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
Received 04/28/2026
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 has/have been amended.
The 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation of claim(s) 1-10 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments received on 04/28/2026.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 04/28/2026 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 04/28/2026
Regarding independent claim(s) 1 and 11:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 9: ¶ 1 and ¶ 3), filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shike (US PGPUB No. 20160321763 A1), in view of Golparvar-Fard et al. (US PGPUB No. 20190325089 A1), and further in view of Koga et al. (US PGPUB No. 20190028676 A1).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 9: ¶ 4 to Page 10, ¶ 1), filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due the dependency upon claims 1 and 11 respectively. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as mentioned above.
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).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike, US PGPUB No. 20160321763 A1, hereinafter Shike, in view of Golparvar-Fard et al., US PGPUB No. 20190325089 A1, hereinafter Golparvar-Fard, and further in view of Koga et al., US PGPUB No. 20190028676 A1, hereinafter Koga.
Regarding claim 1, Shike discloses a display system comprising a processor (Shike; a display system [¶ 0033-0034 and ¶ 0037-0038] comprising a processor [¶ 0068], as illustrated within Fig. 10; moreover, computer system [¶ 0068-0070 and ¶ 0078-0080]),
the processor being configured to:
store three-dimensional data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a first range of a construction site in which a work machine operates (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] being configured to store [¶ 0068 and ¶ 0078-0080] 3D data indicating a 3D shape (corresponding to topography data of an area/region) in a 1st range of a construction site [¶ 0066] in which a work machine operates [¶ 0037-0038 and ¶ 0041]; wherein, construction machine(s) can acquire topography data of the construction site [¶ 0061]; and wherein, the topography data (associated with an area/region) [¶ 0118-0122] is 3D and/or corresponds to 3D imaging [¶ 0105-0106 and ¶ 0108], as illustrated within Figs. 13 and 14) from a three-dimensional sensor that detects the three-dimensional shape of the construction site (Shike; from a 3D sensor that detects the 3D shape of the construction site [¶ 0037-0038 and ¶ 0066]);
acquire detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a second range that is a part of the first range (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] being configured to acquire detection data indicating a 3D shape in a 2nd range that is implicitly a part of the 1st range [¶ 0114-0116 and ¶ 0153-0154]; wherein, the 2nd range is implicitly a part of the 1st range, given that machines and/or soil levels are able to distinguished within the construction site and tracked [¶ 0118-0122]; moreover, a target shape in the construction site [¶ 0038, ¶ 0143, and ¶ 0145]; wherein, design topography data that is part of the topography data [¶ 0117-0120]; in other words, the 1st range corresponds to one topology and the 2nd range corresponds to a another topology within the construction site, as illustrated within Fig. 13, Fig. 14, Fig. 20 and, Fig. 21) from the three-dimensional sensor (Shike; from the three-dimensional sensor [¶ 0037-0038, ¶ 0105, and 0121-0122]);
update the three-dimensional data of the second range including a dynamic range in which a situation of a topography of the construction site changes due to a progress of construction and a dynamic range in which a situation of the work machine changes due to any operation of the work machine, on the basis of the detection data (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] being configured to update (i.e. keeps data current) the 3D data of the 2nd range including (i.e. which includes) a dynamic range in which a situation of a topography of the construction site changes due to a progress of construction (on the basis of the detection data) [¶ 0121-0122] and a dynamic range in which a situation of the work machine changes due to any operation of the work machine (on the basis of the detection data) [¶ 0121-0122 and ¶ 0145]; wherein, indicating a construction range of the construction site and soil amount data indicating the amount of soil cut in the construction range of the amount of filled soil [¶ 0119-0121], as illustrated within Fig. 20 and Fig. 21; moreover, data determinations are a result of working machine data [¶ 0085-0086, ¶ 0123, and ¶ 0126-0127], working performance of the working machine [¶ 0139-0142], volume in relation with construction performance [¶ 0143-0144], and/or drone obtained data [¶ 0037, ¶ 0066, and ¶ 0081]); and
cause a display apparatus to display the second range in which the three dimensional data is updated (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] being configured to cause a display apparatus to display [¶ 0103-0106] the 2nd range in which the 3D data is updated [¶ 0054, ¶ 0062, and ¶ 0143-0145], as illustrated within Figs. 20-21; moreover, updated range and a non-updated range (corresponding soil levels) [¶ 0118-0122], as illustrated within Figs. 13-14; wherein, 3D displaying construction performance data [¶ 0104-0106]).
Shike fails to disclose detection data in a second range that is a part of the first range; and
the first range outside the second range in which the three-dimensional data is non-updated in different display forms.
However, Golparvar-Fard teaches to:
store three-dimensional data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a first range of a construction site in which a work machine operates from a three-dimensional sensor that detects the three-dimensional shape of the construction site (Golparvar-Fard; storing 3D data [¶ 0073-0074] indicating a 3D shape in a 1st range of a construction site in which a work machine operates from a three-dimensional sensor [¶ 0051-0053] that detects the three-dimensional shape of the construction site [¶ 0093-0094]; moreover, BIM [¶ 0054] in relation with tracking changes to a construction site [¶ 0060 and ¶ 0065-0066]);
acquire detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a second range that is a part of the first range from the three-dimensional sensor (Golparvar-Fard; acquiring detection data indicating a 3D shape in a 2nd range that is a part of the 1st range from the 3D sensor [¶ 0095 and ¶ 0098], as illustrated within Fig. 11; moreover, clipped region [id.]; additionally, target images [¶ 0075, ¶ 0077-0078, and ¶ 0081]);
update the three-dimensional data of the second range including a dynamic range in which a situation of a topography of the construction site changes due to a progress of construction and a dynamic range in which a situation of the work machine changes due to any operation of the work machine, on the basis of the detection data (Golparvar-Fard; updating the 3D data of the 2nd range including a dynamic range in which a situation of a topography of the construction site changes due to a progress of construction and a dynamic range in which a situation of the work machine changes due to any operation of the work machine [¶ 0095 and ¶ 0098] on the basis of the detection data [as addressed above]).
cause a display apparatus to display the second range in which the three-dimensional data is updated and the first range outside the second range in which the three-dimensional data is non-updated in different display forms (Golparvar-Fard; causing a display apparatus [¶ 0053-0055] to display the 2nd range (i.e. clipped region of the construction site) in which the 3D data is updated and the 1st range (i.e. construction site) implicitly outside the 2nd range (i.e. clipped region of the construction site) in which the 3D data is non-updated (i.e. not within the clipped region) in different display forms [¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0093, and ¶ 0095], as illustrated within Fig. 11).
Shike and Golparvar-Fard are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with capturing and providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike, to incorporate to: store three-dimensional data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a first range of a construction site in which a work machine operates from a three-dimensional sensor that detects the three-dimensional shape of the construction site; acquire detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a second range that is a part of the first range from the three-dimensional sensor; update the three-dimensional data of the second range including a dynamic range in which a situation of a topography of the construction site changes due to a progress of construction and a dynamic range in which a situation of the work machine changes due to any operation of the work machine, on the basis of the detection data; and cause a display apparatus to display the second range in which the three-dimensional data is updated and the first range outside the second range in which the three-dimensional data is non-updated in different display forms (as taught by Golparvar-Fard), in order to provide an improved productivity in relation with construction site management (Golparvar-Fard; [¶ 0002-0005 and ¶ 0042-0043]).
Shike as modified by Golparvar-Fard fails to disclose the first range outside the second range in which the three-dimensional data is non-updated in different display forms.
However, Koga teaches a detection data acquisition unit that acquires detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a second range that is a part of the first range (Koga; a detection data acquisition unit that acquires detection data indicating a 3D shape in a 2nd range that is a part of the 1st range [¶ 0076-0077 and ¶ 0079-0080], as illustrated within Fig. 4; moreover, one or more work ranges associated with equipment [¶ 0090] and/or people [¶ 0091-0093]); and
causing a display apparatus to display the second range in which the three dimensional data is updated and the first range outside the second range in which the three-dimensional data is non-updated in different display forms (Koga; causing a display apparatus to display the 2nd range in which the 3D data is updated and the 1st range outside the 2nd range in which the 3D data is non-updated in different display forms [¶ 0068-0069, ¶ 0076-0077, and ¶ 0080], as illustrated within Fig. 4; additionally, dividing total cumulative work amounts [¶ 0074-0075]).
Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with capturing and providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Golparvar-Fard, to incorporate a detection data acquisition unit that acquires detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a second range that is a part of the first range; and causing a display apparatus to display the second range in which the three dimensional data is updated and the first range outside the second range in which the three-dimensional data is non-updated in different display forms (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction site management that enhances the secure, safe, and efficiency of a work environment (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the updated range and the non-updated range to be displayed in different colors (Shike; the processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is configured to causes the updated range and the non-updated range [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to be displayed in different colors [¶ 0121-0122], as illustrated within Figs. 13-14; additionally, progress of construction can be depicted [¶ 0143-0144], as illustrated within Figs. 20-21; wherein, 3D displaying construction performance data [¶ 0104-0106]).
Golparvar-Fard further teaches to cause the updated range and the non-updated range to be displayed in different colors (Golparvar-Fard; to cause the updated range and the non-updated range to be displayed in different colors [¶ 0095], as illustrated within Fig. 11; moreover, highlighting or using color or indicate relevant information [¶ 0097-0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Golparvar-Fard and Koga, to incorporate to cause the updated range and the non-updated range to be displayed in different colors (as taught by Golparvar-Fard), in order to provide an improved productivity in relation with construction site management (Golparvar-Fard; [¶ 0002-0005 and ¶ 0042-0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein processor is further configured to cause the updated range to be displayed in a highlighted manner (Shike; the processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is configured to cause the updated range to be displayed in a highlighted manner [¶ 0121]).
Regarding claim 4, Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the detection data includes image data indicating an image of the construction site (Shike; the detection data includes image data indicating an image of the construction site [¶ 0114-0116]; moreover, design topography data that is part of the topography data [¶ 0117-0120] that is outputted [¶ 0153-0154]), and the processor is further configured to:
specify an object in the image (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] is configured to specify an object (i.e. topology, soil cut) in the image [¶ 0119 and ¶ 0121]; additionally, indication of a working capability of a work machine (or working amount of a work machine) [¶ 0085]; moreover, object specifying [¶ 0078 and ¶ 0080-0083]), and cause the specified object to be displayed in a highlighted manner (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] is configured to cause the specified object (i.e. topology, soil cut) to be displayed in a highlighted manner [¶ 0119 and ¶ 0121]).
Regarding claim 6, Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 4, wherein the object includes at least one of a person and the work machine (Koga; the object includes at least one of a person and the work machine [¶ 0076-0077 and ¶ 0081-0083], as illustrated within Fig. 4; moreover, one or more work ranges [¶ 0090-0093], as illustrated within Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Golparvar-Fard and Koga, to incorporate the object includes at least one of a person and the work machine (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction machine and construction site management that make work environment more secure, safe, and efficient (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 8, Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional sensor is disposed on a moving body (Shike; the 3D sensor is disposed on a moving body (i.e. drone) [¶ 0037 and ¶ 0066]; wherein, the topography data is detected by the camera provided on a drone [¶ 0081]).
Regarding claim 9, Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 8, wherein the moving body includes at least one of a flight vehicle and the work machine (Shike; the moving body [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] includes at least one of a flight vehicle (i.e. drone) and the work machine [¶ 0037 and ¶ 0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 8, wherein the processor (Shike; the processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]) is further configured to:
acquire the detection data from a three-dimensional sensor (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] is configured to acquire the detection data [¶ 0066] from a 3D sensor [¶ 0080-0081 and ¶ 0182]; wherein, a done utilizes a camera/sensor [¶ 0037] to acquire current topography data [¶ 0105]), update the three-dimensional data on the basis of the detection data of the three-dimensional sensor (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] is configured to update the 3D data on the basis of the detection data of the 3D sensors [¶ 0037-0039 and ¶ 0105]; wherein, current topography data from camera corresponds to updated 3D data [¶ 0066]), and cause the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for the three-dimensional sensor (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] is configured to cause the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for the 3D sensor [¶ 0121-0122]).
Koga further teaches detection data from each of a plurality of three-dimensional sensors (Koga; detection data from each of a plurality of 3D sensors [¶ 0021-0022 and ¶ 0041-0042]; wherein, aircrafts/drones capture images using cameras [¶ 0076, ¶ 0080, and ¶ 0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Golparvar-Fard and Koga, to incorporate detection data from each of a plurality of three-dimensional sensors (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction machine and construction site management that make work environment more secure, safe, and efficient (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 11 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 11. Although, claim 11 and claim 1 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 11 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 12 is addressed within the rejection of claim 2, due to the similarities claim 12 and claim 2 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 2 regarding the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 13 is addressed within the rejection of claim 3, due to the similarities claim 13 and claim 3 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 3 regarding the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 14 is addressed within the rejection of claim 4, due to the similarities claim 14 and claim 4 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 4 regarding the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 is addressed within the rejection of claim 6, due to the similarities claim 16 and claim 6 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 6 regarding the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 18 is addressed within the rejection of claim 8, due to the similarities claim 18 and claim 8 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 8 regarding the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 19 is addressed within the rejection of claim 9, due to the similarities claim 19 and claim 9 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 9 regarding the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 is addressed within the rejection of claim 10, due to the similarities claim 20 and claim 10 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 10 regarding the rejection of claim 20.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga as applied to claim(s) 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Nishi, US PGPUB No. 20220018096 A1, hereinafter Nishi.
Regarding claim 5, Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to cause a frame surrounding the object to be displayed (Shike; the processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is configured to cause an implicit frame surrounding the object to be displayed [¶ 0145]; wherein, a frame is implicit given the visualization of a construction machine, as illustrated within Fig. 21).
Koga further teaches a frame surrounding the object (Koga; a frame (corresponding to one or more regions of interest) surrounding the machinery is monitored [¶ 0090-0091 and ¶ 0094-0095], as illustrated within Fig. 6; wherein, the object corresponds to an excavator and/or a person [id.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Golparvar-Fard and Koga, to incorporate a frame surrounding the object (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction machine and construction site management that make work environment more secure, safe, and efficient (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Shike as modified by Golparvar-Fard and Koga fails to explicitly disclose a frame to be displayed.
However, Nishi teaches a frame surrounding the object to be displayed (Nishi; a frame surrounding the object to be displayed [¶ 0076 and ¶ 0080], as illustrated within Fig. 6).
Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard, Koga, and Nishi are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with capturing and providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Golparvar-Fard and Koga, to incorporate a frame surrounding the object to be displayed (as taught by Nishi), in order to provide improved safety within environment involving construction machine (Nishi; [¶ 0004-0007]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 15 is addressed within the rejection of claim 5, due to the similarities claim 15 and claim 5 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 15 regarding the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike in with of Golparvar-Fard and Koga as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ladha et al., US PGPUB No. 20180012125 A1, hereinafter Ladha.
Regarding claim 7, Shike in view of Golparvar-Fard and Koga further discloses the display system according claim 1, wherein the processor (Shike; the processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]) is further configured to:
acquire the detection data at each of a plurality of time points (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] is configured to acquire the detection data [¶ 0061, ¶ 0066, and ¶ 0080] at each of an implicit plurality of time points (give image surveying) [¶ 0155-0156]; moreover, rapidly surveyed topography [id.]; additionally, construction period data associated with a progress schedule [¶ 0133 and ¶ 0135], as depicted within Figs. 17 and 18), update the three-dimensional data at each of the plurality of time points (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] is configured to update the 3D data at each of the implicit plurality of time points (given the topographical data is made current based on acquired image data) [¶ 0037-0039 and ¶ 0105]; wherein, current topography data corresponds to updated 3D data [¶ 0061 and ¶ 0066]), and cause the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the plurality of time points (Shike; the processor [as addressed above] is configured to cause the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the implicit plurality of time points (given the visualized topographical data is made current using the acquired image data) [¶ 0121-0122], as illustrated within Fig. 14).
Koga further teaches acquiring the detection data at each of a plurality of time points (Koga; acquiring the detection data at each of a plurality of time points (corresponding to captured images at predetermined time intervals) [¶ 0048 and ¶ 0109]; wherein, differences in topographical data can be realized using data from different time periods; additionally, image data can be stored in chronological order [¶ 0071 and ¶ 0112]), updating the three-dimensional data at each of the plurality of time points (Koga; updating the 3D data at each of the plurality of time points (corresponds to generating the 3D topographical data based on captured images) [¶ 0048 and ¶ 0066-0069]), and causing the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the plurality of time points (Koga; causing the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the plurality of time points [¶ 0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Koga, to incorporate acquiring the detection data at each of a plurality of time points, updating the three-dimensional data at each of the plurality of time points, and causing the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the plurality of time points (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction machine and construction site management that make work environment more secure, safe, and efficient (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Shike as modified by Koga fails to explicitly disclose detection data correlating to a plurality.
However, Ladha teaches a plurality of time points (Ladha; a plurality of time points corresponding to sensor data can be obtained any number of times and at any frequency [¶ 0054]).
Shike in view of Koga and Nishi are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with capturing and providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Ladha, to incorporate a plurality of time points (as taught by Ladha), in order to provide improved efficiency within construction environments wherein installation/assembly errors are timely monitored (Ladha; [¶ 0002 and ¶ 0025]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 17 is addressed within the rejection of claim 7, due to the similarities claim 17 and claim 7 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 17 regarding the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(regarding tracking of a site)
Roh et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220170243 A1); and
Jang et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220405674 A1).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
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 Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5: 00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights