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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-21 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. Claims 1, 12, 18 recite transmitting conversational signals for output “at a user ear and/or a first target person ear.” The recitation of and/or in effect claims three distinct alternatives: output at a user ear, output at a target person ear, or output at an ear of each of the user and target person. While not indefinite on its face the and/or formulation creates scope issues. Essentially, based on ¶ 2 of the instant specification any claimed hearable device is considered a hearing assistive or ear worn device operable to play audio close to or into an ear of a user. In this context the or of and/or creates an inconsistent scope where one of the hearable devices fails to meet a broadly reasonable interpretation of a hearable device. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-11, 13-17, 19-21 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Claim 10 additionally recites a system operable “without requiring visual content in the at least one image to identify the second target person…”—this is considered indefinite as it cannot be discerned if: the transmitting step does use/require visual content; the transmitting step does not contain sufficient visual content to make an identification; the second target is not visible; or the identification of the second target occurs by alternate means. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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 1-5, 7-15, 17-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wexler: 20200296521 hereinafter Wex further in view of Robbins: 20190105114 hereinafter Rob.
Regarding claim 1
Wex teaches:
A computer-implemented method for hearable devices to connect for audio communication (Wex: Abstract; ¶ 8, 37: system determines a look direction of a user based on captured images and conditions an audio signal based thereon for communication of audio among a plurality of wireless devices of a personal network and output of same at a transducer of a hearing aid type device configured to provide sounds to an ear of the user; based on ¶ 2 of the instant specification any claimed hearable device is considered a hearing assistive or ear worn device operable to play audio close to or into an ear of a user), the method performed, comprising:
receiving at least one image of an environment of a user, from an image capture device of the user (Wex: Abstract; ¶ 6, 8, etc.; Fig 4D: hearing aid system in concert with an image capture unit captures images local to a user);
identifying a first target person in the environment by, at least in part, analyzing the at least one image (Wex: ¶ 8, 68, 223, etc.; Fig 20B, 21: such as by operating a facial recognition component upon captured images to recognize, identify, etc. an individual therein);
transmitting a communication to the first target person to connect a first hearable device of the first target person with a user hearable device worn on user (Wex: ¶ 222-224, 250, 587; Figs 5C, 22: such as by using the identification to determine a contact of a recognized individual in the environment as the “facial recognition component 2040 may also access a contact list,” and to thereby initiate contact based thereon such as by conducting operations whereby “ the voice audio signals may be processed by the remotely located device and/or transmitted further” and/or operating an affordance on the display such as to initiate a phone call as the “display may also include other functionality associated with the individual, such as contacting the individual…e.g. by phone“); and by utilizing information of the recognized individual
establishing a first communication connection between the user hearable device and the first hearable device of the first target person (Wex: ¶ 222-224, 250, 587; Figs 5C, 22: such as by the recognized individual accepting and conducting the call, and/or forwarding the call to voicemail),
and transmitting conversational speech signals between the user hearable device and the first hearable device for output of the conversational speech at a user ear and/or a first target person ear (Wex: ¶ 10, 37, etc.: system outputs speech, such as of a conversation, at a user ear and operates to transmit the users conversational speech output such as to a conversation partner).
Wex strongly suggests but does not explicitly discuss the connection dynamics of a hearable device to a hearable device worn on the first target person beyond the suggestion that the user may access a contact list to determine a contact for a recognized individual in the environment and operate the system to initiate a call thereto and that the devices of the system comprise wearable devices such as the disclosed hearing interface devices (Wex: ¶ 8, 37, 222-224, 250, 587; Figs 5C, 22) and as such may not be considered to explicitly teach the recited transmitting a communication to the first target person to connect “a first hearable device worn on the first target person with a user hearable device of the user;” Wex additionally lacks discussion of a communication connection between the two user devices worn on each user and the transmission of speech therebetween. Essentially the Wex system concerns itself with single user operational dynamics but embraces the operational dynamics of the device for engaging in a conversation between users (Wex: ¶ 268; Fig 24).
In a related field of endeavor Rob teaches a system and method for grouping of personal communication nodes of a first and second user (Rob: Abstract) comprising linking of devices of the users in a symmetric architecture of wearable personal communication nodes to form communication, conversation, etc. groups (Rob: ¶ 15, 24) said linking into groups based on user attributes, such as identity, and operable to connect a user hearable device such as a headphone, earpiece, etc. (Rob: ¶ 52, 53, etc.) such as by transmitting a communication to the first target person to connect a first hearable device worn on a first target person with a user hearable device worn on the user (Rob: 18, 20, 29, 42: system analyzes node attributes to t form a group of users, such as by analysis of parameters on the user node and issue of a command directly to the other wearers node); establishing a connection between a user worn device and a first user worn device thereby (Rob: ¶ 17; Fig 1, 2: system establishes direct wireless links between the nodes of two wearers); such that conversational speech is carried between the two wearable devices and transmitted to the ears of the user and target person (Rob: ¶ 21, 52, 47, 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the methods of facial recognition as taught or suggested by Wex with the selectable device to device communication system as taught or suggested by Rob for at least the purpose of creating communication groups by determining, initiating, and conducting communication with conversation partners in the manner taught or suggested by Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising prior to establishing the first communication connection:
outputting a request to the user to confirm the first communication connection with the first target person; and receiving confirmation of the first communication connection from the user, wherein establishing the first communication connection is in response to receiving the confirmation (Wex: ¶ 20, 31: user interaction, feedback, etc. directs configuration processes); (Rob: ¶ 24, etc.: configuration commands routed through user interface for user directed operation of the user node). The claim is considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the first target person by analyzing the at least one image includes:
extracting one or more visual indicators from the at least one image; and matching the one or more visual indicators with stored distinguishing visual characteristics of the first target person in one or more visual identifying techniques including facial recognition, iris recognition, gait recognition, and/or combinations thereof (Wex: ¶ 222, 511; Fig 20: system analyzes acquired image using facial and/or gait recognition). The claim is considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the first target person by analyzing the at least one image includes:
applying an artificial intelligence model trained on stored visual indicator data of known target persons to predict whether a potential target person in the at least one image is the first target person (Wex: 223-225, 374; Fig 20B: facial recognition model trained by mapping faces to identities generates iteratively improved identity prediction based on faces detected in image data; “the determination of whether the at least one individual is a recognized individual may be based on one or more facial features associated with the at least one individual that are detected based on analysis of the at least one of the plurality of images,”). The claim is considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the first target person further includes:
receiving an identifier associated with the first hearable device (Wex: ¶ 227, 228, 371: system determines a user face, voiceprint, or other identification parameters, features, etc.); (Rob: ¶ 17-19: nodes identified based on attributes thereof such as identity wherein communication among nodes occurs with respect to Bluetooth type wireless links which manage attribute, identifier, etc. changes based thereon and are broadcast by devices in a Bluetooth network) and matching the identifier with a stored identifier (Wex: ¶ 227, 228, 371: system compares determined identifiers with identifiers stored and determines a match, such as to identify a user). Wex in view of Rob does not explicitly teach determining and matching a broadcast identifier however, Examiner takes official notice that matching of broadcast identifiers was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of conducting processing on emitted beacons to determine particular users and thereby engage in configuration of a communication session therewith. The claim is thus considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the first target person further includes: receiving speech from the first target person; and matching one or more distinguishing audio characteristics of the speech with stored voice features associated with the first target person (Wex: ¶ 222, 227; Fig 20b: such as by determining an individual’s identity based on voice recognition). The claim is thus considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the first target person further includes: tracking an eye gaze of the user from the at least one eye image (Wex: ¶ 121, 200: system operates by conducting tracked eye movement; various features may be used to track gaze including user’s eyes); and determining the eye gaze is in a direction of the first target person (Wex: ¶ 441: system captures an image based on the gaze of a user to determine a communication partner in the captured image). While Wex in view of Rod does not explicitly teach the gaze tracking conducted by receiving at least one eye image of the user captured by one or more inward facing capture sensors of the image capture device, Examiner has taken official notice which Applicant has failed to timely and explicitly traverse and it is thus accepted as Admitted Prior Art (APA: please see MPEP 2144.03) that gaze detection by performance of eye tracking would have comprised an obvious inclusion for conducting gaze tracking and user identification based thereon. The claim is thus considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining the first target person is a member of a group that includes a second target person in the environment (Wex: ¶ 14, 417; Fig 28: system determines one or more members of a group of individuals by identifying members of the group); (Rob: ¶ 4, 14, 2, 21: system tracks group membership status such that group members maintain member status, and connection dynamics of a communication session); based on determining the group, transmitting a request to the second target person to connect a second hearable device of the second target person with the user hearable device of the user (Wex: ¶ 224, 250, 487, 587; Figs 5C, 22: such as by choosing to communicate such as by contacting a second individual in the group); (Rob: ¶ 4, 14, 20, 21: based on determined group membership system transmits communication commands to each/any user of the group thereby bring first, second, etc. user communication nodes into the session); and establishing a second communication connection between the user hearable device and the second hearable device of the second target person (Wex: ¶ 224, 250, 587; Figs 5C, 22: such as by the second member accepting and conducting the call, and/or forwarding the call to voicemail); (Rob: ¶ 4, 14, 20, 21: such as for connection of groupwise communication between a plurality of nodes thereby). The claim is thus considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein visual content in the at least one image is insufficient to identify the second target person in the environment of the user (Wex: ¶ 591: system attempts to identify a user by facial recognition based on visual characteristics or based on visual and audible characteristics); and wherein the transmitting of the request to the second target person is without requiring visual content (Wex: ¶ 591: such as based on audible characteristics) (Rob: ¶ 14, 18-21: connection among members triggered by attribute matching). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to operate the system whereby failure to reach a determined degree of certainty for a visual recognition modality initiated a subsequent modality such as voice recognition for at least the purpose of creating a system robust to noise, uncertainty, etc. The claim is thus considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting a stopping action indicating a stopping point of the audio conversation with the first target person via the first communication connection; requesting user confirmation of the stopping point; and in response to receiving the confirmation of the stopping point, disconnecting the first communication connection with the first hearable device (Wex: ¶ 20, 231, 518: such as based on a user determination to terminate selective condition based on a determination to ignore a particular encounter or a desire to no longer condition or engage with the voice output of a user, such as effected by the user using functionality associated with contacting a user by phone); (Rob: ¶ 5, 40-46: system operates to perform dynamic connection management such that attributes are continuously managed with respect to changes thereof to which the system response by issuing commands to modify, terminate, etc. the communication session). The claim is thus considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12
Wex teaches:
A hearable communication system (Wex: Abstract; ¶ 8, 37: system determines a look direction of a user based on captured images and conditions an audio signal based thereon for communication of audio among a plurality of wireless devices of a personal network and output of same at a transducer of a hearing aid type device configured to provide sounds to an ear of the user), the system comprising:
an image capture device of a user to capture at least one image of an environment of the user (Wex: Abstract; ¶ 6, 8, etc.; Fig 4D: hearing aid system in concert with an image capture unit captures images local to a user),
the image capture device comprising an interface to transmit the at least one image to a user hearable device of the user (Wex: ¶ 8, 37, 118, 128, 197-199, 211, etc.; Fig 5C, 17A: an image capture unit comprises wireless transceiver operable to capture images and further functions to wirelessly communicate such as with a computing device, smartphone, etc.; said smartphone in concert with a user worn hearing aid type device operable to play audio close to or into an ear of a user and said system operable to communicate wirelessly among processor and sensors of the image capture unit and additionally between the image capture unit, smartphone and additional devices such as a hearing interface to thereby enable the system to operate as for image capture and as a hearing aid; based on ¶ 2 of the instant specification any claimed hearable device is considered a hearing assistive or ear worn device operable to play audio close to or into an ear of a user); and the
user hearable device comprising: one or more processors; and logic encoded in one or more non-transitory media for execution by the one or more processors (Wex: Fig 5C: such as processor and memory of computing device 120); operable and when executed operable to perform operations comprising:
receiving the at least one image (Wex: ¶ 211, etc.; Fig 5C, 17A, 19: such as processor and memory of computing device 120 operable to receive images from the image capture unit);
identifying a first target person in an environment of the user by, at least in part, analyzing the at least one image (Wex: ¶ 8, 68, 223, etc.; Fig 20B, 21: such as by operating a facial recognition component upon captured images to recognize, identify, etc. an individual therein);
in response, at least in part, to identifying the first target person, establishing a first communication connection between the hearable device worn on the user and the first target person by adjusting audio parameters of audio corresponding to the first target person (Wex: ¶ 8, 472, etc.: such as by conditioning of the audio corresponding to the identified individual such as by altering parameters, amplifying, attenuating the signal)
and transmitting conversational speech signals between the user hearable device and the first hearable device for output of the conversational speech at a user ear and/or a first target person ear (Wex: ¶ 10, 37, etc.: system outputs speech, such as of a conversation, at a user ear and operates to transmit the users conversational speech output such as to a conversation partner).
Wex does not explicitly teach the system operable in response, at least in part, to identifying the first target person, transmitting a request to the first target person to connect a first hearable device of the first target person with the user hearable device; and establishing a first communication connection between the user hearable device and the first hearable device of the first target person.
Wex strongly suggests but does not explicitly discuss the connection dynamics of a hearable device to a hearable device worn on the first target person beyond the suggestion that the user may access a contact list to determine a contact for a recognized individual in the environment and operate the system to initiate a call thereto and that the devices of the system comprise wearable devices such as the disclosed hearing interface devices (Wex: ¶ 8, 37, 222-224, 250, 587; Figs 5C, 22) and as such may not be considered to explicitly teach the recited transmitting a communication to the first target person to connect “a first hearable device worn on the first target person with a user hearable device of the user;” Wex additionally lacks discussion of a communication connection between the two user devices worn on each user and the transmission of speech therebetween. Essentially the Wex system concerns itself with single user operational dynamics but embraces the operational dynamics of the device for engaging in a conversation between users (Wex: ¶ 268; Fig 24).
In a related field of endeavor Rob teaches a system and method for grouping of personal communication nodes of a first and second user (Rob: Abstract) comprising linking of devices of the users in a symmetric architecture of wearable personal communication nodes to form communication, conversation, etc. groups (Rob: ¶ 15, 24) said linking into groups based on user attributes, such as identity, and operable to connect a user hearable device such as a headphone, earpiece, etc. (Rob: ¶ 52, 53, etc.) such as by transmitting a communication to the first target person to connect a first hearable device worn on a first target person with a user hearable device worn on the user (Rob: 18, 20, 29, 42: system analyzes node attributes to t form a group of users, such as by analysis of parameters on the user node and issue of a command directly to the other wearers node); establishing a connection between a user worn device and a first user worn device thereby (Rob: ¶ 17; Fig 1, 2: system establishes direct wireless links between the nodes of two wearers); such that conversational speech is carried between the two wearable devices and transmitted to the ears of the user and target person (Rob: ¶ 21, 52, 47, 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the methods of facial recognition as taught or suggested by Wex with the selectable device to device communication system as taught or suggested by Rob for at least the purpose of creating communication groups by determining, initiating, and conducting communication with conversation partners in the manner taught or suggested by Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 13
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The hearable communication system of claim 12, wherein the image capture device includes a wearable device having one or more outward facing image capture sensors to capture the at least one image of the first target person in the environment (Wex: Abstract; ¶ 222, 511 Fig 1, 3A: system comprises a camera by which to determine visual parameters of adjacent humans by pointing in a direction of a gaze of the wearer); wherein the operations further comprise: extracting one or more visual indicators from the at least one image; and matching the one or more visual indicators with stored distinguishing visual characteristics of the first target person in one or more visual identifying techniques including facial recognition, iris recognition, gait recognition, and/or combinations thereof (Wex: ¶ 222, 511; Fig 20: system analyzes acquired image using facial and/or gait recognition). The claim is considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 14—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 supra and is similarly rejected
Regarding claim 15
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The hearable communication system of claim 12, wherein the user hearable device includes at least one microphone (Wex: ¶ 10, 561: system utilizes at least one microphone for conducting voice recognition to identify a user based on parameters of a user speech); (Rob: ¶ 13, 15: system comprises a wearable personal communication node operable to capture sounds such as a user speech such as using a transducer, microphone, etc.), and wherein the operations further comprise: receiving speech from the first target person by the at least one microphone (Wex: ¶ 10, 222, 227, 561: such as to determine voice parameters by which to identify the user); and matching one or more distinguishing audio characteristics of the speech with stored voice features associated with the first target person (Wex: ¶ 222, 227; Fig 20b: such as by determining an individual’s identity based on voice recognition). The claim is considered obvious over Wex as modified by Rob as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Wex and/or Rob to the modified device of Wex and Rob; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 17, 21—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claims 9 supra and are similarly rejected
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claims 1, 12 supra and is similarly rejected
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claims 3, 13 supra and is similarly rejected
Claim 6, 16, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wexler: 20200296521 hereinafter Wex further in view of Robbins: 20190105114 hereinafter Rob as applied to claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-19, 21 supra and further in view of von Liechtenstein: 20160154460 hereinafter von.
Regarding claim 6
Wex in view of Rob teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (Wex: ¶ 374, 489: system stores identified image data in a database for seeking a match to identify an individual) but does not explicitly teach the system wherein identifying the first target person further includes: receiving a broadcast identifier associated with the first hearable device; determining that the identified first target person is associated with a different broadcast identifier in a broadcast identifier library; and adding the received broadcast identifier to the broadcast identifier library associated with the first target person.
In a related field of endeavor von teaches a system and method for pairing of devices for two way voice communication (von: Abstract; ¶ 29, Fig 5) ; wherein identifying the first target person further includes: receiving a broadcast identifier associated with the first hearable device (von: ¶ 27-30; such as by conducting the beacon intersection method of von wherein the matching occurs when a virtual handshake is initiated and/or accepted); determining that the identified first target person is associated with a different broadcast identifier in a broadcast identifier library; and adding the received broadcast identifier to the broadcast identifier library associated with the first target person (von: ¶ 27-30; claim 2: system dynamically updates broadcast identifiers such as by adapting the system to accommodate new identifiers for users). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt the Wex in view of Rob taught database with the emergent broadcast identifiers taught or suggested by von for at least the purpose of maintaining a historical database of regular contacts; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 16, 20—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 supra and are similarly rejected
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 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.
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 PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights