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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection of the claims, Applicant argues that the amendments to the instant claims ensure the claims are patently distinct from the patent claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees as presented below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 with reference Ferguson, Applicant argues that the Office Action has not shown how Ferguson discloses the limitations recited in the since amended claims and as such, argues that the claims are not taught by Ferguson (Arguments, pg. 10-11, sec. III). Examiner respectfully disagrees as provided in the rejection presented below. Furthermore, Ferguson discloses inserting data may inserted within a table of a word processing document (para. [0057]), corresponding to previous limitation “access an electronic word processing document”.
Regarding the new claims 21-40, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable over the prior art (Arguments, pg. 12, sec. V). Examiner respectfully disagrees as presented below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Patent
(US 12056664 B2)
Instant Application
(18/766,941)
1. A system for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on an externally detected occurrence, the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to: access an electronic word processing document divided into a plurality of distinct blocks;
display an interface presenting at least one tool for enabling an author of the electronic word processing document to define an electronic rule triggered by an external network-based occurrence, the electronic rule including an automation associated with an underlying logic rule, and wherein defining the electronic rule includes selecting one or more conditions and selecting one of the distinct blocks of the electronic word processing document;
embed the electronic rule into the selected distinct block, wherein at least one parameter of the embedded electronic rule is restricted to entities possessing permission for access to the embedded electronic rule;
receive, in association with the electronic rule, a conditional instruction to edit the selected distinct block in response to the external network-based occurrence corresponding to at least one of the selected conditions;
detect that the external network-based occurrence corresponds to the at least one of the selected conditions; and
in response to detecting that the external network-based occurrence corresponds to the at least one of the selected conditions, implement the conditional instruction and thereby automatically edit the selected distinct block.
1. A system for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on user input to a communications interface the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to: access an electronic word processing document;
display the communications interface;
receive the user input via the communications interface, the user input including unstructured text data;
parse the unstructured text data to determine a structured operation that corresponds to the unstructured text data of the user input;
execute the structured operation to update an external data source, the external data source being communicably linked to the electronic word processing document; and
automatically update the electronic word processing document based on the update to the external data source
Instant claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-13 and 36-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,664 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as provided above. Reference Ferguson discloses limitations “the user input including unstructured text data” (para. [0188]; para. [0201]; para. [0202]- [0215]), “parse the unstructured text data to determine a structured operation that corresponds to the unstructured text data of the user input” (para. [0188]-[0190]; para. [0202]-[0215]) and “execute the structured operation to update an external data source, the external data source being communicably linked to the electronic word processing document” ((para. [0045]; para. [0127]; para. [0175]; para. [0216]).
It would have been obvious to implement the missing features of the instant application, as taught by reference Ferguson for all the reasons described by the reference such as enabling end users to develop productivity application-based, network-enabled documents and applications by using augmented versions of productivity applications with which they are already familiar, thereby simplifying and improving the development of network-based applications or documents (Ferguson, para. [0016]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, 18 and 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the claims 1, 8 and 15 recite limitations “access an electronic word processing document”, display the communications interface; receive the user input via the communications interface, the user input including unstructured text data; parse the unstructured text data to determine a structured operation that corresponds to the unstructured text data of the user input;” while pointing to para. [129], [140]-[145], [215] and [234] as providing support for all the new language (Arguments, pg. 9). However, the paragraphs describe receiving a word processing document that may include structured and/or unstructured data, a communications interface integrated with the word document and receiving user input. There is no disclosure of receiv[ing] the user input via the communications interface, the user input including unstructured text data or pars[ing] the unstructured text data to determine a structured operation that corresponds to the unstructured text data of the user input. The dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the method comprising: … execute the structured operation…” as recited in the claim should be “the method comprising: … executing the structured operation…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, 18, 25, 26, 33, 34, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferguson et al US 2002/0065849 A1 (“Ferguson”)
Per claim 1, Ferguson discloses a system for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on user input to a communications interface the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to: access an electronic word processing document (Abstract; fig. 6; fig. 18C; These data may inserted within (1) a table of the word processing document, (2) an insertion point within the word processing document or (3) within a spreadsheet or other document inserted within a word processing document para. [0057]; para. [0127]; para. [0155]-[0156]; para. [0216]);
display the communications interface (The process 1500 begins when a user accesses a menu or toolbar listing network-enabling functionality, such as is displayed in exemplary FIG. 16A (step 1502). Upon selection of, for example, an "edit table" option (step 1504) as displayed in exemplary FIG. 16B, a wizard is launched (step 1506) for facilitating the insertion of network based functionality within the table …, para. [0202]-[0212]);
receive the user input via the communications interface, the user input including unstructured text data (fig. 16F; para. [0148]; For example, if the developer wishes to create a query that retrieves the stock price information, the developer might enter a URL query …, para. [0188]; para. [0201]-[0207]; The user may then select a stored or "pre-canned" query displayed by the wizard, or may choose to define new query parameters (step 1706). The queries may correspond to network-based content that is to be inserted into the word processing document…., para. [0208]-[0215]);
parse the unstructured text data to determine a structured operation that corresponds to the unstructured text data of the user input (para. [0188]-[0189]; In addition, the query manager may be adapted to automatically create a query to retrieve data identified by the user. According to one embodiment, the query manager may permit a developer to direct a browser to a web page and select, for example, a field on the web page with a mouse. The query manager may then automatically formulate an appropriate query for retrieving data through end-user tools in the network-functionality software 1250, para. [0190]; para. [0202]-[0215], identifying data to be retrieved in user query as parsing);
execute the structured operation to update an external data source, the external data source being communicably linked to the electronic word processing document (para. [0045]; para. [0127]; para. [0175]; The network-based content corresponding to the query may then be inserted in the word processing document at the insertion point initially designated by the user (step 1724). Examples of such text insertion appear in exemplary FIGS. 18A-18E.…, para. [0216], adding/inserting text of network-based content as structured operation to update the external data source (see instant claim 5)); and
automatically update the electronic word processing document based on the update to the external data source (the augmented productivity application allows the user to embed network-enabling objects in the word processing document by a plurality of mechanisms, with the optional ability to automatically update such content in the word processing document if the content from the online source changes, para. [0045]; para. [0216]).
Per Claim 5, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the structured operation to update the external data source includes at least one of adding text, modifying text, deleting text, rearranging text, adding a graphic within text, inserting video within text, inserting an image within text, or inserting audio information within text (para. [0045]; para. [0127]; para. [0175]; para. [0216], adding/inserting text of network-based content as structured operation to update the external data source).
Per claim 8, Ferguson discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, perform operations for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on user input to a communications interface the operations comprising:
accessing an electronic word processing document (Abstract; fig. 6; fig. 18C; These data may inserted within (1) a table of the word processing document, (2) an insertion point within the word processing document or (3) within a spreadsheet or other document inserted within a word processing document para. [0057]; para. [0127]; para. [0155]-[0156]; para. [0216]);
displaying the communications interface (The process 1500 begins when a user accesses a menu or toolbar listing network-enabling functionality, such as is displayed in exemplary FIG. 16A (step 1502). Upon selection of, for example, an "edit table" option (step 1504) as displayed in exemplary FIG. 16B, a wizard is launched (step 1506) for facilitating the insertion of network based functionality within the table …, para. [0202]-[0212]);
receiving the user input via the communications interface, the user input including unstructured text data (fig. 16F; para. [0148]; For example, if the developer wishes to create a query that retrieves the stock price information, the developer might enter a URL query …, para. [0188]; para. [0201]-[0207]; The user may then select a stored or "pre-canned" query displayed by the wizard, or may choose to define new query parameters (step 1706). The queries may correspond to network-based content that is to be inserted into the word processing document…., para. [0208]-[0215]);
parsing the unstructured text data to determine a structured operation that corresponds to the unstructured text data of the user input (para. [0188]-[0189]; In addition, the query manager may be adapted to automatically create a query to retrieve data identified by the user. According to one embodiment, the query manager may permit a developer to direct a browser to a web page and select, for example, a field on the web page with a mouse. The query manager may then automatically formulate an appropriate query for retrieving data through end-user tools in the network-functionality software 1250, para. [0190]; para. [0202]-[0215], identifying data to be retrieved in user query as parsing);
executing the structured operation to update an external data source, the external data source being communicably linked to the electronic word processing document (para. [0045]; para. [0127]; para. [0175]; The network-based content corresponding to the query may then be inserted in the word processing document at the insertion point initially designated by the user (step 1724). Examples of such text insertion appear in exemplary FIGS. 18A-18E.…, para. [0216], adding/inserting text of network-based content as structured operation to update the external data source (see instant claim 12)); and
automatically updating the electronic word processing document based on the update to the external data source (the augmented productivity application allows the user to embed network-enabling objects in the word processing document by a plurality of mechanisms, with the optional ability to automatically update such content in the word processing document if the content from the online source changes, para. [0045]; para. [0216]).
Per Claim 12, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the structured operation to update the external data source includes at least one of adding text, modifying text, deleting text, rearranging text, adding a graphic within text, inserting video within text, inserting an image within text, or inserting audio information within text (para. [0045]; para. [0127]; para. [0175]; para. [0216], adding/inserting text of network-based content as structured operation to update the external data source).
Per claim 15, Ferguson discloses a method for automatically altering information within an electronic document based on user input to a communications interface the method comprising:
accessing an electronic word processing document (Abstract; fig. 6; fig. 18C; These data may inserted within (1) a table of the word processing document, (2) an insertion point within the word processing document or (3) within a spreadsheet or other document inserted within a word processing document para. [0057]; para. [0127]; para. [0155]-[0156]; para. [0216]);
displaying the communications interface (The process 1500 begins when a user accesses a menu or toolbar listing network-enabling functionality, such as is displayed in exemplary FIG. 16A (step 1502). Upon selection of, for example, an "edit table" option (step 1504) as displayed in exemplary FIG. 16B, a wizard is launched (step 1506) for facilitating the insertion of network based functionality within the table …, para. [0202]-[0212]);
receiving the user input via the communications interface, the user input including unstructured text data (fig. 16F; para. [0148]; For example, if the developer wishes to create a query that retrieves the stock price information, the developer might enter a URL query …, para. [0188]; para. [0201]-[0207]; The user may then select a stored or "pre-canned" query displayed by the wizard, or may choose to define new query parameters (step 1706). The queries may correspond to network-based content that is to be inserted into the word processing document…., para. [0208]-[0215]);
parsing the unstructured text data to determine a structured operation that corresponds to the unstructured text data of the user input (para. [0188]-[0189]; In addition, the query manager may be adapted to automatically create a query to retrieve data identified by the user. According to one embodiment, the query manager may permit a developer to direct a browser to a web page and select, for example, a field on the web page with a mouse. The query manager may then automatically formulate an appropriate query for retrieving data through end-user tools in the network-functionality software 1250, para. [0190]; para. [0202]-[0215], identifying data to be retrieved in user query as parsing);
execute the structured operation to update an external data source, the external data source being communicably linked to the electronic word processing document (para. [0045]; para. [0127]; para. [0175]; The network-based content corresponding to the query may then be inserted in the word processing document at the insertion point initially designated by the user (step 1724). Examples of such text insertion appear in exemplary FIGS. 18A-18E.…, para. [0216], adding/inserting text of network-based content as structured operation to update the external data source (see instant claim 18)); and
automatically updating the electronic word processing document based on the update to the external data source (the augmented productivity application allows the user to embed network-enabling objects in the word processing document by a plurality of mechanisms, with the optional ability to automatically update such content in the word processing document if the content from the online source changes, para. [0045]; para. [0216]).
Per Claim 18, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the structured operation to update the external data source includes at least one of adding text, modifying text, deleting text, rearranging text, adding a graphic within text, inserting video within text, inserting an image within text, or inserting audio information within text (para. [0045]; para. [0127]; para. [0175]; para. [0216], adding/inserting text of network-based content as structured operation to update the external data source).
Per Claim 25, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communications interface is a non-word processing application embedded within the electronic word processing document (para. [0063]; para. [0097]-[0098]; para. [0151]; para. [0167]).
Per Claim 26, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the structured operation is a software call (para. [0087]; para. [0189]).
Per Claim 33, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the communications interface is a non-word processing application embedded within the electronic word processing document (para. [0063]; para. [0097]-[0098]; para. [0151]; para. [0167]).
Per Claim 34, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the structured operation is a software call (para. [0087]; para. [0189]).
Per Claim 39, Ferguson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the communications interface is a non-word processing application embedded within the electronic word processing document (para. [0063]; para. [0097]-[0098]; para. [0151]; para. [0167]).
Per Claim 40, Ferguson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the structured operation is a software call (para. [0087]; para. [0189]).
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.
2. Claims 21-24, 29-32 and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Strope US 2020/0104746 A1 (“Strope”)
Per Claim 21, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1,
Ferguson does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination of the structured operation is performed using a trained predictive model that includes a natural language processing algorithm
However, this feature is taught by Strope (Abstract; [0006]; [0017]-[0018]; para. [0032]; para. [0056])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Strope with the system of Ferguson in arriving at the missing features of Ferguson, because such combination would have resulted in generating a robust model that generalizes to many diverse textual/input segments (Strope, para. [0012])
Per Claim 22, Ferguson in view of Strope discloses the system of claim 21,
Strope discloses wherein the natural language processing algorithm is trained using test or validation examples, the test or validation examples including example inputs and desired outputs (Such training instances each include a pair of textual segments as training instance input, along with training instance output …, para. [0017]).
Per Claim 23, Ferguson in view of Strope discloses the system of claim 22,
Strope discloses wherein the natural language processing algorithm is intermediately trained based on an evaluation of an estimated output of the natural language processing algorithm and a desired output, the estimated output and the desired output both corresponding to an additional example input (para. [0056])
Per Claim 24, Ferguson in view of Strope discloses the system of claim 23,
Strope discloses wherein the evaluation is a comparison between the estimated output and the desired output (para. [0056]).
Per Claim 29, Ferguson discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8,
Ferguson does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination of the structured operation is performed using a trained predictive model that includes a natural language processing algorithm
However, this feature is taught by Strope (Abstract; [0006]; [0017]-[0018]; para. [0032]; para. [0056])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Strope with the medium of Ferguson in arriving at the missing features of Ferguson, because such combination would have resulted in generating a robust model that generalizes to many diverse textual/input segments (Strope, para. [0012])
Per Claim 30, Ferguson in view of Strope discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 29,
Strope discloses wherein the natural language processing algorithm is trained using test or validation examples, the test or validation examples including example inputs and desired outputs (Such training instances each include a pair of textual segments as training instance input, along with training instance output …, para. [0017]).
Per Claim 31, Ferguson in view of Strope discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 30,
Strope discloses wherein the natural language processing algorithm is intermediately trained based on an evaluation of an estimated output of the natural language processing algorithm and a desired output, the estimated output and the desired output both corresponding to an additional example input (para. [0056])
Per Claim 32, Ferguson in view of Strope discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 31,
Strope discloses wherein the evaluation is a comparison between the estimated output and the desired output (para. [0056]).
Per Claim 35, Ferguson discloses the method of claim 15,
Ferguson does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination of the structured operation is performed using a trained predictive model that includes a natural language processing algorithm
However, this feature is taught by Strope (Abstract; [0006]; [0017]-[0018]; para. [0032]; para. [0056])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Strope with the method of Ferguson in arriving at the missing features of Ferguson, because such combination would have resulted in generating a robust model that generalizes to many diverse textual/input segments (Strope, para. [0012])
Per Claim 36, Ferguson in view of Strope discloses the method of claim 35,
Strope discloses wherein the natural language processing algorithm is trained using test or validation examples, the test or validation examples including example inputs and desired outputs (Such training instances each include a pair of textual segments as training instance input, along with training instance output …, para. [0017]).
Per Claim 37, Ferguson in view of Strope discloses the method of claim 36,
Strope discloses wherein the natural language processing algorithm is intermediately trained based on an evaluation of an estimated output of the natural language processing algorithm and a desired output, the estimated output and the desired output both corresponding to an additional example input (para. [0056])
Per Claim 38, Ferguson in view of Strope discloses the method of claim 37,
Strope discloses wherein the evaluation is a comparison between the estimated output and the desired output (para. [0056]).
3. Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Napieralski et al US 2016/0078019 A1 (“Napieralski”)
Per Claim 27, Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1,
Ferguson does not explicitly disclose wherein the parsing includes transforming data from a first format to a second format
However, this feature is taught by Napieralski (Abstract; The translation data structure may be used to identify a computer-executable command that corresponds to the voiced input. …, para. [0012]; para. [0022])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Napieralski with the system of Ferguson in arriving at the missing features of Ferguson, because such combination would have resulted in identifying commands that correspond to inputs, thereby providing for improved interaction with digital documents (Napieralski, para. [0010]-[0012])
Per Claim 28, Ferguson in view of Napieralski discloses the system of claim 27,
Napieralski discloses wherein the transforming comprises applying the natural language processing algorithm to the unstructured text data to determine a user intent corresponding to the structured operation (The voice interaction component (310) may be a voice interaction component such as existing voice interaction components that receive voiced natural language instructions from a user, decipher meanings from those voiced natural language instructions, and take appropriate actions in response to the deciphered meanings …Those recognized terms (312) can be used to derive computer-executable commands …, para. [0030]; para. [0035]; para. [0061]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form.
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 OLUJIMI A ADESANYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/OLUJIMI A ADESANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights