DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 19, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 21, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicant argues that none of the cited prior art teaches calculating weights based on an input reference image. However, Nakagawa teaches generating a grayscale value weight based on a reference image (Paragraph 0057, 0073 – “The quantization process unit 506 compares the grayscale value C1′ of the pixel to be processed received from the image input unit 501 and the threshold Th provided by the threshold obtaining unit 505 and determines print (1) or non-print (0) of a dot for the pixel to be processed. A quantization result output unit 507 outputs information of print (1) or non-print (0) determined by the quantization process unit 506 as the quantized data C1″ for the pixel to be processed…Print of a dot (C1″=1, C2″=1) is set for each of pixels for which a threshold Th satisfying Th<8 is set in the first threshold matrix 75 and the second threshold matrix 76. Meanwhile, non-print of a dot (C1″=0, C2″=0) is set for each of pixels for which a threshold Th satisfying Th<8 is set”; Note: the grayscale weight is generated for a pixel and can be either 1 or 0. The weight is based on an input image, which is a reference image in this case). The applicant states that the calculation of the weights based on the input image in Nakagawa does not occur during the process of determining dot positions. In Nakagawa, while the purpose of the input image is for printing, the grayscale values are extracted from the input image and are used, along with a threshold, to determine a print or non-print weight for the dots, which is interpreted to be the grayscale value weight; the weight determines whether or not the dot will appear in the final output, and thus, this step is part of an overall process to generate a final dot arrangement and positioning. Therefore, Nakagawa teaches calculating weights based on an input reference image in order to determine dot positions.
Secondly, the applicant argues that Jeon does not teach a reference image nor guiding the distribution of dots based on its grayscale value weights, and that Hones does not teach iterative coordinate operations based on image weights. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Nakagawa teaches the reference image and grayscale value weights (Paragraph 0057, 0073 – “The quantization process unit 506 compares the grayscale value C1′ of the pixel to be processed received from the image input unit 501 and the threshold Th provided by the threshold obtaining unit 505 and determines print (1) or non-print (0) of a dot for the pixel to be processed. A quantization result output unit 507 outputs information of print (1) or non-print (0) determined by the quantization process unit 506 as the quantized data C1″ for the pixel to be processed…Print of a dot (C1″=1, C2″=1) is set for each of pixels for which a threshold Th satisfying Th<8 is set in the first threshold matrix 75 and the second threshold matrix 76. Meanwhile, non-print of a dot (C1″=0, C2″=0) is set for each of pixels for which a threshold Th satisfying Th<8 is set”; Note: the grayscale weight is generated for a pixel and can be either 1 or 0. The weight is based on an input image, which is a reference image in this case). Jeon teaches the distribution of dots and iterative coordinate operations (Paragraph 0019, 0022, 0024, 0028 – “Step 3 (S30) is a step for determining whether the point generated in Step 2 (S20) crosses the boundary of the processing area. If the result is 'yes', the process returns to Step 2, and if the result is 'no', the process proceeds to Step 4…As a result of the judgment in step 3 (S30), if the point overlaps the boundary of the processing area, the process returns to step 2 (S20), the center coordinates of the point are randomly regenerated, and step 3 (S30) is repeated…Step 6 (S60) is a step for comparing the number of points with confirmed center coordinates with the number of point patterns set in Step 1 (S10). If the number of points with confirmed center coordinates is less than the number of point patterns set in Step 1 (S10), the process returns to Step 2 (S20). In the second step (S20), the center coordinates of the second point are randomly generated… Steps 2 to 6 (S20, S30, S40, S50, S60) are repeated from the third point to the nth point, and the center coordinates of all points from the first point to the nth point are determined. Here, n represents the number of point patterns set in the first step”; Note: the generation and regeneration of dots based on the determination of the dot location of the initial coordinates, is equivalent to the dot distribution processing. It occurs iteratively and produces random coordinates for the dots. It occurs based on the set number of iterations (equivalent to the set number of dots)). It would have been obvious to combine the features of Jeon and Nakagawa to have the grayscale weight affect the dot distribution processing and iterative coordinate operations because the grayscale may indicate locations where dots should or should not be populated and would help with determining whether a dot is in the boundary. For example, for every randomly generated coordinate, if that location has a grayscale weight of 0, it would indicate that a dot should not be placed there and would require the coordinate operation to restart for that iteration. Therefore, although not the limitation is not taught by each individual reference, the limitation is taught by a combination of references.
Third, in response to applicant's argument that the references, Nakagawa, Jeon, and Hones are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, all the references, Nakagawa, Jeon, and Hones disclose information related to dot patterns, which is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor. For example, Nakagawa discloses printed dot patterns (Abstract – “In order to generate the threshold matrices, a first initial pattern being a dot pattern corresponding to a first grayscale value and a second initial pattern being a dot pattern corresponding to a second grayscale value lower than the first grayscale value are generated for pixel regions of the first and second threshold matrices”), Jeon discloses generating a dot pattern for lenses (Paragraph 0001 – “a method for designing a random dot pattern”), and Hones disclosing designing a dot pattern for lenses (Paragraph 0079 – “the dot pattern can be tailored to reduce (e.g., minimize) light scattered into the user's fovea”). Consequently, the references are analogous to the claimed invention.
Finally, the applicant argues that the features of Jeon and Nakagawa cannot be combined because Jeon generates random floating-point coordinates while Nakagawa requires an integer pixel position under a specific printer resolution. However, Jeon does not explicitly state that the randomly generated coordinates are or must be floating-point. Although Jeon uses the dot pattern in the manufacture of molds, Jeon’s method of generating of the dot pattern in a random yet controlled way can be applied in other circumstances requiring such a dot pattern. Specifically, Jeon does not provide details of which random function is used to generate the coordinates, but random functions dedicated to only integers are well-known and could easily be used when Nakagawa and Jeon are combined to meet Nakagawa’s integer pixel requirement. Thus, it would be possible and reasonable to combine Nakagawa and Jeon.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 20220035577 A1) in view of Jeon et al. (KR 20170142784 A) and Hones et al. (US 20210165244 A1), hereinafter Nakagawa, Jeon, and Hones respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa teaches a method for generating a dot pattern applicable to a computer device, the method for generating a dot pattern comprising (Paragraph 0010, 0201 – “there is provided a threshold matrix generating method of generating a first threshold matrix and a second threshold matrix that is used in an image processing apparatus, comprising a dot pattern generating step of generating a first initial pattern that is a dot pattern corresponding to a first grayscale value and a second initial pattern that is a dot pattern corresponding to a second grayscale value…Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions”):
generating a grayscale value weight based on a reference image (Paragraph 0057, 0073 – “The quantization process unit 506 compares the grayscale value C1′ of the pixel to be processed received from the image input unit 501 and the threshold Th provided by the threshold obtaining unit 505 and determines print (1) or non-print (0) of a dot for the pixel to be processed. A quantization result output unit 507 outputs information of print (1) or non-print (0) determined by the quantization process unit 506 as the quantized data C1″ for the pixel to be processed…Print of a dot (C1″=1, C2″=1) is set for each of pixels for which a threshold Th satisfying Th<8 is set in the first threshold matrix 75 and the second threshold matrix 76. Meanwhile, non-print of a dot (C1″=0, C2″=0) is set for each of pixels for which a threshold Th satisfying Th<8 is set”; Note: the grayscale weight is generated for a pixel and can be either 1 or 0. The weight is based on an input image, which is a reference image in this case);
and generating a dot pattern, wherein the dot pattern comprises the dots (Paragraph 0122 – “a dot pattern obtained by arranging dots for all 256 dot arrangeable pixels is set as the initial pattern 1. Moreover, a dot pattern obtained by arranging dots for K pixels among the 256 dot arrangeable pixels is set as the initial pattern 2”).
Nakagawa does not teach inputting a plurality of conversion parameters including a size range of dots, a total number of the dots, and a number of times of iterative operation; generating a plurality of initial random coordinates corresponding to the plurality of dots through a random operation based on the grayscale value weight, the size range of the dots, and the total number of the dots; and performing dot distribution processing on the dots based on the number of times of iterative operation, the grayscale value weight, and the initial random coordinates to generate a plurality of iterative random coordinates, and generating a dot pattern through the iterative random coordinates.
However, Jeon teaches:
inputting a plurality of conversion parameters including a size of dots, a total number of the dots, and a number of times of iterative operation (Paragraph 0016, 0028 – “first step (S10) of setting the shape, size, and number of dot patterns… Steps 2 to 6 (S20, S30, S40, S50, S60) are repeated from the third point to the nth point, and the center coordinates of all points from the first point to the nth point are determined. Here, n represents the number of point patterns set in the first step (S10)”; Note: the size and number of dots are inputted. The number of iterative operations, which is how many times the steps occur, is equivalent to the set number of dots);
generating a plurality of initial random coordinates corresponding to the plurality of dots through a random operation based on the grayscale value weight, the size of the dots, and the total number of the dots (Paragraph 0019, 0024, 0031 – “the center coordinates of one point are randomly generated. Random functions can be used in this process… If the number of points with confirmed center coordinates is less than the number of point patterns set in Step 1 (S10), the process returns to Step 2 (S20). In the second step (S20), the center coordinates of the second point are randomly generated…the degree of randomness of the dot pattern varies depending on the number of dot patterns set in the first step”; Note: random coordinates are generated for points/dots using a random function. The random operation is based on the number of dots. The grayscale weight was previously taught by Nakagawa in the first part of the rejection, and the size of the dots was previously taught by Jeon in the limitation above. It would have been obvious to also have the grayscale weight and dot size affect the randomness because the grayscale weights and dot sizes may help control the randomness in order to produce a target result. For instance, the size and grayscale weight may help indicate which dots should be located in which general area, or they may help indicate general locations where dots should or should not be populated);
and performing dot distribution processing on the dots based on the number of times of iterative operation, the grayscale value weight, and the initial random coordinates to generate a plurality of iterative random coordinates (Paragraph 0019, 0022, 0024, 0028 – “Step 3 (S30) is a step for determining whether the point generated in Step 2 (S20) crosses the boundary of the processing area. If the result is 'yes', the process returns to Step 2, and if the result is 'no', the process proceeds to Step 4…As a result of the judgment in step 3 (S30), if the point overlaps the boundary of the processing area, the process returns to step 2 (S20), the center coordinates of the point are randomly regenerated, and step 3 (S30) is repeated…Step 6 (S60) is a step for comparing the number of points with confirmed center coordinates with the number of point patterns set in Step 1 (S10). If the number of points with confirmed center coordinates is less than the number of point patterns set in Step 1 (S10), the process returns to Step 2 (S20). In the second step (S20), the center coordinates of the second point are randomly generated… Steps 2 to 6 (S20, S30, S40, S50, S60) are repeated from the third point to the nth point, and the center coordinates of all points from the first point to the nth point are determined. Here, n represents the number of point patterns set in the first step”; Note: the generation and regeneration of dots based on the determination of the dot location of the initial coordinates, is equivalent to the dot distribution processing. It occurs iteratively and produces random coordinates for the dots. It occurs based on the set number of iterations (equivalent to the set number of dots). The grayscale weight was previously taught by Nakagawa in the first part of the rejection. It would have been obvious to also have the grayscale weights affect the dot distribution processing because the grayscale weights may indicate locations where dots should or should not be populated and would help with determining whether a dot is in the boundary),
and generating a dot pattern through the iterative random coordinates (Paragraph 0022, 0024, 0028 – “As a result of the judgment in step 3 (S30), if the point overlaps the boundary of the processing area, the process returns to step 2 (S20), the center coordinates of the point are randomly regenerated, and step 3 (S30) is repeated…Step 6 (S60) is a step for comparing the number of points with confirmed center coordinates with the number of point patterns set in Step 1 (S10). If the number of points with confirmed center coordinates is less than the number of point patterns set in Step 1 (S10), the process returns to Step 2 (S20). In the second step (S20), the center coordinates of the second point are randomly generated… Steps 2 to 6 (S20, S30, S40, S50, S60) are repeated from the third point to the nth point, and the center coordinates of all points from the first point to the nth point are determined”; Note: the point pattern, which is equivalent to a dot pattern, is generated using random coordinates that are iteratively checked).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakagawa to incorporate the teachings of Jeon to input the size, number of dots, and number of iterations so that the “the dot pattern is randomly arranged while the degree of randomness can be quantitatively controlled” (Jeon: Paragraph 0004). In other words, the inputs can be used to control the randomness of the dot pattern, which would help produce a more desirable or consistent output. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakagawa to incorporate the teachings of Jeon to generate initial random coordinates for dots for the benefit of natural visual effects and ease of generation. Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakagawa to incorporate the teachings of Jeon to perform dot distribution processing and generate a dot pattern from iterative random coordinates so that the “the dot pattern is randomly arranged while the degree of randomness can be quantitatively controlled” (Jeon: Paragraph 0004). In other words, while the initial generation of coordinates is random, they may be processed afterwards to have a more controlled and desirable dot pattern.
Furthermore, Nakagawa modified by Jeon still does not teach a “size range of the dots” in the limitations: “inputting a plurality of conversion parameters including a size range of dots, a total number of the dots, and a number of times of iterative operation; generating a plurality of initial random coordinates corresponding to the plurality of dots through a random operation based on the grayscale value weight, the size range of the dots, and the total number of the dots”. However, Hones teaches a size range of the dots (Paragraph 0085 – “For example, the dots can have a dimension (as measured in the x-y plane) in a range from about 0.001 mm or more…to about 1 mm or less”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakagawa to incorporate the teachings of Hones to have a size range of the dots because “dot patterns can be designed based on optimization of a modulation transfer function, which refers to the spatial frequency response of the human visual system. For instance, the size, shape, and spacing of the scattering centers can be varied to smoothen attenuation of a range of spatial frequencies… The aforementioned metrics can be used to evaluate dot patterns based on the size and/or shape of the dots, both of which can be varied as desired” (Hones: Paragraph 0084-0085). In other words, varying the size of the dots is beneficial for spatial frequency. Additionally, it can help depict details better.
Regarding claim 3, Nakagawa in view of Jeon and Hones teaches the method for generating a dot pattern according to claim 1. Nakagawa does not teach wherein the size range of the dots is 0.001-1 mm. However, Hones teaches wherein the size range of the dots is 0.001-1 mm (Paragraph 0085 – “For example, the dots can have a dimension (as measured in the x-y plane) in a range from about 0.001 mm or more…to about 1 mm or less”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakagawa to incorporate the teachings of Hones to have the size range of the dots be between 0.001-1mm because “dot patterns can be designed based on optimization of a modulation transfer function, which refers to the spatial frequency response of the human visual system. For instance, the size, shape, and spacing of the scattering centers can be varied to smoothen attenuation of a range of spatial frequencies… The aforementioned metrics can be used to evaluate dot patterns based on the size and/or shape of the dots, both of which can be varied as desired” (Hones: Paragraph 0084-0085). In other words, varying the size of the dots is beneficial for spatial frequency.
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa in view of Jeon and Hones teaches the method for generating a dot pattern according to claim 1. Nakagawa further teaches wherein the total number of the dots ranges from 10 to 10,000 (Fig. 14, Paragraph 0092 – “A combined dot pattern 1303 is a dot pattern obtained by combining the first dot pattern 1301 and the second dot pattern 1302”; Note: the figure shows a dot pattern with a total number of dots between 10 and 10,000; see screenshot of Fig. 14 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 14 (taken from Nakagawa)
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawa in view of Jeon and Hones teaches the method for generating a dot pattern according to claim 1. Nakagawa does not teach wherein the number of times of iterative operation ranges from 0 to 1,000. However, Jeon teaches wherein the number of times of iterative operation ranges from 0 to 1,000 (Paragraph 0022, 0024, 0028 – “As a result of the judgment in step 3 (S30), if the point overlaps the boundary of the processing area, the process returns to step 2 (S20), the center coordinates of the point are randomly regenerated, and step 3 (S30) is repeated…Step 6 (S60) is a step for comparing the number of points with confirmed center coordinates with the number of point patterns set in Step 1 (S10). If the number of points with confirmed center coordinates is less than the number of point patterns set in Step 1 (S10), the process returns to Step 2 (S20). In the second step (S20), the center coordinates of the second point are randomly generated…Steps 2 to 6 (S20, S30, S40, S50, S60) are repeated from the third point to the nth point, and the center coordinates of all points from the first point to the nth point are determined. Here, n represents the number of point patterns set in the first step (S10)”; Note: the process of properly distributing the dots within the processing area occurs iteratively, and it occurs between 3 to n times. This range has an overlapping portion with the range 0 to 1000, and it would been prima facie obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakagawa to incorporate the teachings of Jeon to perform the iterative operation between the overlapping portion of the ranges because depending on user preferences and the desired output, performing a certain number of operations would help produce the target output dot pattern. Meanwhile, performing an excess of operations would be too time-consuming or redundant, making it important to have a bound on the number of operations. But barely or not performing the operation at all would contradict Jeon’s goal of being able to control the randomness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges, between 3 and 1000.
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa in view of Jeon and Hones teaches the method for generating a dot pattern according to any one of claims 1 and 3-5. Nakagawa further teaches a computer-readable medium storing a program code which is executed by a processing unit (Paragraph 0201 – “The computer executable instructions may be provided to the computer, for example, from a network or the storage medium. The storage medium may include, for example, one or more of a hard disk, a random-access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a storage of distributed computing systems, an optical disk (such as a compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD), or Blu-ray Disc (BD)™), a flash memory device, a memory card, and the like…The computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions”), wherein the program code comprises the method for generating a dot pattern (Paragraph 0010, 0201 – “ there is provided a threshold matrix generating method of generating a first threshold matrix and a second threshold matrix that is used in an image processing apparatus, comprising a dot pattern generating step of generating a first initial pattern that is a dot pattern corresponding to a first grayscale value and a second initial pattern that is a dot pattern corresponding to a second grayscale value…Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s)”).
Claim 2 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Jeon, Hones, and Isaka (DE 4042644 C2), hereinafter Isaka.
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa in view of Jeon and Hones teaches the method for generating a dot pattern according to claim 1. Nakagawa does not teach storing the dot pattern in a vector image format. However, Isaka teaches storing the dot pattern in a vector image format (Paragraph 0023 – “Fig. 5 shows an example in which the letter "A" stored in the form shown in Fig. 3 is converted into the printable dot image, which is stored in the read/write memory 11 by the microprocessor 13. On the other hand, the microprocessor 13 can arbitrarily select the size of the image pattern, which has been converted into the dot pattern shown in Fig. 5.…On the other hand, it is also possible to convert the vector data into the point data and also to save data in advance for a size-appropriate correction of the line width”; Note: the dot pattern image is stored as vector data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakagawa to incorporate the teachings of Isaka to store the dot pattern in a vector image format because vector image formats are generally have better scalability and are easier to edit than raster files.
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa in view of Jeon, Hones, and Isaka teaches the method for generating a dot pattern according to claim 2. Nakagawa further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program code which is executed by a processing unit (Paragraph 0201 – “The computer executable instructions may be provided to the computer, for example, from a network or the storage medium. The storage medium may include, for example, one or more of a hard disk, a random-access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a storage of distributed computing systems, an optical disk (such as a compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD), or Blu-ray Disc (BD)™), a flash memory device, a memory card, and the like…The computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions”), wherein the program code comprises the method for generating a dot pattern (Paragraph 0010, 0201 – “there is provided a threshold matrix generating method of generating a first threshold matrix and a second threshold matrix that is used in an image processing apparatus, comprising a dot pattern generating step of generating a first initial pattern that is a dot pattern corresponding to a first grayscale value and a second initial pattern that is a dot pattern corresponding to a second grayscale value…Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s)”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ide et al. (JP 2003066208 A) teaches a method of generating a dot pattern that is uniform, random, and discrete. Fujii et al. (JP 2011118328 A) teaches a method of generating a dot pattern by filtering a randomly arranged pattern, applying a dithering method, and moving isolated dots.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE HAU MA whose telephone number is (571)272-2187. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571) 270-0728. 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.
/MICHELLE HAU MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617