DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed February 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome all objections. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have also overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 26, 2025.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. Applicant argues that Specht ("A Precise Algorithm to Detect Voids in Polydisperse Circle Packings") fails to disclose: obtaining, by processing circuitry, a repacked filling result of the container based on performing one or more iterations of an adjustment operation, each iteration of the adjustment operation including: determining an available space in the container based on a target filling result for the respective iteration that is the initial filling result for a first iteration or a previously updated filling result from a previous iteration for a second or subsequent iteration, determining availability of a movable object from the plurality of objects based on the available space, the movable object occupying a space smaller than the available space, when the movable object is available, obtaining an updated filling result for the respective iteration based on moving the movable object to the available space, and enlarging the movable object in the plurality of objects based on the available space to obtain an enlarged movable object, and when the movable object is unavailable, determining the target filling result as the repacked filling result. Applicant also argues the dependents are also thus allowable.
Examiner replies that Specht teaches:
obtaining, by processing circuitry, a repacked filling result of the container based on performing one or more iterations of an adjustment operation (Section 3(e) Paragraph 2 teaches “repeat until one list is empty or no void is available anymore”. This teaches repeating the method of determining a void and object to place into the void until the object list is empty or until no voids are available. This creates and obtains a repacked filling result when an object is moved into a void),
each iteration of the adjustment operation including: determining an available space in the container based on a target filling result for the respective iteration that is the initial filling result for a first iteration or a previously updated filling result from a previous iteration for a second or subsequent iteration (Section 3(b) and Section 3(c) teaches detecting voids through a contact graph based on an initial packing result. The claim recites “or” so the prior art does not need to teach a previously updated filling result from a previous iteration),
determining availability of a movable object from the plurality of objects based on the available space, the movable object occupying a space smaller than the available space (Section 3(e) teaches selecting objects from a list to place into a void where the object will fit. This teaches determining availability of a movable object based on the available space. The occupied space can be interpreted as the movable object’s size. If the movable object is small enough to fit into the void then the movable object occupies a space smaller than the available space. For example, Figure 7 shows through the un-numbered circles the maximum radius of a circle that could fit in the available space or void which does not fill the entire space available space. Thus, the movable object will have a smaller space than the available space),
when the movable object is available, obtaining an updated filling result for the respective iteration based on moving the movable object to the available space, and enlarging the movable object in the plurality of objects based on the available space to obtain an enlarged movable object (Section 3(e) teaches selecting objects from a list to place into a void where the object will fit and iteratively moving objects into voids or available spaces detected. Paragraph 1 teaches multiple operations of moving an object into any void, interior voids, and more. Paragraph 3 also teaches an option of applying one of the operations with “expansion steps between consecutive movements”. The expansion step teaches an enlarged movable object; Section 3(f) Paragraph 1 teaches that the expansion step involves increasing the size of all objects by a constant factor. Thus, if an expansion step is run after moving one of the objects into an available space, that teaches enlarging the first object based on the available space),
and when the movable object is unavailable, determining the target filling result as the repacked filling result (Section 3(e) Paragraph 2 teaches repeating the method of determining a void and object until the object list is empty or until no voids are available to fit the object. This creates a final repacked filling result at the last iteration).
Thus, the limitations are still taught per the mapping above and rejection below. The dependents of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 also stand rejected.
6. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. New citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection and such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Applicant claims “determining availability of a movable object… when the movable object is available… and when the movable object is unavailable” in claims 1, 14, and 20. The Examiner does not see support for determining the availability of a movable object in the specification. The Specification appears to only have support for determining the availability of a first available space. Paragraph 69 in the Specification teaches determining how to select a first target object but does not mention it’s availability. Thus, the claim amendment is new matter.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are also rejected by dependency on claims 1 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
11. Claim(s) 1-2, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Specht ("A Precise Algorithm to Detect Voids in Polydisperse Circle Packings").
12. Regarding claim 1, Specht teaches an object processing method, comprising: placing a plurality of objects into a container according to an initial packing algorithm to obtain an initial filling result of the container(Abstract teaches starting a simulation with an initial random configuration or packing of N circles in a container; Section 3 Paragraph 1 teaches analyzing an existing or initial packing result which teaches that the objects have already been packed in an algorithm according to another packing algorithm),
wherein the objects and the container are two-dimensional polygons (Abstract teaches the objects and containers are circles which are two-dimensional polygons; Section 1 Paragraph 8 teaches that the method detects voids in two-dimensional circle packings which indicates the objects are two-dimensional polygons; Section 3(a) and Figure 2 teach the objects are two-dimensional circles and the container is also a two-dimensional circle);
and obtaining, by processing circuitry, a repacked filing result of the container based on performing one or more iterations of an adjustment operation (Section 3(e) Paragraph 2 teaches “repeat until one list is empty or no void is available anymore”. This teaches repeating the method of determining a void and object to place into the void until the object list is empty or until no voids are available. This creates and obtains a repacked filling result when an object is moved into a void), each iteration of the adjustment operation including:
determining an available space in the container based on a target filing result for the respective iteration that is the initial filling result for a first iteration or a previously updated filling result from a previous iteration for a second or subsequent iteration (Section 3(b) and Section 3(c) teaches detecting voids through a contact graph based on an initial packing result. The claim recites “or” so the prior art does not need to teach a previously updated filling result from a previous iteration);
determining availability of a movable object from the plurality of objects based on the available space, the movable object occupying a space smaller than the available space (Section 3(e) teaches selecting objects from a list to place into a void where the object will fit. This teaches determining availability of a movable object based on the available space. The occupied space can be interpreted as the movable object’s size. If the movable object is small enough to fit into the void then the movable object occupies a space smaller than the available space. For example, Figure 7 shows through the un-numbered circles the maximum radius of a circle that could fit in the available space or void which does not fill the entire space available space. Thus, the movable object will have a smaller space than the available space);
when the movable object is available, obtaining an updated filling result for the respective iteration based on moving the movable object to the available space, and enlarging the movable object in the plurality of objects based on the available space to obtain an enlarged movable object (Section 3(e) teaches selecting objects from a list to place into a void where the object will fit and iteratively moving objects into voids or available spaces detected. Paragraph 1 teaches multiple operations of moving an object into any void, interior voids, and more. Paragraph 3 also teaches an option of applying one of the operations with “expansion steps between consecutive movements”. The expansion step teaches an enlarged movable object; Section 3(f) Paragraph 1 teaches that the expansion step involves increasing the size of all objects by a constant factor. Thus, if an expansion step is run after moving one of the objects into an available space, that teaches enlarging the first object based on the available space);
and when the movable object is unavailable, determining the target filling result as the repacked filling result (Section 3(e) Paragraph 2 teaches repeating the method of determining a void and object until the object list is empty or until no voids are available to fit the object. This creates a final repacked filling result at the last iteration).
13. Regarding claim 2, Specht teaches the limitations of claim 1. Specht also teaches the method wherein, for an iteration of the adjustment operation, the determining the available space in the container based on the target filling result comprises: obtaining outer boundary information of the plurality of objects (Section 3(a) Paragraph 1 and 2 teaches detecting contact pairs between the objects. This can be considered the outer boundary information of the objects as it detects whether its boundary is in contact with another object or container circle. Paragraphs 3-4 also teach a contact graph from the contact pairs, as seen in Figure 2, which can also be considered as part of the outer boundary information of the objects);
determining a complementary space of the outer boundary information of the plurality of objects relative to the container based on the target filling result (Section 3(b) teaches detecting the holes or complementary space outside of the already placed circles using the outer boundary information or contact graph. Figure 5(c) teaches the hole structure or complementary space detected and numbered in the initial filling result; Section 3(e) then teaches detecting the voids where another circle or object could fit as seen in Figure 7 where the voids are the un-numbered circles);
determining a Voronoi diagram of the complementary space; obtaining Voronoi segments in the Voronoi diagram (Section 3(a) and Figure 2(a) teaches creating a contact graph which can be considered a Voronoi diagram as it separates the complementary space into regions. The region boundaries can be considered the Voronoi segments. The Applicant does not clarify how the Voronoi diagram is creating for the complementary space so under broadest reasonable interpretation, the contact graph can be said to be a diagram in which the regions formed by the contact graph are the regions closest to the complementary space);
determining Voronoi bounding boxes corresponding to the Voronoi segments (Section 3(a) and Figure 2(a) teaches creating a contact graph which can be considered a Voronoi diagram as it separates the complementary space into regions. The region boundaries can be considered the Voronoi segments and the enclosed region a Voronoi bounding box);
and determining a Voronoi bounding box with a largest area as the first available space in the container (Section 3(e) Paragraph 2 teaches when λ is the 1 to take the largest available void to place an object into. The Voronoi bounding boxes or regions detected in Figure 5 are used to detect the voids between objects as explained in Section 3(c). The detected voids can be seen in Figure 7. The circle void with the largest area, which are in one of the bounding boxes in Figure 5, are used as an available space to move an object into. The Voronoi bounding box which has the largest void can be considered the Voronoi bounding box which the largest area, the area being the void’s size. This is then done iteratively over the list of objects and available voids until the list is empty or no void is available anymore).
14. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is the object processing apparatus claim (Specht Section 4 teaches running the method on a Intel Xeon core which is processing circuitry) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
15. Regarding claim 15, Specht teaches the limitations of claim 14. Specht also teaches the apparatus wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, for an iteration of the adjustment operation: obtain outer boundary information of the plurality of objects (Section 3(a) Paragraph 1 and 2 teaches detecting contact pairs between the objects. This can be considered the outer boundary information of the objects as it detects whether its boundary is in contact with another object or container circle. Paragraphs 3-4 also teach a contact graph from the contact pairs, as seen in Figure 2, which can also be considered as part of the outer boundary information of the objects);
determine a complementary space of the outer boundary information of the plurality of objects relative to the container based on the target filling result (Section 3(b) teaches detecting the holes or complementary space outside of the already placed circles using the outer boundary information or contact graph. Figure 5(c) teaches the hole structure or complementary space detected and numbered in the initial filling result; Section 3(e) then teaches detecting the voids where another circle or object could fit as seen in Figure 7 where the voids are the un-numbered circles);
determine a Voronoi diagram of the complementary space; obtain Voronoi segments in the Voronoi diagram (Section 3(a) and Figure 2(a) teaches creating a contact graph which can be considered a Voronoi diagram as it separates the complementary space into regions. The region boundaries can be considered the Voronoi segments. The Applicant does not clarify how the Voronoi diagram is creating for the complementary space so under broadest reasonable interpretation, the contact graph can be said to be a diagram in which the regions formed by the contact graph are the regions closest to the complementary space);
determine Voronoi bounding boxes corresponding to the Voronoi segments (Section 3(a) and Figure 2(a) teaches creating a contact graph which can be considered a Voronoi diagram as it separates the complementary space into regions. The region boundaries can be considered the Voronoi segments and the enclosed region a Voronoi bounding box);
and determine a Voronoi bounding box with a largest area as the first available space in the container (Section 3(e) Paragraph 2 teaches when λ is the 1 to take the largest available void to place an object into. The Voronoi bounding boxes or regions detected in Figure 5 are used to detect the voids between objects as explained in Section 3(c). The detected voids can be seen in Figure 7. The circle void with the largest area, which are in one of the bounding boxes in Figure 5, are used as an available space to move an object into. The Voronoi bounding box which has the largest void can be considered the Voronoi bounding box which the largest area, the area being the void’s size. This is then done iteratively over the list of objects and available voids until the list is empty or no void is available anymore).
16. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim (Specht Section 4 teaches running the method on a Intel Xeon core and 324 GB of memory which is processing circuitry running with a memory or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
18. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Specht ("A Precise Algorithm to Detect Voids in Polydisperse Circle Packings") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rocha ("Robust NFP Generation for Nesting Problems”) and Kwant et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0137674 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kwant.
Regarding claim 12, Specht teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Specht fails to teach the method further comprising, for the iteration of the adjustment operation: obtaining information of holes of an ith object of the plurality of objects, i = 1, 2, ..., N, N being a total number of objects in the plurality of objects, and N being an integer greater than 1; selecting a reference point from an outer boundary of a jth object of the plurality of objects; determining whether the reference point is located in a hole of the ith object, j = 1, 2, ..., N, and i being not equal to j; when the reference point is located in the hole of the ith object, determining that the ith object includes the jth object, and updating inclusion relationship information of the ith object and the jth object; and when the reference point is not located in the hole of the ith object, determining that the ith object does not include the jth object.
Rocha teaches wherein the method further comprising, for the iteration of the adjustment operation: obtaining information of holes of an ith object of the plurality of objects, i = 1, 2, ..., N, N being a total number of objects in the plurality of objects, and N being an integer greater than 1 (Page 4, Paragraph 1 teaches that it is known to detect placement positions within holes of stationary pieces. Detecting placement positions within holes means knowing information of holes in an object; Section 3.2 teaches an NFP algorithm which detects intersections between two polygons or NFP components. The process outlines the NFP and also identifies a hole in the component as taught in Figure 11(b)’s description; Section 3.3 Algorithm 2 teaches detecting a hole within an object on line 10);
selecting a reference point from an outer boundary of a jth object of the plurality of objects; determining whether the reference point is located in a hole of the ith object, j = 1, 2, ..., N, and i being not equal to j (Section 3.3 and Algorithm 1 and 2 teach computing the intersections between two components. It also teaches determining perfect fit locations for one of the NFP components to be within the hole, taught by Algorithm 2, line 10. The returned information from Algorithm 2 on line 12 can be considered the inclusion relationship which has information on the holes and perfect fits for one of the components to fit within another component. For example, Figure 8 teaches two components A and B and Figures 11-12 teach detecting the intersections which also includes a perfect fit location);
when the reference point is located in the hole of the ith object, determining that the ith object includes the jth object, and updating inclusion relationship information of the ith object and the jth object; and when the reference point is not located in the hole of the ith object, determining that the ith object does not include the jth object (Section 3.3 and Algorithm 1 and 2 teach computing the intersections between two components A and B. It also teaches determining perfect fit locations for an object to be within a hole of another as seen in Algorithm 2, line 10. The return from Algorithm 2 can be considered the inclusion relationship information that has information one whether an ith object can include a jth object through the perfect fit detection).
Specht and Rocha are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of solving packing problems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of generating a repacked container taught by Specht with the detection of holes and inclusion relationship information taught by Rocha in order to efficiently pack objects insides containers without overlaps (Rocha Abstract).
However, Specht and Rocha are not relied upon for the below claim language: and when the reference point is not located in the hole of the ith object, determining that the ith object does not include the jth object.
Kwant teaches when the reference point is located in the hole of the ith object, determining that the ith object includes the jth object, and updating inclusion relationship information of the ith object and the jth object; and when the reference point is not located in the hole of the ith object, determining that the ith object does not include the jth object (Paragraph 76 and Figure 3B teaches keeping track of the edges and points of a polygon. There exists a geographic database that stores information of holes and whether a second polygon is located inside the first polygon or not. The database and list teaches an inclusion relationship information which teaches whether a polygon is inside or not inside a hole of another polygon).
Specht and Rocha are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of solving packing problems. Kwant is considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of analyzing polygons and detecting intersections. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of generating a repacked container taught by Specht in view of Rocha with the inclusion relationship information taught by Kwant in order to reduce computational resources and time in determining polygons that overlap with other polygons (Kwant Paragraph 2) and store a representation of a polygon for easy access.
19. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Specht ("A Precise Algorithm to Detect Voids in Polydisperse Circle Packings") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raffman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0050337 A1), hereinafter referred to as Raffman.
Regarding claim 13, Specht teaches the limitation of claim 1. However, Specht fails to teach the method further comprising, for the iteration of the adjustment operation: obtaining segments included in an ith object of the plurality of objects and lengths of the segments; determining a target segment based on endpoint information of the segments, a first coordinate difference between two endpoints of the target segment in a horizontal direction being less than a difference threshold, or a second coordinate difference between the two endpoints of the target segment in a vertical direction being less than the difference threshold; determining a first total length of the ith object based on the lengths of the segments; determining a second total length of the ith object based on a length of the target segment; and when a ratio of the second total length to the first total length is greater than a preset ratio threshold, determining that attitude information of the ith object based on the target segment.
Raffman teaches the method further comprising, for the iteration of the adjustment operation: obtaining segments included in an ith object of the plurality of objects and lengths of the segments (Paragraph 1 teaches a list of objects to be placed in a region. It teaches the objects have an aspect ratio and size. This means the length and width of the object is known which means the segments included which make up the object and their lengths are known for each object; Paragraph 36 and Figure 3 Step 316 teach checking if objects can fit in the remaining space of the region. This inherently includes knowing the size of the object which means knowing the length of the object’s segments);
determining a target segment based on endpoint information of the segments, a first coordinate difference between two endpoints of the target segment in a horizontal direction being less than a difference threshold, or a second coordinate difference between the two endpoints of the target segment in a vertical direction being less than the difference threshold (Paragraph 36 and Figure 3, Step 312 checks whether an object placed would extend past the bottom of the container. Thus, this can be considered checking that the vertical difference is less than a threshold to make sure the object fits. Step 316 also teaches checking if another object can fit in a remaining space. Thus, this can be determining whether the vertical difference or horizontal difference of the object is less than a threshold in order to fit in the region. The vertical or horizontal difference can be considered the target segment);
determining a first total length of the ith object based on the lengths of the segments; determining a second total length of the ith object based on a length of the target segment (Paragraph 36 and Step 316 teach checking if an object fits in a bounding region. The vertical length of the object can be considered the first total length which is based on the height segment of the object and the horizontal length of the object can be considered the second total length which is based on the width segment of the object. The width segment of the object can be considered the target segment);
and when a ratio of the second total length to the first total length is greater than a ratio threshold, determining that attitude information of the ith object based on the target segment (Paragraph 36 and Step 316 teach checking if an object fits in a bounding region. This can be considered ensuring that the aspect ratio, or ratio between the height and width, of the object is enough to fit in the open space. Paragraph 40 also teaches looking ahead for objects that will fit the current span or available space. If the object cannot fit even with the resizing option taught in Paragraph 44, the aspect ratio can be considered to be greater than the aspect ratio of the available space. The available space ratio can be considered the ratio threshold. The aspect ratio of the object can also be considered the determined attitude information based on the target segment).
Specht and Raffman are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of solving packing problems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of iteratively generating a repacked container taught by Specht with the determining of an attitude taught by Raffman in order to pack objects in a way that reduces wasted space (Raffman Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 3-11 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner has further searched the prior art and has not discovered any prior art which fully teaches claim(s) 3 and 16. The closest prior art discovered is Specht ("A Precise Algorithm to Detect Voids in Polydisperse Circle Packings") as applied to claim 1 and 14 above. Specht teaches the method wherein, for an iteration of the adjustment operation, determining the availability of the movable object from the plurality of objects comprises: determining attitude information of a Voronoi bounding box corresponding to the first available space (Section 3(e) teaches that voids can be boundary or interior voids. This can be considered the attitude information of the bounding box that encompasses the void); and when the attitude information of the Voronoi bounding box indicates a first attitude, and the plurality of objects includes at least one first object in the first attitude, determining a first set of bounding boxes, including a bounding box for each first object (Section 3(e) teaches finding a suitable destination for an object such that “the largest available void in which the object will fit is taken as the corresponding destination”. The object that fits will have the same attitude as the bounding box and will have the same bounding box as the void. The voids determined are a first set of bounding boxes), determining a first set of scaling ratios, including a scaling ratio corresponding to each bounding box of the first set of bounding boxes based on the Voronoi bounding box (Section 3(d) and Equation 4 teach determining a looseness of the object which depends on the radius of surrounding void which formed from a Voronoi bounding box. The looseness can be considered the scaling ratio which is based on the bounding box. This can be done for all the objects which results in a set of scaling ratios).
However, Specht fails to teach when, from the at least one first object, there is at least one first candidate object having a corresponding candidate bounding box smaller than the Voronoi bounding box and having a corresponding scaling ratio greater than a ratio threshold, determining a candidate object of the at least one first candidate object corresponding to a smallest scaling ratio as the movable object.
None of the prior art references cited above, nor any other prior art discovered by the Examiner, fully teach claim(s) 3 and 16, either singly or in an obvious combination. Therefore, claim(s) 3 and 16 are objected to as allowable over the prior art at least due to their respective dependencies.
Claim(s) 4-11 and 17-19 are also objected to as allowable over the prior art at least due to their respective dependencies.
Conclusion
21. 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.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615