DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 9th March, 2026. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 16-19 have been added. Claims 1-19 remain rejected in the application. Applicant's amendments to the drawings and specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 13th November, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 10 filed on 9th March, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, regarding that the prior art does not teach the limitation(s): "displaying a graphic user interface (GUI) for receiving a user input for setting a value for determining a shape of at least one area included in the die model", "obtaining second shape information for determining a shape of the at least one area included in the die model by receiving, through the GUI, a first user input for setting the value of the at least one area", and "based on the first shape information and the second shape information, obtaining the die model comprising the at least one area having the set value by the first user input" have been fully considered, but are moot because of new grounds for rejection. It has now been taught by the combination of Rohaly and Frysh.
Regarding arguments to Claims 2-9 and 11-19, they directly/indirectly depend on independent Claims 1 and 10 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than independent Claims 1 and 10. The limitations in those claims, in conjunction with combination, was previously established as explained.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohaly et al. (US 20110050848 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Rohaly, in view of Frysh et al. (US 20050142517 A1), hereinafter referenced as Frysh.
Regarding Claim 1, Rohaly discloses an intraoral image processing method (Rohaly, [0044]: teaches a method for addressing the identification, refinement, and other manipulation of margins for dental restorations based upon 3D digital data captured from an intraoral scan) comprising:
obtaining scan data with respect to an intraoral cavity comprising teeth (Rohaly, [0044]: teaches refining 3D animation models acquired from scans <read on scan data> of physical dental objects; [0049]: teaches dental objects including intraoral structures <read on intraoral cavity> such as dentition, and more typically human dentition, such as individual teeth);
obtaining, from the scan data, first shape information of an object tooth of the teeth (Rohaly, [0054]: teaches using scanner 102 to acquire surface data of intraoral surface 106 <read on scan data>, where the acquisition process includes capturing a point cloud <read on first shape information of object tooth> of said surface; Note: it should be noted that "first shape information" is being interpreted as the original 3D point cloud model prior to any modification),
the object tooth corresponding to a die model (Rohaly, [0065]: teaches acquiring a scan of a dental model <read on die model>);
displaying a graphic user interface (GUI) for receiving a user input [[for setting a value for determining a shape of at least one area included in the die model]] (Rohaly, [0099]: teaches a user interface 800 <read on GUI> that provides tools for specifying <read on received user input> various ditching parameters <read on setting value> (depth, amount of material removal, etc.));
obtaining second shape information for determining a shape of the at least one area included in the die model by receiving, through the GUI, a first user input [[for setting the value of the at least one area]] (Rohaly, [0099]: teaches user interface 800 <read on GUI> providing tools for specifying <read on received first user input> various ditching parameters (depth, amount of material removal, etc.) <read on obtaining second shape information> and for inspecting the resulting ditched die <read on determining shape of model>); and
based on the first shape information and the second shape information, obtaining the die model [[comprising the at least one area having the set value by the first user input]] (Rohaly, [0067]: teaches a rapid fabrication facility 216 using articulation data 218 <read on second shape information> and the original digital model of the tooth <read on first shape information> to generate one or more dental objects, such as one or more dies 222 <read on obtaining model>; Note: it should be noted that articulation data is used for fabricating physical models from digital models, which involves adjusted/modified shape information of the tooth/teeth).
However, Rohaly does not expressly disclose
displaying a graphic user interface (GUI) for receiving a user input for setting a value for determining a shape of at least one area included in the die model;
obtaining second shape information for determining a shape of the at least one area included in the die model by receiving, through the GUI, a first user input for setting the value of the at least one area; and
based on the first shape information and the second shape information, obtaining the die model comprising the at least one area having the set value by the first user input.
Frysh discloses
displaying a graphic user interface (GUI) for receiving a user input for setting a value for determining a shape of at least one area included in the die model (Frysh, [0037]: teaches a user utilizing a user interface 160 <read on GUI> to direct an imaging system 140 to modify the surface <read on area in die model> of the 3D image 110 <read on die model> obtained, where "modifications to the size <read on setting value> of the upper portion of the three dimensional image 110 may be made by means of a user interface element <read on user input> in the user interface 160 (such as a slider or other similar control) which allows for the user to selectively and interactively change the size <read on determining shape of area> of the three-dimensional root model");
obtaining second shape information for determining a shape of the at least one area included in the die model by receiving, through the GUI, a first user input for setting the value of the at least one area (Frysh, [0037]: teaches utilizing user interface 160 <read on GUI> through a user interface element <read on first user input> to modify portions/areas <read on setting value of area> of the three-dimensional image 110, such as changing the size to the upper portion); and
based on the first shape information and the second shape information, obtaining the die model comprising the at least one area having the set value by the first user input (Frysh, [0037]: teaches utilizing user interface 160 through a user interface element <read on first user input> to modify portions/areas <read on set value of area> of the three-dimensional image 110; [0086]: teaches data associated with the three-dimensional image is used to form a model of the tooth <read on obtaining die model> for use as a dental implant using milling techniques).
Frysh is analogous art with respect to Rohaly because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely modifying teeth data through a GUI. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the user to modify portions of the 3D tooth image, such as size and shape as taught by Frysh into the teaching of Rohaly. The suggestion for doing so would allow for the height of the abutment to be determined for accurate milling/printing of the die model portions, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Frysh with Rohaly.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in an intraoral image processing device. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Rohaly discloses an intraoral image processing device (Rohaly, [0057]: teaches computer 108 being a processing device <read on intraoral image processing device>) comprising:
a display (Rohaly, [0060]: teaches display 110);
a memory storing one or more instructions (Rohaly, [0087]: teaches storing computer executable code <read on instructions> in memory); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory to (Rohaly, [0087]: teaches microprocessors being configured to process computer executable code <read on instructions> stored in memory):…
Thus, Claim 10 is met by Rohaly according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the intraoral image processing method corresponds to an intraoral image processing device.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method of Claim 1. Additionally, Rohaly further discloses wherein the obtaining of the first shape information of the object tooth comprises
obtaining boundary points of the object tooth, based on the scan data (Rohaly, [0054]: teaches using scanner 102 to acquire surface data of intraoral surface 106 <read on scan data>, where the acquisition process includes capturing a point cloud <read on boundary points of object tooth> of said surface).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method and an intraoral image processing device of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. Additionally, Rohaly further discloses wherein the obtaining of the second shape information for determining the shape of the die model comprises:
displaying a user interface for setting the second shape information (Rohaly, [0099]: teaches user interface 800 being displayed for handling digital models of teeth, where UI 800 provides tools for specifying various ditching parameters (depth, amount of material removal, etc.) <read on second shape information>); and
obtaining the second shape information by receiving a user input for setting the second shape information via the user interface (Rohaly, [0099]: teaches user interface 800 providing tools for specifying various ditching parameters (depth, amount of material removal, etc.) <read on obtaining second shape information from user input> and for inspecting the resulting ditched die).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method and the intraoral image processing device of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. Additionally, Rohaly further discloses wherein the die model comprises
a margin line area generated by extending a margin line of the object tooth in a lengthwise direction of the die model (Rohaly, [0109]: teaches joining/adjusting <read on extending> a group of points to form some or all of a margin to create a smoother margin line based on curvature analysis, where a closed loop can be formed <read on generated margin line area>; FIG. 7 teaches margin line 704 being generated with respect to the lengthwise direction of model 702 <read on die model of object tooth>).
PNG
media_image1.png
188
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method and the intraoral image processing device of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. Additionally, Rohaly further discloses wherein the die model comprises
a body area having a tapered shape in which a width of the body area decreases from an upper portion toward a lower portion of the body area (Rohaly, FIG. 9 teaches a cross-sectional view of a tooth surface model, where the width decreases from the top portion to the bottom portion <read on tapered shape>).
PNG
media_image2.png
157
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method of Claim 5. Additionally, Rohaly further discloses wherein the die model further comprises
a trimming area positioned at a lower portion of the margin line area and inwardly concave from the margin line area (Rohaly, FIG. 8 teaches a ditching process below the defined margin line 802 <read on lower portion>, where the area <read on trimming area> is inwardly concave).
PNG
media_image3.png
214
251
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method of Claim 1. Rohaly does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 16; however, Frysh discloses
displaying updated shape of the die model in real time based on the set value of the at least one area of the die model (Frysh, [0047]: teaches the user designing a prosthesis, such as a crown, to be attached to the dental implant (i.e., an abutment), where "once the particular shape <read on updated shape> and size of the dental crown are designed by the user through interaction at user interface 160 <read on displayed shape in real time>, a temporary crown formed from a composite block or similar suitable material (inserted at production device 170) may be milled for engagement with a formed dental implant"; [0047]: further teaches a portion of the dental implant 130 <read on area of die model> being made slightly larger than the corresponding portion of the imaged tooth 120 to provide enhanced stability of the implant inserted into the tooth socket; Note: it should be noted that it is common in the art for user interfaces to display previews in real time).
Frysh is analogous art with respect to Rohaly because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely modifying teeth data through a GUI. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the user to modify portions of the 3D tooth image, such as size and shape as taught by Frysh into the teaching of Rohaly. The suggestion for doing so would allow for the height of the abutment to be determined for accurate milling/printing of the die model portions, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Frysh with Rohaly.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method of Claim 1. Rohaly does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 18; however, Frysh discloses
obtaining the second shape information by receiving, through the GUI, a second user input for setting information of a height of a pin of the die model (Frysh, [0044]: teaches a user inputting data <read on second user input> at user interface 160 <read on GUI> to adjust data <read on setting information> associated with the shape of the tooth image 110, where "the height of the abutment 138 <read on height of pin> may be determined according to the space required to place a crown"), wherein
the obtaining of the die model comprises obtaining the die model comprising the pin having the height according to the information of the height of the pin (Frysh, [0044]: teaches forming an abutment to be milled for a generated tooth model <read on die model>, where "the height of the abutment 138 may be determined <read on height information of pin> according to the space required to place a crown").
Frysh is analogous art with respect to Rohaly because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely modifying teeth data through a GUI. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the user to modify portions of the 3D tooth image, such as size and shape as taught by Frysh into the teaching of Rohaly. The suggestion for doing so would allow for the height of the abutment to be determined for accurate milling/printing of the die model portions, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Frysh with Rohaly.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method of Claim 1. Additionally, Rohaly further discloses
obtaining the second shape information by receiving, through the GUI, a third user input for setting length information of a margin line area of the die model (Rohaly, [0092]: teaches a user interface <read on GUI> presenting a 3D rendering of a specified die <read on die model> and providing graphical tools for marking points along an intended margin within the user interface, where the tool permits the selection and de-selection of points <read on third user input> that can be joined or removed <read on setting length information> from the margin line), wherein
the obtaining of the die model comprises obtaining the die model comprising the margin line area extending a margin line of the object tooth in a lengthwise direction of the die model and having a length according to the information of the margin line area (Rohaly, [0109]: teaches joining/adjusting <read on extending> a group of points to form some or all of a margin to create a smoother margin line based on curvature analysis, where a closed loop can be formed <read on generated margin line area>; FIG. 7 teaches margin line 704 being generated with respect to the lengthwise direction of model 702 <read on die model of object tooth>), and
a body area extending from the margin line area (Rohaly, FIG. 9 teaches a cross-sectional view of a tooth surface model, where the width increases <read on body area extending from margin line area> from line 906 and above).
Claims 4, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohaly et al. (US 20110050848 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Rohaly, in view of Frysh et al. (US 20050142517 A1), hereinafter referenced as Frysh as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above respectively, and further in view of Giasson et al. (US 20110196524 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Giasson.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses intraoral image processing method and the intraoral image processing device of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. Additionally, Rohaly further discloses
[[displaying the die model so that at least a portion of the die model is positioned in a base, wherein]]
the second shape information is determined based on at least one oflength information of a margin line area of the die model (Rohaly, [0114]: teaches updating display of points and/or margin lines in the user interface, which are used to identify high curvature areas <read on length information of margin line area>),
inner depth information of a trimming area of the die model (Rohaly, [0099]: teaches user interface 800 providing tools for specifying various ditching parameters, such as the depth <read on inner depth information of trimming area> and the amount of material removed from the virtual die model),
[[whether or not the die model has a pin,]]
[[a height of a pin of the die model,]]
[[a gap between the die model and the base, and]]
[[a direction of the die model.]]
However, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh does not expressly disclose
displaying the die model so that at least a portion of the die model is positioned in a base, wherein
the second shape information is determined based on at least one ofwhether or not the die model has a pin,
a height of a pin of the die model,
a gap between the die model and the base, and
a direction of the die model.
Giasson discloses
displaying the die model so that at least a portion of the die model is positioned in a base (Giasson, FIG. 6 teaches model <read on die model> 200 including base plate 230 <read on die model being positioned in base>), wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
309
388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the second shape information is determined based on at least one ofwhether or not the die model has a pin (Giasson, [0054]: teaches the structure of die 300 may continue in pin 320; Note: it should be noted that it is being interpreted that a pin is optional),
a height of a pin of the die model (Giasson, [0054]: teaches a minimum height of a pin as shown in FIG. 9),
PNG
media_image5.png
353
346
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a gap between the die model and the base (Giasson, [0054]: teaches the height of pin 320 being relatively short such that it does not extend to the top of model 200 and the die hole 340 may not extend to base plate 230 <read on gap between die model and base>), and
a direction of the die model (Giasson, [0054]: teaches orienting the steering part 310 with respect to a draw line <read on direction of die model>).
Giasson is analogous art with respect to Rohaly, in view of Frysh because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely scanning teeth for intraoral operations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to define a tooth die model from a virtual model as taught by Giasson into the teaching of Rohaly, in view of Frysh. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to create a physical tooth die model based on modified configurations of the virtual model, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Giasson with Rohaly, in view of Frysh.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method of Claim 1. Additionally, Rohaly further discloses wherein the second shape information obtained by the first user input comprises
[[information of a gap between the die model and a base, and wherein]]
the obtaining of the die model comprisingbased on the first shape information and the second shape information, obtaining the die model [[having the gap apart from the base according to the information of the gap]] (Rohaly, [0067]: teaches a rapid fabrication facility 216 using articulation data 218 <read on second shape information> and the original digital model of the tooth <read on first shape information> to generate one or more dental objects, such as one or more dies 222 <read on obtaining model>).
However, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh does not expressly disclose
information of a gap between the die model and a base, and wherein
the obtaining of the die model comprisingbased on the first shape information and the second shape information, obtaining the die model having the gap apart from the base according to the information of the gap.
Giasson discloses
information of a gap between the die model and a base (Giasson, [0049]: teaches creating a base of a working model 200, where the minimum distance <read on gap information between die model and base> between the cut line 210 and base plate 230 is approximately 0.5 mm), and wherein
the obtaining of the die model comprisingbased on the first shape information and the second shape information, obtaining the die model having the gap apart from the base according to the information of the gap (Giasson, [0049]: teaches a minimum distance <read on gap information> between the cut line 210 and base plate 230; FIG. 14 teaches creating a physical model of the die <read on obtaining die model>, which corresponds to the virtual image of the tooth model).
PNG
media_image6.png
512
392
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Giasson is analogous art with respect to Rohaly, in view of Frysh because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely scanning teeth for intraoral operations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to define a tooth die model from a virtual model by creating a base of a working model as taught by Giasson into the teaching of Rohaly, in view of Frysh. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to create a physical tooth die model based on modified configurations of the virtual model whilst accommodating for spatial distance between the working model and its base, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Giasson with Rohaly, in view of Frysh.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohaly et al. (US 20110050848 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Rohaly, in view of Frysh et al. (US 20050142517 A1), hereinafter referenced as Frysh as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above respectively, and further in view of Pavlovskaia et al. (US 20020177108 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Pavlovskaia.
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, the combination of Rohaly and Frysh discloses the intraoral image processing method and the intraoral image processing device of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Rohaly and Frysh does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 8 and 15; however, Pavlovskaia discloses wherein the obtaining of the die model, based on the first shape information and the second shape information, comprises:
obtaining a first polyline that is apart by a first length from a boundary of the object tooth (Pavlovskaia, FIG. 6 teaches a set of points on rim 304 <read on obtaining first polyline>, which forms the gingival curve, which is separate from the boundary of the tooth model);
PNG
media_image7.png
501
334
media_image7.png
Greyscale
obtaining a second polyline including second points, based on first points included in the first polyline (Pavlovskaia, FIG. 6 teaches a set of crown control points 308 <read on second points> that define the upper part of a cutter <read on obtaining second polyline>, which are based on the surface points of the model, which includes the points <read on first points> on rim 304 <read on first polyline>); and
obtaining a bottom line that is apart from the second polyline (Pavlovskaia, FIG. 6 teaches root control points that forms a boundary <read on obtaining bottom line> around the root of the tooth model).
Pavlovskaia is analogous art with respect to Rohaly, in view of Frysh because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely scanning teeth for intraoral operations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set control points for a cutter as taught by Pavlovskaia into the teaching of Rohaly, in view of Frysh. The suggestion for doing so would allow for precise ditching operations on a tooth die model, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pavlovskaia with Rohaly, in view of Frysh.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohaly et al. (US 20110050848 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Rohaly, in view of Frysh et al. (US 20050142517 A1), hereinafter referenced as Frysh, and further in view of Pavlovskaia et al. (US 20020177108 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Pavlovskaia as applied to Claim 8 above respectively, and further in view of Giasson et al. (US 20110196524 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Giasson.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Rohaly, Frysh, and Pavlovskaia discloses the intraoral image processing method of Claim 8. The combination of Rohaly, Frysh, and Pavlovskaia does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 9; however, Giasson discloses wherein
a pin positioned at a lower portion of the die model is provided (Giasson, FIG. 9 teaches the structure of die 300 continuing in pin 320, which starts at the bottom <read on lower portion> of die 300), and
the obtaining of the die model, based on the first shape information and the second shape information, comprises:obtaining a top line of the pin, removed from the bottom line by a certain width in a width direction of the die model (Giasson, [0050]: teaches finish line 500 <read on top line of pin> being used as segmentation line 360 when defining die 300 by extending the segmentation line 360 into base plate 230; [0056]: teaches die 300 including ditch 301, which is an offset below segmentation line 360 <read on certain width in width direction of die model>);
obtaining the bottom line of the pin, apart from the top line of the pin by a height of the pin in a direction opposite to a lengthwise direction of the die model (Giasson, [0055]: teaches the apical end of pin 330 <read on obtaining bottom line of pin>, where the apical end <read on height of pin in direction opposite to lengthwise direction of die model> is flush with the top surface of base plate 230); and
obtaining the die model, based on the top line of the pin and the bottom line of the pin (Giasson, FIG. 14 teaches making a physical model of the die that corresponds to the virtual image <read on based on top and bottom lines of pin>).
Giasson is analogous art with respect to the combination of Rohaly, Rohaly, and Pavlovskaia because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely scanning teeth for intraoral operations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement segmentation lines for defining the virtual tooth die model as taught by Giasson into the combined teaching of Rohaly, Rohaly, and Pavlovskaia. The suggestion for doing so would allow for more precise ditching and modification prior to generating the physical tooth die model, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Giasson with the combination of Rohaly, Rohaly, and Pavlovskaia.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Durbin et al. (US 20040133293 A1) discloses modifying a digital dental model taken within an oral cavity;
Fisker et al. (US 20150202024 A1) discloses a user interface for creating a virtual positioning jig for manufacturing a positioning jig for teeth;
Kim et al. (US 20050019723 A1) discloses a fixing pin for a model teeth die that connects the model teeth die to a model base;
Kopelman et al. (US 20180271619 A1) discloses an intraoral image that uses stumps as abutments during teeth preparation;
Marshall et al. (US 20230035538 A1) discloses a GUI that allows a user to modify digital denture teeth;
Pimenov et al. (US 20200155274 A1) discloses analyzing a patient's dental arches and obtaining gap information of teeth; and
Steingart et al. (US 20090248184 A1) discloses a digital dentistry system that generates highly organic shapes of teeth, where users are allowed to intuitively modify these shapes.
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 KARL TRUONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM - 7:30 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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. 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.
/K.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights