DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 11/13/2025.
Claims 37, 40-42 and 44-58 are pending in the case.
Claims 38, 39, 43 and 59 have been cancelled.
No further claims have been added.
Claim 37 is the only independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 37, 44-45 and 57-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiger et al. (US 8,314,790 B1, issued 11/20/2012, hereinafter “Zeiger”) in view of tamingthedroid.com (“Show touches”, available 08/31/2016, hereinafter “Taming the Droid”), further in view of Walker et al. (US 2004/0119747 A1, published 06/24/2004, hereinafter “Walker”), further in view of Chen et al. (US 5,588,098, issued 12/24/1996, hereinafter “Chen”), further in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0147794 A1, published 06/13/2013, hereinafter “Lee”) and further in view of Lukis (US 2007/0206030 A1, published 09/06/2007, hereinafter “Lukis”).
Independent Claim 37:
Zeiger discloses a method comprising:
accessing a three-dimensional (3D) model of an object with a visualization tool including a touchscreen, the 3D model comprising a plurality of components (The user can access a 3D model of a human body via a 3D enhanced web browser (visualization tool) on a client device, Zeiger: Figs. 3 and 4A, column 9 lines 34-59. The user can interact with the browser via a touchscreen, Zeiger: column 7 lines 25-32, column 8 lines 61-63 and column 9 lines 3-7. The 3D model is made up of a plurality of components, Zeiger: Figs. 4A-4B, column 9 lines 60-67 and column 10 lines 1-13.);
displaying, via the touchscreen, an image of a subset of the components, wherein the subset of the components includes each one of the components of the 3D model with a transparency of less than 100% (The user can select a portion of the 3D model, wherein the selected portion is centered and zoomed into and the remaining unselected portions are made invisible (100% transparency), Zeiger: column 14 lines 34-67 and column 15 lines 1-3.);
generating a bounding box with the subset of the components contained within the bounding box (A bounding box is generated around the selection, Zeiger: column 15 lines 34-43.),
detecting a first contact based input at the touchscreen (The user can provide input via a touchscreen, Zeiger: column 7 lines 28-32 and column 9 lines 3-11);
responsive to the first contact based input, rotating the subset of the components about a center of rotation (The user can provide input to rotate the displayed portion of the 3D model, Zeiger: column 10 lines 8-24, column 15 lines 34-39. The input device can be a touchscreen, Zeiger: column 7 lines 28-32 and column 9 lines 3-11).
Zeiger does not appear to expressly teach a method comprising:
wherein:
the bounding box is a virtual rectangular prism;
outer boundaries of the rectangular prism are defined by outermost edges of outermost components in the subset of the components,
the virtual rectangular prism includes a center of rotation;
displaying, via the touchscreen, an icon representing a location of the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism, wherein the icon is displayed at the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism;
detecting movement of the first contact based input along the touchscreen, wherein a first icon tracks the movement of the first contact based input, the first icon representing a location on the touchscreen of the first contact based input;
wherein the rotating is responsive to the detected movement and is about the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism.
However, Taming the Droid teaches a method comprising:
detecting movement of the first contact based input along the touchscreen, wherein a first icon tracks the movement of the first contact based input, the first icon representing a location on the touchscreen of the first contact based input (The dots will show the user’s touch inputs, including dragging operations, Taming the droid: page 2.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zeiger to comprise:
detecting movement of the first contact based input along the touchscreen, wherein a first icon tracks the movement of the first contact based input, the first icon representing a location on the touchscreen of the first contact based input, as taught by Taming the Droid.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide useful features for better assisting the user in providing demonstrations or lectures (Taming the Droid: page 2; Zeiger: column 17 lines 5-10.).
Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein:
the bounding box is a rectangular prism;
outer boundaries of the rectangular prism are defined by outermost edges of outermost components in the subset of the components,
the rectangular prism includes a center of rotation;
the rotating is responsive to the detected movement and is about the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism; and
an icon representing a location of the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism, is displayed, via the touchscreen, wherein the icon is displayed at the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism;
However, Chen teaches a method wherein:
the bounding box is a virtual rectangular prism (Chen: Fig. 3, column 5 lines 30-40);
the virtual rectangular prism includes a center of rotation (Chen: Figs. 3 and 4, column 5 lines 40-46, column 8 lines 34-48, column 15 lines 59-67 and column 16 lines 1-10.); and
the rotating is responsive to the detected movement and is about the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism (The rotation is responsive to a dragging input and the rotation is about the center of ration of the rectangular prism, Chen: Fig. 4, column 8 lines 34-48. The input device can be a touch screen, Chen: column 5 lines 26-40.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid wherein:
the bounding box is a virtual rectangular prism;
the virtual rectangular prism includes a center of rotation;
the rotating is responsive to the detected movement and is about the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism, as taught by Chen.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for the user to interact with the three-dimensional object (Chen: column 7 lines 15-51.).
Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid and further in view of Chen does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein:
outer boundaries of the virtual rectangular prism are defined by outermost edges of outermost components in the subset of the components; and
an icon representing a location of the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism, is displayed, via the touchscreen, wherein the icon is displayed at the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism.
However, Lee teaches a method wherein outer boundaries of the virtual rectangular prism are defined by outermost edges of outermost components in the subset of the components (Lee: Figs. 3 and 8, ¶ [0041].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid and further in view of Chen wherein outer boundaries of the rectangular prism are defined by outermost edges of outermost components in the subset of the components, as taught by Lee.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to more effectively encapsulate the object with the rectangular prism (Lee: Fig. 8, ¶ [0041].).
Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen and further in view of Lee does not teach a method comprising:
displaying, via the touchscreen, an icon representing a location of the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism, wherein the icon is displayed at the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism.
However, Lukis teaches a method comprising:
displaying, via the screen, an icon representing a location of the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism, wherein the icon is displayed at the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism (The orientation globe can be in the shape of a box (virtual rectangular prism) and can have a center of rotation, Lukis: ¶ [0022]-[0023]. The center of rotation is indicated by a center of rotation symbol 30 (icon), Lukis: Fig. 4, ¶ [0034].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen and further in view of Lee to comprise:
displaying, via the screen, an icon representing a location of the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism, wherein the icon is displayed at the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism, as taught by Lukis.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a clearer indication of how an object is to be rotated using the virtual rectangular prism (Lukis: Fig. 4, ¶ [0022]-[0023], [0034].).
In implementing the center of rotation icon of Lukis into the invention of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen and further in view of Lee, the screen on which the center of rotation icon is displayed (as taught by Lukis) would correspond to a touchscreen since the virtual rectangular prism is displayed on a touchscreen in the invention of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen and further in view of Lee. Accordingly, in combination, Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis teaches a method comprising:
displaying, via the touchscreen, an icon representing a location of the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism, wherein the icon is displayed at the center of rotation of the virtual rectangular prism.
Claim 44:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis further teaches a method further comprising displaying, via the touchscreen, an updated image of the subset of the components based on the rotating the subset of the components (The user can provide input to rotate the displayed portion of the 3D model, Zeiger: column 10 lines 8-24, column 15 lines 34-39. The input device can be a touchscreen, Zeiger: column 7 lines 28-32 and column 9 lines 3-11. The image of the object is updated when the rotation operation is performed, Chen: Fig. 7, column 16 lines 52-67 and column 17 lines 1-12.).
Claim 45:
The rejection of claim 44 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis further teaches a method wherein in the updated image the subset of the components is at a different rotational orientation than a rotational orientation of the subset of the components in the image of the subset of the components (The user can provide input to rotate the displayed portion of the 3D model, Zeiger: column 10 lines 8-24, column 15 lines 34-39. The input device can be a touchscreen, Zeiger: column 7 lines 28-32 and column 9 lines 3-11. The image of the object is updated to a new rotational orientation when the rotation operation is performed, Chen: Fig. 7, column 16 lines 52-67 and column 17 lines 1-12.).
Claim 57:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis wherein a direction of the rotating is based on a direction that the detected movement of the first contact-based input along the touchscreen (The rotation is in the direction of the dragging input, Chen: Fig. 4, column 6 lines 13-29, column 8 lines 34-48 and column 11 lines 1-6. The input device can be a touch screen, Chen: column 5 lines 26-40.).
Claim 58:
The rejection of claim 57 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis wherein the direction of the rotating is about at least one of X, Y, and Z Cartesian axes (Chen: Fig. 4, column 8 lines 34-48).
Claim(s) 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee, further in view of Lukis and further in view of Hansen (US 2015/0199105 A1, published 07/16/2015, hereinafter “Hansen”).
Claim 40:
Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis does not appear to expressly teach a method further comprising changing the center of rotation when at least one component in the subset of the components changes due to a transparency of one or more of the components being changed from being less than 100% to being equal to 100% or being changed from being equal to 100% to being less than 100%, and a volume of the virtual rectangular prism is changed due to the change in a number of components in the subset.
However, Hansen teaches a method wherein the center of rotation of a subset is determined by one or more components included in the subset (The user can select a portion of the 3D data (subset), the center of rotation is automatically determined based on the selected data, Hansen: Fig. 4, abstract, ¶ [0007], [0039].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis wherein the center of rotation is determined to be the center of the selection, as taught by Hansen.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an improved visualization interface for displaying data as desired by a user (Hansen: abstract, ¶ [0005].).
In combination, Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Hansen further teaches a method further comprising changing the center of rotation when at least one component in the subset of the components changes due to a transparency of one or more of the components being changed from being less than 100% to being equal to 100% or being changed from being equal to 100% to being less than 100%, and a volume of the virtual rectangular prism is changed due to the change in a number of components in the subset (The user can arbitrarily select and isolate any portion or group of portions of the 3D object, Zeiger: column 15 lines 34-39 and lines 56-67 and column 16 lines 1-3. When an item is included in the selection the item is visible (less than 100% transparency) when the item is excluded from the selection the item is invisible (100% transparency), Zeiger: column 15 lines 45-55. Accordingly, when the user changes the selection, corresponding portions are changing from 100% transparency to less than 100% transparency and vice versa. The center of rotations is determined to be the center of the selection, Hansen: Fig. 4, abstract, ¶ [0007], [0039]. Accordingly, when the user makes a new selection, with a new set of components (as taught by Zeiger) the center of rotation will also be new (as taught by Hansen). The bounding box is generated to surround the selection, Zeiger: column 15 lines 40-43. Accordingly, when the user creates a new selection, with a new set of components, the volume of the bounding box will also be new in order to surround the new set of components. The bounding box can be a rectangular prism, Chen: Fig. 3, column 5 lines 30-40).
Claim 41:
The rejection of claim 40 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Hansen wherein the rotating comprises rotation about at least one of X, Y, and Z Cartesian axes, with the X, Y, and Z Cartesian axes intersecting the center of rotation (Chen: Fig. 4, column 8 lines 34-48).
Claim 42:
The rejection of claim 40 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Hansen further teaches a method further comprising rotating the changed number of the subset of the components about the changed center of rotation in response to the detected movement (The user can arbitrarily select and isolate any portion or group of portions of the 3D object, Zeiger: column 15 lines 34-39 and lines 56-67 and column 16 lines 1-3. The center of rotation is determined to be the center of the selection, Hansen: Fig. 4, abstract, ¶ [0007], [0039]. Accordingly, when the user makes a new selection, with a new set of components (as taught by Zeiger) the center of rotation will also be new (as taught by Hansen). The rotation is executed in response to the movement of the user’s touch input, Chen: Fig. 4, column 5 lines 26-40, column 8 lines 34-48).
Claim(s) 46-53 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee, further in view of Lukis and further in view of Fram et al. (US 9.324.188 B1, published 04/26/2016, hereinafter “Fram”).
Claim 46:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis further teaches a method further comprising:
responsive to a second contact based input, linearly translating the image of the subset of components (The user can provide input to change the position of the current view, Zeiger: Figs. 4A-4B, column 9 lines 60-67 and column 10 line 1. The input device can be a touchscreen, Zeiger: column 7 lines 28-32 and column 9 lines 3-11.).
Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis does not appear to expressly teach a method comprising:
detecting simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input along the touchscreen;
wherein the translating is responsive to the detected simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input.
However, Fram teaches a method comprising:
detecting simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input along the touchscreen (Fram: Fig. 6C, column 9 lines 41-50.);
wherein the translating is responsive to the detected simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input (Fram: Fig. 6C, column 9 lines 41-50.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis to comprise:
detecting simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input along the touchscreen;
wherein the translating is responsive to the detected simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input, as taught by Fram.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for performing a translation operation via touchscreen input device (Fram: Fig. 6C, column 9 lines 41-50.).
Claim 47:
The rejection of claim 46 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Fram further teaches a method wherein the detecting the simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input includes detecting that a distance between the first contact based input and the second contact based input is maintained (The fingers have to move uniformly (distance between first contact and second contact is maintained) in order to perform the translation operation, Fram: Fig. 6C, column 9 lines 41-50.).
Claim 48:
The rejection of claim 46 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis further teaches a method further comprising adjusting a size of the image of the subset of components (The user can provide input to change the zoom level of the current view, Zeiger: Figs. 4A-4B, column 9 lines 60-67 and column 10 line 1.).
Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the size adjustment is in response to the detected simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input.
However, Fram teaches a method wherein the size adjustment is in response to the detected simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input. (Fram: Fig. 6B, column 9 lines 34-50.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis wherein the size adjustment is in response to the detected simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input., as taught by Fram.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for performing a zooming operation via touchscreen input device (Fram: Fig. 6B, column 9 lines 34-50.).
Claim 49:
The rejection of claim 48 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Fram further teaches a method wherein the detecting the simultaneous movement of the first contact based input and the second contact based input includes detecting that a distance between the first contact based input and the second contact based input is increased or decreased (Fram: Fig. 6B, column 9 lines 34-40.).
Claim 50:
The rejection of claim 49 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Fram further teaches a method wherein when the distance between the first contact based input and the second contact based input is increased, the size of the image of the subset of components is increased (Fram: Fig. 6B, column 9 lines 34-40.).
Claim 51:
The rejection of claim 49 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Fram further teaches a method wherein when the distance between the first contact based input and the second contact based input is decreased, the size of the image of the subset of components is decreased (Fram: Fig. 6B, column 9 lines 34-40.).
Claim 52:
The rejection of claim 46 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Fram further teaches a method further comprising:
displaying a second icon on the touchscreen, the second icon representing a location on the touchscreen of the second contact based input (Taming the Droid: page 2; Fram: Figs. 6A-6B, column 9 lines 34-50.).
Claim 53:
The rejection of claim 52 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Fram further teaches a method wherein the second icon tracks the movement of the second contact based input (Taming the Droid: page 2; Fram: Figs. 6A-6B, column 9 lines 34-50.).
Claim 55:
The rejection of claim 52 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Fram further teaches a method wherein a shape of the second icon is the same as a shape of the first icon (Taming the Droid: page 2.).
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee, further in view of Lukis, further in view of Rimon et al. (US 2013/0241832 A1, published 09/19/2013, hereinafter “Rimon”) and further in view of Glazer et al. (US 2012/0218200 A1, published 08/30/2012, hereinafter “Glazer”).
Claim 54:
The rejection of claim 52 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein a shape of the second icon is different than a shape of the first icon.
However, Rimon teaches a method wherein a shape of a second icon is different than a shape of a first icon (A different image can be used for each different cursor, Rimon: Fig. 5, ¶ [0026], [0083]-[0085], [0105]. Although Rimon does not provide examples of the different images that can be used for each cursor, one of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the different images used for cursors. For example, Glazer teaches that a cursor can be a cross, a hand, an arow, a point, or a circle (different shapes), Glazer: ¶ [0185]. One would have been motivated to use this set of images to provide the user with a set of images that are appropriate for a cursor.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis wherein a shape of a second icon is different than a shape of a first icon, as taught by Rimon.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to customize the cursor images according to his or her needs (Rimon: Fig. 5, ¶ [0026], [0083]-[0085], [0105]; Glazer: ¶ [0185].).
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee, further in view of Lukis and further in view of Bharadwaj et al. (US 2016/0038248 A1, published 02/11/2016, hereinafter “Bharadwaj”).
Claim 56:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis does not appear to expressly teaches a method wherein one or more of the plurality of components is an anatomical feature of a patient anatomy.
However, Bharadwaj teaches a method wherein one or more of the plurality of components is an anatomical feature of a patient anatomy (Bharadwaj: Fig. 8, ¶ [0093]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zeiger in view of Taming the Droid, further in view of Chen, further in view of Lee and further in view of Lukis wherein one or more of the plurality of components is an anatomical feature of a patient anatomy, as taught by Bharadwaj.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better assist clinicians in reviewing 3D models of patient anatomical features (Bharadwaj: Fig. 8, ¶ [0093]; Zeiger: column 1 lines 19-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 37 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 37, 40-42 and 44-59 are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights