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 .
Status
This Office Action is responsive to communications and preliminary amendments filed on 30 June 2025; Claims 1 and 7 have been amended, and new claims 13 have been added, and claim(s) 5-6 have been canceled. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-13 is/are pending in the application and have been presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it is determined that claims 1-4 and 7-13 are directed to a system and method.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, claim 1 recites, "A region value evaluation system evaluating a value of a region to which display information to be displayed is allocated, in a virtual space that is used for a display in an information processing device and corresponds to a reality space in a position, the system comprising circuitry configured to: acquire evaluation information including an image of the reality space imaged by an imaging device provided in the information processing device and position information indicating a position in the reality space of the information processing device performing a display using the virtual space, the position of the information processing device being estimated on the basis of the acquired image of the reality space; and perform aggregation based on the acquired evaluation information to evaluate the value of the region on the basis of an aggregation result and also in accordance with whether a location corresponding to the region is included in the acquired image of the reality space, wherein the value of the region is a price of the region or a basis for the price of the region”, the underlined limitations indicate additional elements that are to be further analyzed at Step 2A-2. Claim 13 is similar to claim 1 except for being directed to a method, therefore claim 13 is analyzed similarly as claim 1.
The claim(s) are found to be within the enumerated group(s) of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, specifically as it relates to advertising/marketing or sales activities. The claims appear to be directed to the common business practice of identifying areas of high interest/high visibility for advertising purposes.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the limitations of A region value evaluation system, an information processing device, the system comprising circuitry, an imaging device (claim 1), A method, implemented by circuitry of a region value evaluation system (claim 13), does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application because the claims recite generic computer components performing generic computer functions which amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment.
The Examiner notes that the claims do not positively claim the information processing device or the imaging device but rather just acquiring data from these devices therefore the limitation of, “acquire evaluation information including an image of the reality space imaged by an imaging device provided in the information processing device and position information indicating a position in the reality space of the information processing device performing a display using the virtual space”, appears to just be directed to data gathering.
Similarly, the limitations of, “and perform aggregation based on the acquired evaluation information to evaluate the value of the region on the basis of an aggregation result and also in accordance with whether a location corresponding to the region is included in the acquired image of the reality space”, appears to just be data manipulation/analysis. The claims as a whole are receiving and analyzing data to determine a price for an advertisement region, where the data appears to be imaging data from a device. The image data is not being gathered or analyzed in a way that is unconventional or that would provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-12 are also considered to be encompassed by the abstract idea for indicating – acquiring display status information (claim 2, 11, 12), estimating the value of the region based on a position in the virtual space (claim 3), acquiring display status information include time-series data (claim 4), determining the value of the region based on the position of the region in the image of the reality space (claim 7), determining the value of the region based on time-series data including the length of time (claim 8, 11, 12), and acquiring evaluation information according to time (claim 9), acquiring attribute data of the user (claim 10).
The limitations of the claim(s) does not appear to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field; does not provide any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; does not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; it does not add a specific limitation, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim(s) to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. None of the limitations, considered alone or in an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim(s) is/are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment.
Under Eligibility Step 2B analysis, the claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim includes that, as stated above, it is implemented by a system which employs information processing device is nothing more than “apply it” with instruction to a generic computer. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked to perform the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawaki et al (US 2019/0025586 A1, hereinafter “Sawaki”), in view of Mizuno et al (JP 2020101897 A, hereinafter “Mizuno”), further in view of Christensen et al (US 2015/0058102 A1, hereinafter “Christensen”).
Claim 1. Sawaki discloses, A region value evaluation system evaluating a value of a region to which display information to be displayed is allocated, in a virtual space that is used for a display in an information processing device and corresponds to a reality space in a position, the system comprising circuitry configured to (0001, “an information processing system”, 0034, “an evaluation value of a first region in the virtual space”, 0035, “identify a region of interest (range of interest) of content in the virtual space”, see also, 0051, 0075 head-mounted device):
acquire evaluation information including an image of the reality space imaged by an imaging device provided in the information processing device and position information indicating a position in the reality space of the information processing device performing a display using the virtual space (0077-0079, “the HMD 120 uses the sensor 190 to detect the position and the inclination of the HMD 120”, 0078, “the HMD sensor 410 is implemented by a camera. In at least one aspect, the HMD sensor 410 uses image information of the HMD 120 output from the camera to execute image analysis processing”, 0203, 0249, “evaluation value data is data indicating the evaluation value of each partial region”, 0078, “),
and perform aggregation based on the acquired evaluation information to evaluate the value of the region on the basis of an aggregation result (0249, 0253, 0255-0256, “the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the times T1 and T2 is “0”, the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the times T3 and T4 of the partial region R1 is “+1”, and the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the time T5 is “+3”…the processor 610 specifies the partial region whose total evaluation value is equal to or larger than the threshold value as a region of interest”).
It appears that Sawaki may not explicitly disclose, the position of the information processing device being estimated on the basis of the acquired image of the reality space; and also in accordance with whether a location corresponding to the region is included in the acquired image of the reality space, wherein the value of the region is a price of the region or a basis for the price of the region.
Where Sawaki discloses using image information of the HMD (head-mounted device) to detect the position/inclination of the HMD and determining a value for the region of interest (Sawaki at 0034-0035, and 0078, 0116), Mizuno, further teaches the position of the information processing device being estimated on the basis of the acquired image of the reality space (Mizuno at 0014, “The virtual viewpoint information is relative to a predetermined position such as the center of the stadium where it was photographed… At least angle direction information is included. The virtual viewpoint image is a virtual image obtained when the shooting position, shooting report, and angle of view are assumed from the virtual viewpoint”); and also in accordance with whether a location corresponding to the region is included in the acquired image of the reality space (Mizuno at 0042-0044, “the virtual viewpoint image generation unit 408 determines whether or not the advertisement image is visible from the virtual viewpoint”, see also 0054-0055).
The Examiner finds and understands that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the estimating the position of the information processing device based on the acquired image and determining if a location corresponding to the region is visible in the image as taught by Mizuno with the system and method for determining the value for regions of interest based on a user’s gaze as disclosed by Sawaki in order to identify when a user’s viewpoint image contains an area of interest or an advertisement frame for purposes of displaying an advertisement to the user.
Although Sawaki indicates determining a value for a region of interest and Mizuno teaches charging an advertisement fee based on a virtual viewpoint image and the advertisement display mode, it appears that Sawaki in view of Mizuno may not explicitly disclose, wherein the value of the region is a price of the region or a basis for the price of the region.
Christensen, however teaches wherein the value of the region is a price of the region or a basis for the price of the region (Christensen at 0008, 0143, “the advertising module 216 determines a cost for displaying the advertisement based on the location of the advertisement…The cost may be based on where the users look within a particular piece of virtual reality content, where users general look at virtual reality content”).
The Examiner finds and understands that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings for determining a cost for displaying an advertisement based on the location of the advertisement in a virtual environment as taught by Christensen with the system and method for determining the value for a region of interest and using the region of interest to generate an advertisement as disclosed by Sawaki in view of Mizuno in order to use the value of the region of interest as a basis for charging advertiser fees.
Claim 2. Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen discloses, The region value evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires the evaluation information including display status information indicating a display status using the virtual space in the information processing device, and evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with whether the region is included in the display using the virtual space in the information processing device, which is indicated by the acquired display status information (Sawaki at 0239-0240, “time information may be defined in association with the real time, or may be defined as a period of time that has elapsed since a time at which the 360-degree content transmitted to each of the HMD sets 110A, 110B, and 110C as the virtual space data was started to be played back”, see also 0255-0256).
Claim 3. Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen discloses, The region value evaluation system according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with a position of the region in the display using the virtual space in the information processing device (Sawaki at 0240, Fig. 18, see also 0079, “the HMD 120 uses the sensor 190 to detect the position and the inclination of the HMD 120”, 0203, 0249, “evaluation value data is data indicating the evaluation value of each partial region”).
Claim 4. Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen discloses, The region value evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires the evaluation information including display status information indicating a time-series display status using the virtual space in the information processing device, and evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with a length of a time for which a state set in advance is continued, in a time-series display using the virtual space in the information processing device, which is indicated by the acquired display status information (Sawaki at 0239-0240, “time information may be defined in association with the real time, or may be defined as a period of time that has elapsed since a time at which the 360-degree content transmitted to each of the HMD sets 110A, 110B, and 110C as the virtual space data was started to be played back”, see also 0255-0256, “the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the times T1 and T2 is “0”, the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the times T3 and T4 of the partial region R1 is “+1”, and the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the time T5 is “+3”…the processor 610 specifies the partial region whose total evaluation value is equal to or larger than the threshold value as a region of interest”).
Claim 9. Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen discloses, The region value evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires the evaluation information according to time (Sawaki at 0249, 0253, 0255-0256, “the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the times T1 and T2 is “0”, the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the times T3 and T4 of the partial region R1 is “+1”, and the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the time T5 is “+3”…the processor 610 specifies the partial region whose total evaluation value is equal to or larger than the threshold value as a region of interest”).
Claim 11. Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen discloses, The region value evaluation system according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry acquires the evaluation information including display status information indicating a time-series display status using the virtual space in the information processing device (Sawaki at 0239-0240, “time information may be defined in association with the real time, or may be defined as a period of time that has elapsed since a time at which the 360-degree content transmitted to each of the HMD sets 110A, 110B, and 110C as the virtual space data was started to be played back”, see also 0255-0256, 0259).
and evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with a length of a time for which a state set in advance is continued, in a time-series display using the virtual space in the information processing device, which is indicated by the acquired display status information (Sawaki at 0249, “The evaluation value data is data indicating the evaluation value of each partial region (e.g., partial regions R1 and R3) at each time (e.g., time T1 to time T5). The evaluation value of each partial region includes a total emotion evaluation value, a communication evaluation value, and a total evaluation value obtained by totaling the total emotion evaluation value and the communication evaluation value”, see also 0259).
Claim 13. Sawaki discloses, A method, implemented by circuitry of a region value evaluation system evaluating a value of a region to which display information to be displayed is allocated, in a virtual space that is used for a display in an information processing device and corresponds to a reality space in a position (0001, “an information processing system”, 0034, “an evaluation value of a first region in the virtual space”, 0035, “identify a region of interest (range of interest) of content in the virtual space”, see also, 0051, 0075, head-mounted device), the method comprising:
acquiring evaluation information including an image of the reality space imaged by an imaging device provided in the information processing device and position information indicating a position in the reality space of the information processing device performing a display using the virtual space (0077-0079, “the HMD 120 uses the sensor 190 to detect the position and the inclination of the HMD 120”, 0078, “the HMD sensor 410 is implemented by a camera. In at least one aspect, the HMD sensor 410 uses image information of the HMD 120 output from the camera to execute image analysis processing”, 0203, 0249, “evaluation value data is data indicating the evaluation value of each partial region”, 0078, “),
and performing aggregation based on the acquired evaluation information to evaluate the value of the region on the basis of an aggregation result (0249, 0253, 0255-0256, “the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the times T1 and T2 is “0”, the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the times T3 and T4 of the partial region R1 is “+1”, and the total evaluation value of the partial region R1 at the time T5 is “+3”…the processor 610 specifies the partial region whose total evaluation value is equal to or larger than the threshold value as a region of interest”).
It appears that Sawaki may not explicitly disclose, the position of the information processing device being estimated on the basis of the acquired image of the reality space; and also in accordance with whether a location corresponding to the region is included in the acquired image of the reality space, wherein the value of the region is a price of the region or a basis for the price of the region.
Where Sawaki discloses using image information of the HMD (head-mounted device) to detect the position/inclination of the HMD and determining a value of a region of interest (Sawaki at 0034-0035, and 0078, 0116), Mizuno, further teaches the position of the information processing device being estimated on the basis of the acquired image of the reality space (Mizuno at 0014, “The virtual viewpoint information is relative to a predetermined position such as the center of the stadium where it was photographed…At least angle direction information is included. The virtual viewpoint image is a virtual image obtained when the shooting position, shooting report, and angle of view are assumed from the virtual viewpoint”); and also in accordance with whether a location corresponding to the region is included in the acquired image of the reality space (Mizuno at 0042-0044, “the virtual viewpoint image generation unit 408 determines whether or not the advertisement image is visible from the virtual viewpoint”, see also 0054-0055).
The Examiner finds and understands that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the estimating the position of the information processing device based on the acquired image and determining if a location corresponding to the region is visible in the image as taught by Mizuno with the system and method for determining the value for regions of interest based on a user’s gaze as disclosed by Sawaki in order to identify when a user’s viewpoint image contains an area of interest or an advertisement frame for purposes of displaying an advertisement to the user.
Although Sawaki indicates determining a value for a region of interest and Mizuno teaches charging an advertisement fee based on a virtual viewpoint image and the advertisement display mode, it appears that Sawaki in view of Mizuno may not explicitly disclose, wherein the value of the region is a price of the region or a basis for the price of the region.
Christensen, however teaches wherein the value of the region is a price of the region or a basis for the price of the region (Christensen at 0008, 0143, “the advertising module 216 determines a cost for displaying the advertisement based on the location of the advertisement…The cost may be based on where the users look within a particular piece of virtual reality content, where users general look at virtual reality content”).
The Examiner finds and understands that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings for determining a cost for displaying an advertisement based on the location of the advertisement in a virtual environment as taught by Christensen with the system and method for determining the value for a region of interest and using the region of interest to generate an advertisement as disclosed by Sawaki in view of Mizuno in order to use the value of the region of interest as a basis for charging advertiser fees.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawaki in view of Mizuno, further in view of Christensen, further in view of Mathur et al (US 2019/0272673 A1, hereinafter “Mathur”).
Claim 7. Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen discloses, The region value evaluation system according to claim 1, however it appears that Sawaki may not explicitly disclose, wherein the circuitry evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with a position of the location corresponding to the region in the image of the reality space.
Where Sawaki discloses evaluating the value of a region, Mizuno further teaches wherein the circuitry evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with a position of the location corresponding to the region in the image of the reality space (0014, “the virtual viewpoint information is information indicating a three-dimensional position and an angle (line of sight) of a virtual viewpoint (virtual viewpoint) in a virtual space constructed from a captured image. The virtual viewpoint information is relative to a predetermined position such as the center of the stadium where it was photographed”) - as combined and under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen, further in view of Monti et al (US 11,688,127 B2, hereinafter “Monti”).
Claim 8. Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen discloses, The region value evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires the evaluation information including time-series images of the reality space imaged by an imaging device provided in the information processing device (Sawaki at 0239-0240, “time information may be defined in association with the real time, or may be defined as a period of time that has elapsed since a time at which the 360-degree content transmitted to each of the HMD sets 110A, 110B, and 110C as the virtual space data was started to be played back”, see also 0255-0256, 0259).
However it appears that Sawaki may not explicitly disclose, and evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with a length of a consecutive time for which a state set in advance is continued, in the acquired time-series images of the reality space.
Monti, however teaches and evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with a length of a consecutive time for which a state set in advance is continued, in the acquired time-series images of the reality space (Monti at col 19 lines 40-42, “calculate a value for a region of the virtual environment in dependence upon the respective viewpoints corresponding to the region”, col 19 lines “the selection circuitry 230 is configured to select the region of the virtual environment in dependence upon whether the value for the region exceeds a threshold value for a threshold amount of time”, see also col 11 lines 47-49, “the threshold number of detected portions and/or the predetermined period of time may have a fixed value set in advance”, col 20 lines 9-15).
The Examiner finds and understands that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate or include determining an interest value for the region based on the length of time that spectators view a particular region of the virtual environment as taught by Monti with the system and method for determining the value of a region in a virtual environment for advertising purposes as disclosed by Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen in order to better determine areas of interest based on the amount of time users spend viewing a region.
Claim 10. Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen discloses, The region value evaluation system according to claim 1, however it appears that Sawaki may not explicitly disclose, wherein the circuitry acquires the evaluation information including attribute information indicating attribute of a user of the information processing device.
Monti, however teaches the missing limitations at col 16 lines 65-67, “the input circuitry 210 can be configured to receive spectator data for the plurality of spectators, where the spectator data is indicative of one or more properties associated with a spectator. In some examples, the spectator data for a spectator may comprise user profile data for the spectator indicating one or more properties for the spectator including one or more from the list consisting of: age; gender; location; nationality, spoken language(s); type of display device(s); and/or team affiliation”.
The Examiner finds and understands that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate or include viewer attribute data as taught by Monti with the system and method for determining the value of a region in a virtual environment for advertising purposes as disclosed by Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen in order to better target content to users based on common attributes.
Claim 12. Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen discloses, The region value evaluation system according to claim 3, The region value evaluation system according to wherein the circuitry acquires the evaluation information including display status information indicating a time-series display status using the virtual space in the information processing device (Sawaki at 0239-0240, “time information may be defined in association with the real time, or may be defined as a period of time that has elapsed since a time at which the 360-degree content transmitted to each of the HMD sets 110A, 110B, and 110C as the virtual space data was started to be played back”, see also 0255-0256, 0259).
However it appears that Sawaki may not explicitly disclose, and evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with a length of a time for which a state set in advance is continued, in a time-series display using the virtual space in the information processing device, which is indicated by the acquired display status information.
Monti, however teaches evaluates the value of the region also in accordance with a length of a time for which a state set in advance is continued, in a time-series display using the virtual space in the information processing device, which is indicated by the acquired display status information (Monti at col 19 lines 40-42, “calculate a value for a region of the virtual environment in dependence upon the respective viewpoints corresponding to the region”, col 19 lines “the selection circuitry 230 is configured to select the region of the virtual environment in dependence upon whether the value for the region exceeds a threshold value for a threshold amount of time”, see also col 11 lines 47-49, “the threshold number of detected portions and/or the predetermined period of time may have a fixed value set in advance”, col 20 lines 9-15).
The Examiner finds and understands that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate or include determining an interest value for the region based on the length of time that spectators view a particular region of the virtual environment as taught by Monti with the system and method for determining the value of a region in a virtual environment for advertising purposes as disclosed by Sawaki in view of Mizuno and Christensen in order to better determine areas of interest based on the amount of time users spend viewing a region.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claim(s) do not overcome rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, therefore the Examiner has maintained the rejection.
Amendments to the claim(s) overcome the rejections set forth by the Examiner under 35 USC 103, therefore the Examiner has entered new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and/or are moot, see Response to Arguments below.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the 101 rejection and are not directed to an abstract idea (see Remarks starting on page 6). The arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive. For example the highlighted claim limitation on page 7 of Remarks merely indicates the type of data being gathered and analyzed (image and position data). However, as indicated above at the rejection and reiterated here the claims lack certain technical details. For example, the information processing device and imaging device are not positively claimed. The Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to claim 3 of Example 47, however steps (d)-(f) of Example 47 (claim 3) were considered to reflect the improvement to the technical field by positively reciting the detecting of a malicious source address, dropping the malicious network packets and blocking future traffic from the source address. The current claims are similar to claim 2 of example 47, which is not considered to be eligible. Example 47, claim 2 recites:
[Claim 2] A method of using an artificial neural network (ANN) comprising:
(a) receiving, at a computer, continuous training data;
(b) discretizing, by the computer, the continuous training data to generate input data;
(c) training, by the computer, the ANN based on the input data and a selected training algorithm to generate a trained ANN, wherein the selected training algorithm includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm;
(d) detecting one or more anomalies in a data set using the trained ANN;
(e) analyzing the one or more detected anomalies using the trained ANN to generate
anomaly data; and
(f) outputting the anomaly data from the trained ANN.
The Applicants claims recite receiving and analyzing data to determine a value for a region but does not positively recite any technical improvement. Therefore, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments to be persuasive.
The Applicant’s argument regarding the 102/103 rejection(s) with respect to claim 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
The Applicant relies on the same arguments for depending claims 2-4 and 7-12, therefore the Examiner’s response to the Applicant’s arguments above applies to depending claims 2-4 and 7-12.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELINDA GIERINGER whose telephone number is (408)918-7593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (11AM-6PM ET).
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571)270-7537. 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.
/M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights