DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on SUEMATSU, the applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the newly amended limitation “the second detection processing being selectively executed only for radar reception data corresponding to a specific region that is near a detection position of the object and that is on a side of the radar sensor in the detection region” as recited by independent claims 1 and 6. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In light of the above limitation the Applicant argues, “Suematsu, however, does not disclose executing second detection processing that is selectively executed only for radar reception data corresponding to a specific region derived from a prior detection result.” The Applicant is respectfully reminded that It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced MicroDevices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. The above limitation does not recite that the radar reception data must correspond to a specific region derived from a prior detection result. It simply recites that the second detection processing occurs after first detection processing and is selectively executed on data corresponding to a particular region of space. Figure 14 step S407 of SUEMATSU discloses second detection processing occurring after first detection processing .SUEMATSU further discloses on paragraph [0137] “That is, when the position of a person walking indoors is to be detected, radio waves are emitted from an antenna only to a surrounding area of the walking person, and unnecessary reflected waves from a surrounding area other than the walking person are reduced, achieving detection of the position in the area with higher accuracy.” SUEMATSU only preforms second detection processing for radar reception data corresponding to a specific region that is near a detection position of the object and that is on a side of the radar sensor in the detection region. The Examiner maintains the art rejection.
Applicant’s further arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 based on SUEMATSU have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 the applicant states that independent claims 1 and 6 recite patent eligible subject matter, arguing that the claims cannot practically be performed in the mind and the claims recite additional elements that would integrate any judicial exception into the practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant argues that the claims cannot practically be performed in the mind citing that “The claims require processing radar reception data output from a radar sensor and controlling execution of detection processing based on prior detection results and spatial constraints relative to the radar sensor.” In response the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.” MPEP 2106.07(a) explicitly indicates that “comparing collected information to a predefined threshold” recites a mental process. The steps of processing radar reception data and controlling when processing begins simply require a human to use a computer and do not circumvent the fact that claims 1 and 6 recite “comparing collected information to a predefined threshold.” The Examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant states that claims recite additional elements that would integrate any judicial exception into the practical application, arguing “The claims recite a radar detection technique that improves operation of the radar system by limiting execution of high-sensitivity detection processing to a defined region and suppressing execution elsewhere, thereby reducing noise and improving detection reliability. These features restrict the claim scope and reflect an application that improves the performance of a technological system.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” The above purported improvement “limiting execution of high-sensitivity detection processing to a defined region and suppressing execution elsewhere,” is not recited explicitly in the claims. As was previously indicated on page 5 of the non-final rejection filled 1/12/2026, the limitations pertaining to this purported improvement in independent claim 1 are the judicial exceptions. As the above purported improvement is not provided by additional elements it cannot be considered an improvement. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant states that the claims recite an inventive concept and should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. In support of this position the Applicant cites Ex parte Desjardins for support, suggesting that the claims must recite an inventive concept as they “improve the operation of a radar detection system by reducing unnecessary high-sensitivity processing and suppressing noise, thereby achieving a specific technical benefit.” Explained in greater detail above, the improvement of “reducing unnecessary high-sensitivity processing and suppressing noise” is provided in independent claim 1 by subject matter reciting a judicial exception. The purported improvement is not provided by additional elements, it cannot be considered an improvement. Further, the previously filled 101 rejection indicates that each additional element recites extra-solutionary activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claims. As reevaluated in the rejection below, the Examiner maintains that present additional element recites mere data gathering and notes that this element is both: 1) recited at a high level of generality and 2) well-understood, routine, and conventional as demonstrated by Suematsu in view of Marsh. The Examiner respectfully points to Examples 43 and 46 of the 2019 Guidance as providing similar examples of additional elements recited at a high level of generality, thus not providing an inventive concept. The Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 6, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the phrase “a specific region that is near a detection position of the object.” As claimed the term “near” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The term “near” is a relative term as defined by MPEP 2173.05(b) and renders the claim indefinite. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0033] “a certain region near the detection position of the object and on the side of radar sensor 21 is set as specific region;” however, the examiner cant not find a clear example or teaching that can be used as a measure to explicitly define what the term “near” refers to. It is further noted that there is no explicit indication as to how the “specific region” is determined and provided to the second processing step. For examination purposes phrase will be interpreted to an area around the object.
Claims 2-5 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a detection method. The claim therefore recites a process.
Claim 6 (and its dependents) recites a sensor system. The claim therefore recites a product.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 6 recites,
executing first detection processing on radar reception data output from the radar sensor for detecting presence or absence of an object in a detection region using a first threshold as the threshold
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of comparing data to a threshold in order to detect presence, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
executing second detection processing on the radar reception data for detecting, when an object is detected in the first detection processing, presence or absence of an object using a second threshold having a detection sensitivity higher than a detection sensitivity of the first threshold
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of comparing data to a threshold in order to detect presence, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
suppressing execution of the second detection processing for radar reception data outside the specific region to suppress noise outside of the specific region.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of comparing data to a threshold, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 5 recites,
in the second detection processing, the specific region is determined based on a value obtained by multiplying the relative speed by a predetermined detection period.
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 6 also recites,
the second detection processing being selectively executed only for radar reception data corresponding to a specific region that is near a detection position of the object and that is on a side of the radar sensor in the detection region.
This is a step that merely describes where data is gathered. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 2 recites,
the first threshold is used in the first detection processing so that a torso of a person is detectable as an object
This is a step that merely describes the contents of the data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
the second threshold is used in the second detection processing so that a hand or an arm of the person is detectable as an object
This is a step that merely describes the contents of the data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 3 also recites,
Wherein the first detection processing is executable in a predetermined detection period
Initiating processing in a predetermined time window is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
when an object is detected in the first detection processing, the second detection processing is executed in the specific region in a next predetermined detection period immediately following the predetermined detection period.
This is a step that merely describes where data is gathered. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 4 also recites,
The first detection processing is executable in a predetermined detection period,
Initiating processing in a predetermined time window is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
when an object is detected in the first detection processing, the second detection processing is executed in the specific region within the same predetermined detection period in which the first detection processing is executed.
This is a step that merely describes where data is gathered. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 also recites,
in the first detection processing, a relative speed of the object with respect to the radar sensor is detectable from the detection value when the object is detected
obtaining relative speed data is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 6 also recites,
the second detection processing being selectively executed only for radar reception data corresponding to a specific region that is near a detection position of the object and that is on a side of the radar sensor in the detection region.
This is a step that merely describes where data is gathered. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 2 recites,
the first threshold is used in the first detection processing so that a torso of a person is detectable as an object
This is a step that merely describes the contents of the data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
the second threshold is used in the second detection processing so that a hand or an arm of the person is detectable as an object
This is a step that merely describes the contents of the data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 3 also recites,
Wherein the first detection processing is executable in a predetermined detection period
Initiating processing in a predetermined time window is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
when an object is detected in the first detection processing, the second detection processing is executed in the specific region in a next predetermined detection period immediately following the predetermined detection period.
This is a step that merely describes where data is gathered. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 4 also recites,
The first detection processing is executable in a predetermined detection period,
Initiating processing in a predetermined time window is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
when an object is detected in the first detection processing, the second detection processing is executed in the specific region within the same predetermined detection period in which the first detection processing is executed.
This is a step that merely describes where data is gathered. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 also recites,
in the first detection processing, a relative speed of the object with respect to the radar sensor is detectable from the detection value when the object is detected
obtaining relative speed data is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUEMATSU(US20200158851A1) in view of MARSH(US20210311183A1).
Regarding claim 1, SUEMATSU discloses
A detection method for comparing a detection value of a radar sensor (“a microwave radar system” [0001]) with a threshold to detect an object (“ includes a human detecting sensor” [0003]), the detection method comprising: executing first detection processing on radar reception data output from the radar sensor for detecting presence or absence of an object in a detection region using a first threshold as the threshold (“ the threshold Th0 is used for detection of presence or absence in a room” [0125]); executing second detection processing on the radar reception data for detecting, when an object is detected in the first detection processing, presence or absence of an object using a second threshold (“the variance comparing unit 1006 compares the variance of the amplitudes of the output data with the second threshold. “ [0007]) having a detection sensitivity higher than a detection sensitivity of the first threshold (“the first threshold>the second threshold” [0007]), the second detection processing being selectively executed only for radar reception data corresponding to (“That is, when the position of a person walking indoors is to be detected, radio waves are emitted from an antenna only to a surrounding area of the walking person, and unnecessary reflected waves from a surrounding area other than the walking person are reduced, achieving detection of the position in the area with higher accuracy” [0137]) a specific region that is near a detection position of the object and that is on a side of the radar sensor in the detection region (“since the operation area of the human detecting sensor 913 is narrow, multiple human detecting sensors 913 need to be installed for detection in a wide area.” [0013]) […].
SUEMATSU does not appear to explicitly suppress the execution of the second detection processing for data outside a specific region. MARSH discloses, suppressing execution of the second detection processing for radar reception data outside the specific region to suppress noise outside of the specific region (“ if the at least one sensor data filtering condition specifies at least one region where sensor data is desired, then the communication device 505 can filter out sensor data that is outside of the at least one region at 530” [0145])
MARSH teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar data processing. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of MARSH to incorporate the feature of suppressing the execution of the second detection processing for data outside a specific region so as to gain the advantage of reducing processing overhead [0147, MARSH]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, SUEMATSU as modified by MARSH discloses
The detection method according to wherein the first threshold is used in the first detection processing so that a torso of a person is detectable as an object (“Specifically, the thresholds Th1 to Th3 are set as follows. An average adult having a height of 170 cm and a breadth of their shoulders of 50 cm passes through the 6-m point, the 3-m point, and the 1-m point repeatedly” [01245] & FIG.7b, Part 9), and the second threshold is used in the second detection processing so that a hand or an arm of the person is detectable as an object (“ a hand motion in the sitting position […] may be sensed” [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, SUEMATSU as modified by MARSH discloses
The detection method according to Claim 1,wherein the first detection processing is executable in predetermined detection period (“The determination unit 153 calculates the frequency of use and the distribution of the reference thresholds Ri in each time period” [0205]), and when an object is detected in the first detection processing (FIG.14, Step. s406), the second detection processing is executed in the specific region in a next predetermined detection period immediately following the predetermined detection period. (FIG.14, Step. s407)
Regarding claim 5, SUEMATSU as modified by MARSH discloses
The detection method according to claim 1 wherein, in the first detection processing, a relative speed of the object with respect to the radar sensor is detectable from the detection value when the object is detected (“Reflected waves Mr obtained through the reflection contain the Doppler frequency and the Doppler phase which are produced as the Doppler shift corresponding to a body motion” [0055]), and in the second detection processing, the specific region is determined based on a value obtained by multiplying the relative speed by the predetermined detection period (“The time interval Tav is adjusted appropriately by using the highest speed and the detection distance interval of the pass point” [0109]).
Regarding claim 6, SUEMATSU discloses
A sensor system for comparing a detection value of a radar sensor (“a microwave radar system” [0001]) with a threshold to detect an object (“ includes a human detecting sensor” [0003]), the sensor system comprising processing circuitry configured to: execute first detection processing on radar reception data output from the radar sensor for detecting presence or absence of an object in a detection region using a first threshold as the threshold (“ the threshold Th0 is used for detection of presence or absence in a room” [0125]); and execute second detection processing on the radar reception data for detecting, when an object is detected in the first detection processing, presence or absence of an object using a second threshold (“the variance comparing unit 1006 compares the variance of the amplitudes of the output data with the second threshold. “ [0007]) having a detection sensitivity higher than a detection sensitivity of the first threshold (“the first threshold>the second threshold” [0007]), the second detection processing being selectively executed only for radar reception data corresponding to (“That is, when the position of a person walking indoors is to be detected, radio waves are emitted from an antenna only to a surrounding area of the walking person, and unnecessary reflected waves from a surrounding area other than the walking person are reduced, achieving detection of the position in the area with higher accuracy” [0137])a specific region that is near a detection position of the object and that is on a side of the radar sensor in the detection region (“since the operation area of the human detecting sensor 913 is narrow, multiple human detecting sensors 913 need to be installed for detection in a wide area.” [0013]) […].
SUEMATSU does not appear to explicitly suppress the execution of the second detection processing for data outside a specific region. MARSH discloses, suppressing execution of the second detection processing for radar reception data outside the specific region to suppress noise outside of the specific region (“ if the at least one sensor data filtering condition specifies at least one region where sensor data is desired, then the communication device 505 can filter out sensor data that is outside of the at least one region at 530” [0145]).
MARSH teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar data processing. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of MARSH to incorporate the feature of suppressing the execution of the second detection processing for data outside a specific region so as to gain the advantage of reducing processing overhead [0147, MARSH]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUEMATSU(US20200158851A1) modified by MARSH(US20210311183A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang(US20160245911).
Regarding claim 4, SUEMATSU as modified by MARSH discloses wherein, detection processing is executable in each predetermined detection period (“The determination unit 153 calculates the frequency of use and the distribution of the reference thresholds Ri in each time period” [0205]),
SUEMATSU as modified by MARSH does not appear to explicitly disclose preforming a second detection in the same detection period as the first detection. Wang discloses, when an object is detected in the first detection processing, the second detection processing is executed in the specific region in the same detection period (FIG.12, Step.1202).
Wang teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar presence detection. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify SUEMATSU as modified by MARSH with the teachings of Wang to incorporate the of preforming a second detection in the same detection period as the first detection so as to gain the advantage of improving object detection [0061, Wang]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Devries(US9678559B1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [Col.9, ll.26-28]] “The electronic device may be configured to detect, at a desired confidence level (e.g., 95%), human presence within a threshold period of time.”
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights