/applied edit(s) are applied to the original source image having the handwriting, and the edits can include operations such as further including/adding characters not part of the detected text layer (extracted from source document), for example, the character ‘w’ in ‘write’ was not part of original detected ‘get’). The new character(s) not part of the detected text are obtained/retrieved and displayed /rendered as hand written image as shown in Figure 10, where the hand written character (‘w’) is obtained displayed (and the characters of the word ‘enough’ are shifted to the right based on the user edit to change the word ‘get’ to ‘write’ due to more characters in the word ‘write’)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 8. The electronic apparatus of claim 1, the combination of Kahn et al and Aksan et al teaches wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is to shift, in the image layer, a second handwritten image corresponding to a text edit location related to the edit request, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (as explained: Aksan et al in page 8 , and figure 10 teaches edit(s) including one or more character images corresponding to user selected/applied edit(s) are applied to the original source image having the handwriting, and the edits can include operations such as further including/adding characters not part of the detected text layer (extracted from source document), for example, the character ‘w’ in ‘write’ was not part of original detected ‘get’). The new character(s) not part of the detected text are obtained/retrieved and displayed /rendered as hand written image as shown in Figure 10, where the hand written character (‘w’) is obtained displayed (and the characters of the word ‘enough’ are shifted to the right based on the user edit to replace the word ‘get’ to ‘write’ due to more characters in the word ‘write’)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The electronic apparatus of 1, the combination of Kahn et al and Aksan et al teaches wherein the edit request comprises a text replacement request to replace target text with replacement text, wherein the text related to the edit request comprises the replacement text, wherein the at least one character constitutes the replacement text, and wherein the processor, by executing the instructions is to: replace the target text with the replacement text in the text layer; and apply, in the image layer, the first handwritten image onto a target handwritten image mapped with the target text, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (as explained: Aksan et al in page 8 , and figure 10 teaches edit(s) including one or more character images corresponding to user selected/applied edit(s) are applied to the original source image having the handwriting, and the edits can include operations such as further including/adding characters not part of the detected text layer (extracted from source document), for example, the character ‘w’ in ‘write’ was not part of original detected ‘get’). The new character(s) not part of the detected text are obtained/retrieved and displayed /rendered as hand written image as shown in Figure 10, where the hand written character (‘w’) is obtained displayed (and the characters of the word ‘enough’ are shifted to the right based on the user edit to replace the word ‘get’ to ‘write’ due to more characters in the word ‘write’)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. Kahn, Brown et al and Aksan et al teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor, the computer-readable storage medium comprising: instructions to obtain, for a document including handwritten text, document data including a text layer including text corresponding to the handwritten text and an image layer including a handwritten image corresponding to the handwritten text, wherein the text layer and the image layer are mapped to each other; instructions to detect text related to an edit request input by a user; instructions to retrieve, in the text layer, at least one character constituting the detected text; instructions to retrieve, in the image layer, at least one character image mapped to the retrieved at least one character; instructions to identify a first handwritten image related to the detected text of the edit request; instructions to perform an operation corresponding to the edit request on the at least one character of the detected text in the text layer; and instructions to apply the first handwritten image including the retrieved at least one character image to the image layer based on the edit request, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. Kahn, Brown et al and Aksan et al teaches a method comprising: obtaining, for a document including handwritten text, document data including a text layer including text corresponding to the handwritten text and an image layer including a handwritten image corresponding to the handwritten text, wherein the text layer and the image layer are mapped to each other; detecting text related to an edit request input by a user; retrieving, in the text layer, at least one character constituting the detected text; retrieving in the image layer, at least one character image mapped to the retrieved at least one character; identifying a first handwritten image related to the detected text of the edit request; performing an operation corresponding to the edit request on the at least one character of the detected text in the text layer; and applying the first handwritten image including the retrieved at least one character image to the image layer based on the edit request, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al (US Application: US 2016/0203625, published: Jul. 14, 2016, filed: Jan . 9, 2015) in view of Brown et al (US Application: US 2021/0264556, published: Aug. 26, 2021, filed: May 11, 2021) in view of Aksan et al (“DeepWriting: Making Digital Ink Editable via Deep Generative Modeling”, published: 2018, pages 1-14) in view of Chang et al (US Application: US 20210349627, published: Nov. 11, 2021, filed: Sep. 24, 2020).
With regards to claim 2. The electronic apparatus of claim 1, Kahn et al, Brown et al and Aksan et al teaches wherein the edit request, … the processor, by executing the instructions, is to .. [edit] the detected text into a location related to the text [edit] request in the text layer; apply the first handwritten image to a region of the image layer which is mapped to the text [edit] location, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (the combination was explained to allow user to specify an edit request at a location/range within a line of the text and the edit(s) from the request is/are applied to the source handwritten image/page (to include retrieved character image(s) on the same line while performing shift(s) to accommodate the edit), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … comprises a text insertion request, … to: insert the detected text into a text insertion location related to the text insertion request … ; and apply the first handwritten image to a region of the image layer which is mapped to the text insertion location.
Yet Chang et al teaches … comprises a text insertion request, … to: insert the detected text into a text insertion location related to the text insertion request … (Fig. 12CCC, Fig 12 DDD, paragraph 0566: a user can apply a text insertion request of detected text by specifying a location/input location within the detected text such as a range in between two sets of characters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Khan et al, Brown et al and Aksan et al’s ability to process an edit request to apply the edit of the detected text into a location related to the text edit request in the text layer, retrieve character image(s) associated with the location, apply handwritten image(s) to a region of the image layer which is mapped to the text edit location (while performing shift(s) to accommodate the edit), such that the type of edit request was further modified to support an insert edit request, as taught by Chang et al. The combination would have allowed Khan et al, Brown et al and Aksan et al to have allowed users to select and interact with previously written handwritten text for an enhanced and efficient user interaction(s) (Chang et al, paragraph 0004)
With regards to claim 3. The electronic apparatus of claim 2, the combination of Khan et al, Brown et al, Aksan et al and Chang et al teaches wherein the text insertion location and the retrieved at least one character image are located within a predetermined range, as explained in the rejection of claim 2 (the combination of Khan et al, Brown et al, Aksan et al and Chang et al was explained to show that a user’s edit could be an insertion type edit within a range between character set(s) and the edit request results in retrieval of character image(s) to apply to a handwritten source-image/page)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 4. The electronic apparatus of claim 2, the combination of Khan et al, Brown et al, Aksan et al and Chang et al teaches wherein the text insertion location and the retrieved at least one character image are located within a same page of the document, as explained in the rejection of claim 2 (the combination of Khan et al, Brown et al, Aksan et al and Chang et al was explained to show that a user’s edit could be an insertion type edit within a range between character set(s) and the edit request results in retrieval of character image(s) to apply to a handwritten source-image/page)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 9. The electronic apparatus of claim 8, the combination of Khan et al, Brown et al, Aksan et al and Chang et al teaches wherein the edit request comprises a text insertion request, wherein the text edit location comprises a text insertion location related to the text insertion request, wherein the second handwritten image is located in a same line as the text insertion location in the image layer, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2 (the combination of Khan et al, Brown et al, and Aksan et al’s teachings for performing an edit request on a line and subsequently retrieving handwritten image(s) to apply the edit request on the same line was modified to further support insert type edit requests), and wherein the second handwritten image shifted in the image layer follows the first handwritten image applied to the image layer (as also explained in the rejection of claim 2, Khan et al, Brown et al and Aksan et al support shifting to accommodate for the edit request, and the edit request was modified with Chang et al’s teachings to support insertion), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al (US Application: US 2016/0203625, published: Jul. 14, 2016, filed: Jan . 9, 2015) in view of Brown et al (US Application: US 2021/0264556, published: Aug. 26, 2021, filed: May 11, 2021) in view of Aksan et al (“DeepWriting: Making Digital Ink Editable via Deep Generative Modeling”, published: 2018, pages 1-14) in view of Kansal et al (US Application: US 2008/0273796, published: Nov. 6, 2008, filed: May 1, 2007).
With regards to claim 13. The electronic apparatus of claim 12, the combination of Khan et al, Brown et al and Aksan et al teaches wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, … in the image layer … the target handwritten image, and the first handwritten image applied in the image layer .., as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 12, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach …. is to overlay, in the image layer, an object on the target handwritten image, and the first handwritten image applied in the image layer is located on the object.
Yet Kansal et al teaches …. is to overlay, in the image layer, an object on the target [text] image, and the first [target/output character(s)] image applied in the image layer is located on the object (paragraph 0029: balloon/object is overlayed/augmented upon the image (image layer) and the balloon/object has target/output character(s) located on the balloon area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Khan, Brown et al and Aksan et al’s ability to apply a target image character (the handwritten image-target character/text(s) from the edit request) to an image /source-image-document, such that the applied target image-target character(s) would have been overlayed upon the source image’s text/character(s), as taught by Kansal et al. The combination would have allowed implement image text enhancement techniques that can enhance the original text in an image with different/augmented text.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the 35 USC 101 rejections, the applicant argues the newly amended language overcomes the rejections. However this argument is not persuasive and the examiner respectfully directs applicant’s attention to the updated 35 USC 101 rejections above, which address the new amendments and provide explanations as to how the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections remain pending
With regards to the 35 USC 112 rejections, those rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
With regards to the 35 USC 103 rejections, the applicant argues (with respect to claim 1), that the combination of Khan and Askan do not teach alone or in combination , the newly amended limitations in claim 1. The examiner notes that the newly amended claim language in claim 1 has necessitated a new grounds of rejection and thus, the examiner respectfully directs the applicant’s attention to the new grounds of rejection applied for the rejection of claim 1 for an explanation as to how the new combination of Khan, Brown et al and Aksan et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
The applicant argues the other independent claims 14 and 15 are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However these arguments are not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected.
The applicant argues claims (2-13) that depend directly or indirectly from one of claims 1, 14, and 15 are allowable by virtue of their dependency. However this argument is not persuasive since the independent claims (1, 14, and 15) have been shown/explained to be rejected above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights