DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 02 July 2026.
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, see Remarks pgs., filed 2 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 11-18 under US 2026/0012162 ("Rogers") have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 9,893,528 ("Son").
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US 2026/0012162 A1; hereinafter “Rogers”) and in view of Son. (US 9,893,528 B2; hereinafter “Son”).
In re claim 1, Rogers discloses method for controlling (Figs. 2,3,4c, 6b-12) a multilevel converter (Figs. 1a-b, 4a-b,5a-6a) comprising a plurality of energy sources (15, Cm) and a plurality of power converter modules (10), each power converter module comprising at least two switching elements (Q1-4w), the method comprising: associating, for a first control period (previous time-step) from a plurality of consecutive control periods (time-steps), a value of a first parameter (previous capacitor voltage in Fig 8, Step 810) to each one of the plurality of power converter modules, the value of the first parameter being a variable value (module capacitor voltages, see Fig. 2); determining, for an end point of the first control period (Page 8 Paragraph [0130]: It starts by calculating the voltage of the equivalent capacitor of the switching circuit 20 of the previous time step in step 820, and then steps the circuit model into the current time step using the appropriate A.sub.n,T matrix to update the circuit states in step 830 ), a characteristic of a conduction state (switching states) of each one of the plurality of power converter modules, the characteristic of the conduction state being one of a first predetermined characteristic and a second predetermined characteristic (Page 12 Paragraph [0180]: The algorithm starts in step 1205 with receiving inputs from the user in the form of discretised target profile 310 (coil current reference for the TMS system), initial capacitor voltages of the switching modules 10, and all the circuit parameters (e.g., various inductance, capacitance, resistance values, initial voltages and currents, blanking interval, etc.) and MPC parameters (e.g., length of window, cost weightages, etc.), using which all A.sub.n,T matrices are calculated and stored, in step 1210); obtaining a required output signal of the plurality of power converter modules for a second control period from the plurality of consecutive control periods (Page 1 Paragraph [0005]: optimises a cost function having a deviation cost contribution representing deviation of an electrical state of the pulse system predicted by the discrete-time model from the target profile over the window of time-steps,), the second control period being after the first control period (Page Paragraph [0005]: respective time-steps of the control sequence taken in succession); and for each change of an amplitude of the required output signal between a first amplitude level and a second amplitude level in the second control period, controlling the conduction state of at least one of the plurality of power converter modules in the second control period based on the value of the first parameter associated to the at least one power converter module for the first control period (Page Paragraph [0087]: taking the calculated voltages of the capacitive discharge elements 15 and other circuit states as feedback at each time step, the MPC approach determines the next switching state to generate the target output pulse) and the determined characteristic of the conduction state of the at least one power converter module for the end point of the first control period (Page 9 Paragraph [0155]: in step 940 and the cost associated with the step is calculated using the cost( ) function in step 950. It then increases the time-step in the window k in step 960 and returns to step 940, provided that k is still less than the length of the window).
Rogers does not disclose wherein the characteristic of the conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules indicates whether a corresponding power converter module actively contributes to a distribution of energy conversion workload of the multilevel converter.
Whereas, Son discloses a similar method (Figs. 2-9) comprising a characteristic of a conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules, the characteristic of the conduction state being one of a first predetermined characteristic and a second predetermined characteristic, (Abstract: method includes receiving state information on each of n sub modules in an arm module, grouping the n sub modules into m sub module groups, receiving first state information on each of sub modules in a first one of the m sub module groups, among the state information on each of the n sum modules, receiving second state information on each of sub modules not included in the first sub module group, among state information on each of the n sum modules previously stored in a memory, controlling switching of a sub module by using the first state information and the second state information, and updating the memory with the first state information) wherein the characteristic of the conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules indicates whether a corresponding power converter module actively contributes to a distribution of energy conversion workload of the multilevel converter (Col 6 Lines 48-57: the on/off state information g (t) and sub module voltage Vsm (t) of each of n sub modules SM_1 to SM_n are transmitted from the arm module 20 to the input unit 110 at time t1, for example. The input unit 110 groups n sub modules SM_1 to SM_n into m sub module groups Group_1 to Group_m and then transmits, to the determination unit 130, the on/off state information g (t) and sub module voltage Vsm (t) of each of first to sixteenth sub modules SM_1 to SM_16 that are grouped as the first sub module group Group_1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rogers such that “wherein the characteristic of the conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules indicates whether a corresponding power converter module actively contributes to a distribution of energy conversion workload of the multilevel converter” as shown by Son. The selection of “the characteristic of the conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules indicates whether a corresponding power converter module actively contributes to a distribution of energy conversion workload of the multilevel converter” would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase safety, enhance control precision, and ensure system reliability, as taught by Son, cited above.
In re claim 2, Rogers discloses a method, wherein the controlling of the conduction state of the at least one of the plurality of power converter modules comprises any one of switching the conduction state of the at least one power converter module (Fig. 4c), placing the at least one power converter module in a parallel configuration state(10 in Fig. 4b), placing the at least one power converter module in a bypassing state, and inverting an output voltage of the at least one power converter module (shown in Fig. 4c and further explained in Page 3 Paragraph [0051]: the switching modules have switching states including a forward switching state connecting the capacitive discharge element across the module output in a forward direction, a reverse switching state connecting the capacitive discharge element across the module output in a reverse direction, and at least one bypass switching state not connecting the module output across the module output.)
In re claim 3, Rogers discloses a method, wherein the first parameter indicates a priority of the corresponding power converter module for selecting switching states for controlling the conduction state of the corresponding power converter module in the second control period.
Rogers does not disclose a method, wherein the first parameter indicates a priority of the corresponding power converter module for selecting the power converter module for controlling the conduction state of the corresponding power converter module in the second control period.
Whereas, Son discloses a similar method for controlling (Figs. 2, 3, 5-8a-b) a multilevel converter (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of energy sources (Cm) and a plurality of power converter modules (Fig. 4), wherein the first parameter (first state information) indicates a priority of the corresponding power converter module (Col 2 Lines 19-22: grouping, by the input unit, the n sub modules into m sub module groups; receiving, by a determination unit, first state information on each of sub modules in a first one of the m sub module group) for selecting the power converter module (Col 2 Lines 34-37: input unit configured to receive the state information on each of the n sub modules from the arm module to group the n sub modules into m sub module groups) for controlling the conduction state of the corresponding power converter module in the second control period (Col 5 Lines 1-6: the main board may receive the plurality of gate signals provided from the driving units 12 to 17, provide the plurality of gate signals to a corresponding sub module SM_1 to SM_n, and enable each of the sub modules SM_1 to SM_n to be turned on or off in response to the plurality of gate signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have combined the method of Rogers with assigning of priority of the corresponding power converter module as taught by Son to have better control, longevity, and safety.
In re claim 4, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein controlling the conduction state of the at least one of the plurality of power converter modules in the second control period comprises selecting the at least one of the plurality of power converter modules and the determined characteristic of the conduction state of the at least one power converter module for the end point of the first control period.
Rogers does not disclose a method, wherein controlling the conduction state of the at least one of the plurality of power converter modules in the second control period comprises selecting the at least one of the plurality of power converter modules based on the priority of the at least one power converter module and the determined characteristic of the conduction state of the at least one power converter module for the end point of the first control period.
Whereas, Son discloses a similar method, wherein controlling the conduction state of the at least one of the plurality of power converter modules in the second control period comprises selecting the at least one of the plurality of power converter modules (Col 6 Lines 29-33: first to sixteenth sub modules SM_1 to SM_16 may be grouped as the first sub module group Group_1, and seventeenth to thirty second sub modules SM_17 to SM_32 may be grouped as the second sub module group Group_2. ) based on the priority of the at least one power converter module and the determined characteristic of the conduction state of the at least one power converter module for the end point of the first control period (Col 6 Lines 8-13: input unit 110 groups n sub modules SM_1 to SM_n into m sub module groups Group_1 to Group_m to transmit, to the determination unit 130, on/off state information g (t) on s sub modules SM_1 to SM_s in one of the m sub module groups Group_1 to Group_m and the sub module voltage Vsm (t).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have combined the method of Rogers with selecting the at least one of the plurality of power converter modules based on the priority of the at least one power converter module and the determined characteristic of the conduction state of the at least one power converter module as taught by Son to have better control, longevity, and safety.
In re claim 5, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein the first predetermined characteristic of the conduction state indicates an active conduction state (Page 4 Paragraph [0082]: a forward switching state in which the switching states of the switching elements 11-14 cause the switching elements 11-14 to connect the capacitive discharge element 15 across the module output 16 in a forward direction), and the second predetermined characteristic of the conduction state indicates an inactive conduction state, wherein the inactive conduction state (shown in Fig. 4c when Vomw is 0) is any one of a non-conduction state, a parallel configuration state (Page 4 Paragraph [0082]: a reverse switching state in which the switching states of the switching elements 11-14 cause the switching elements 11-14 to connect the capacitive discharge element 15 to be connected across the module output 16 in a reverse direction) and a bypassing state (Page 4 Paragraph [0082]: at least one bypass switching state in which the switching states of the switching elements 11-14 not cause the switching elements 11-14 to connect the capacitive discharge element 15 across the module output 16).
In re claim 6, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein the first amplitude level is lower than the second amplitude level (shown in Fig. 4c), wherein for each change of the amplitude of the required output signal from the first level to the second level the method comprises: controlling the conduction state of one power converter module for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the second predetermined characteristic (Page 5 Paragraph [0087]: By taking the calculated voltages of the capacitive discharge elements 15 and other circuit states as feedback at each time step, the MPC approach determines the next switching state to generate the target output pulse.).
Rogers does not disclose a method that comprises controlling the conduction state of one or more of the plurality of power converter modules
Whereas, Son discloses a method that comprises controlling the conduction state of one or more of the plurality of power converter modules (Col 6 Lines 8-13: input unit 110 groups n sub modules SM_1 to SM_n into m sub module groups Group_1 to Group_m to transmit, to the determination unit 130, on/off state information g (t) on s sub modules SM_1 to SM_s in one of the m sub module groups Group_1 to Group_m and the sub module voltage Vsm (t)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have combined the method of Rogers controlling the conduction state of one or more of the plurality of power converter modules of the one power converter module as taught by Son to have better control, longevity, and safety.
In re claim 7, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein the controlling comprises: selecting, in order from a value of the first parameter to a value of the first parameter indicating a lowest cost value, the power converter module for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the second predetermined characteristic (cost path), for controlling the conduction state of the selected power converter module.
Rogers does not disclose a method, wherein the controlling comprises: indicating a lowest priority, for controlling the conduction state of the selected one or more power converter modules.
Whereas, Son discloses a method, wherein the controlling comprises: selecting, in order from a value of the first parameter indicating a highest priority to a value of the first parameter indicating a lowest priority (Col 6 Lines 29-33: first to sixteenth sub modules SM_1 to SM_16 may be grouped as the first sub module group Group_1, and seventeenth to thirty second sub modules SM_17 to SM_32 may be grouped as the second sub module group Group_2. ), one or more of the power converter modules for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the second predetermined characteristic, for controlling the conduction state of the selected one or more power converter modules (Col 2 Lines 26-29: among state information on each of the n sum modules previously stored in a memory; controlling, by the determination unit, switching of a sub module by using the first state information and the second state information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have combined the method of Rogers, wherein the controlling comprises: selecting, in order from a value of the first parameter indicating a highest priority to a value of the first parameter indicating a lowest priority, one or more of the power converter modules for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the second predetermined characteristic, for controlling the conduction state of the selected one or more power converter modules as taught by Son to have better control and output.
In re claim 8, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein a first amplitude level (- vcm in Fig. 4c) is lower than a second amplitude level (0V in Fig 4c), wherein for each change of the amplitude of the required output signal from the second level to the first level the method comprises: controlling the conduction state of one power converter module for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the first predetermined characteristic (Page 12 Paragraph [0180]: receiving inputs from the user in the form of discretised target profile).
In re claim 9, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein controlling the conduction state of the power converter modules for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the first predetermined characteristic, comprises inverting an output voltage of the power converter module (Page 4 Paragraph [0082]: a reverse switching state in which the switching states of the switching elements 11-14 cause the switching elements 11-14 to connect the capacitive discharge element 15 to be connected across the module output 16 in a reverse direction) for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the first predetermined characteristic.
In re claim 10, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein the controlling comprises: selecting power converter module state for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the first predetermined characteristic, for controlling the conduction state of the selected of the power converter modules.
Rogers does not disclose a value of the first parameter indicating a lowest priority to a value of the first parameter indicating a highest priority.
Whereas, Son discloses a method, wherein the controlling comprises: selecting, in order from a value of the first parameter indicating a lowest priority to a value of the first parameter indicating a highest priority (Col 6 Lines 29-33: first to sixteenth sub modules SM_1 to SM_16 may be grouped as the first sub module group Group_1, and seventeenth to thirty second sub modules SM_17 to SM_32 may be grouped as the second sub module group Group_2.), one or more of the power converter modules for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the first predetermined characteristic, for controlling the conduction state of the selected one or more power converter modules (Col 2 Lines 26-29: among state information on each of the n sum modules previously stored in a memory; controlling, by the determination unit, switching of a sub module by using the first state information and the second state information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have combined the method of Rogers, wherein the controlling comprises: selecting, in order from a value of the first parameter indicating a lowest priority to a value of the first parameter indicating a highest priority, one or more power converter modules for which the characteristic of the conduction state is the first predetermined characteristic, for controlling the conduction state of the selected one or more power converter modules as taught by Son to have better control and output.
In re claim 11, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), further comprising: associating, for the second control period, an updated value (Page 3 Paragraph [0035]: the method comprises adjusting the target profile before determining the paths of switching states for respective time-steps in a manner that restricts magnitudes of rates of change of the target profile) of the first parameter to each one of the plurality of power converter modules, and determining, for the end point of the second control period (Page 3 Paragraph [0040]: ensuring that the target profile does not include a step-change that would lead to a rate-of-change greater than the theoretical maximum that the circuit can achieve), the characteristic of the conduction state of the power converter module.
In re claim 12, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), further comprising: repeating, for each subsequent control period, the associating of an updated value of the first parameter (Page 3 Paragraph [0035]: the method comprises adjusting the target profile before determining the paths of switching states for respective time-steps in a manner that restricts magnitudes of rates of change of the target profile) to each one of the plurality of power converter modules and the determining of the characteristic of the conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules for the end point of the corresponding subsequent control period (Page 3 Paragraph [0040]: ensuring that the target profile does not include a step-change that would lead to a rate-of-change greater than the theoretical maximum that the circuit can achieve).
In re claim 13, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein the value of the first parameter for each of the plurality of power converter modules is determined based on a conduction time of each of the plurality of power converter modules in a preceding control period or a current control period (Page 3 Paragraph [0041]: the step of adjusting the target profile comprises applying a predetermined limit to the change in current in each time-step that is equal to the product of the length of the time-step and the quotient of the initial output voltage divided by the inductance of the reactive circuit, or a predetermined fraction of that product).
In re claim 14, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein the value of the first parameter for each of the plurality of power converter modules is further determined based on at least one first feedback parameter which is determined based on one or more feedback parameters obtained from a string of power converter modules to which the corresponding power converter module is connected, wherein, preferably, the one or more feedback parameters obtained from the string of power converter modules comprise at least one of voltage or current of the string of power converter modules (Page 6 Paragraph [0101]: In step S1, a target profile 310 is received for an electromagnetic pulse to be delivered by the pulse coil 40. The method also makes use of circuit parameters 330 (e.g., various inductance, capacitance, resistance values, and initial voltages and currents, blanking time, etc.) and MPC parameters 360 (e.g., length of the window, cost weightages, etc.)).
In re claim 15, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), wherein the value of the first parameter for each of the plurality of power converter modules is determined based on at least one second feedback parameter, wherein the at least one second feedback parameter is determined based on one or more feedback parameters obtained from one or more of the plurality of energy sources, wherein, preferably, the one or more feedback parameters obtained from one or more of the plurality of energy sources comprise at least one of state of charge, temperature, voltage, current and state of health of the one or more of the plurality of energy sources (Page 12 Paragraph [0180]: algorithm starts in step 1205 with receiving inputs from the user in the form of discretised target profile 310 (coil current reference for the TMS system), initial capacitor voltages of the switching modules 10, and all the circuit parameters (e.g., various inductance, capacitance, resistance values, initial voltages and currents, blanking interval, etc.) and MPC parameters (e.g., length of window, cost weightages, etc.), using which all A.sub.n,T matrices are calculated and stored, in step 1210).
In re claim 16, Rogers discloses a method (see above rejections), further comprising obtaining a third feedback parameter based on a combination of the one or more first feedback parameter and/or one or more second feedback parameter and/or a conduction time, and determining the value of the first parameter based on the third feedback parameter (Page 8 Paragraph [0130]: substep( ) function takes the previous circuit states, the previous capacitor voltages of the switching modules 10, the switching states for this time step, the time step duration, and the number of switching modules 10 in a non-zero state as the inputs in step 810; and returns the new circuit states and the new capacitor voltages of the switching modules 10 as the outputs in step 850).
In re claim 17, Rogers discloses a multilevel converter (Figs. 2,3,4c,6b-12) comprising: a plurality of energy sources (15, Cm) and a plurality of power converter modules (10), each power converter module comprising at least two switching elements (Q1-4w); a processor configured to control the multilevel converter to perform the following steps (Page 6 Paragraph [0098]: the computer program is capable of execution by the computer apparatus and is configured, on execution, to cause the computer apparatus to perform the method including the steps of the functional blocks): associating, for a first control period (previous time step) from a plurality of consecutive control periods (time-steps), a value of a first parameter (previous capacitor voltage in Fig 8, Step 810) to each one of the plurality of power converter modules, the value of the first parameter being a variable value (module capacitor voltages, see Fig. 2); determining, for an end point of the first control period (Page 8 Paragraph [0130]: It starts by calculating the voltage of the equivalent capacitor of the switching circuit 20 of the previous time step in step 820, and then steps the circuit model into the current time step using the appropriate A.sub.n,T matrix to update the circuit states in step 830 ), a characteristic of a conduction state (switching state) of each one of the plurality of power converter modules, the characteristic of the conduction state being one of a first predetermined characteristic and a second predetermined characteristic (Page 12 Paragraph [0180]: The algorithm starts in step 1205 with receiving inputs from the user in the form of discretised target profile 310 (coil current reference for the TMS system), initial capacitor voltages of the switching modules 10, and all the circuit parameters (e.g., various inductance, capacitance, resistance values, initial voltages and currents, blanking interval, etc.) and MPC parameters (e.g., length of window, cost weightages, etc.), using which all A.sub.n,T matrices are calculated and stored, in step 1210); obtaining a required output signal of the plurality of power converter modules for a second control period from the plurality of consecutive control periods (Page 1 Paragraph [0005]: optimises a cost function having a deviation cost contribution representing deviation of an electrical state of the pulse system predicted by the discrete-time model from the target profile over the window of time-steps), the second control period being after the first control period (Page Paragraph [0005]: respective time-steps of the control sequence taken in succession); and for each change of an amplitude of the required output signal between a first amplitude level and a second amplitude level in the second control period, controlling the conduction state of at least one of the plurality of power converter modules in the second control period based on the value of the first parameter associated to the at least one power converter module for the first control period (Page Paragraph [0087]: taking the calculated voltages of the capacitive discharge elements 15 and other circuit states as feedback at each time step, the MPC approach determines the next switching state to generate the target output pulse) and the determined characteristic of the conduction state of the at least one power converter module for the end point of the first control period (Page 9 Paragraph [0155]: in step 940 and the cost associated with the step is calculated using the cost( ) function in step 950. It then increases the time-step in the window k in step 960 and returns to step 940, provided that k is still less than the length of the window).
Rogers does not disclose wherein the characteristic of the conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules indicates whether a corresponding power converter module actively contributes to a distribution of energy conversion workload of the multilevel converter.
Whereas, Son discloses a similar method (Figs. 2-9) comprising a characteristic of a conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules, the characteristic of the conduction state being one of a first predetermined characteristic and a second predetermined characteristic, (Abstract: method includes receiving state information on each of n sub modules in an arm module, grouping the n sub modules into m sub module groups, receiving first state information on each of sub modules in a first one of the m sub module groups, among the state information on each of the n sum modules, receiving second state information on each of sub modules not included in the first sub module group, among state information on each of the n sum modules previously stored in a memory, controlling switching of a sub module by using the first state information and the second state information, and updating the memory with the first state information) wherein the characteristic of the conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules indicates whether a corresponding power converter module actively contributes to a distribution of energy conversion workload of the multilevel converter (Col 6 Lines 48-57: the on/off state information g (t) and sub module voltage Vsm (t) of each of n sub modules SM_1 to SM_n are transmitted from the arm module 20 to the input unit 110 at time t1, for example. The input unit 110 groups n sub modules SM_1 to SM_n into m sub module groups Group_1 to Group_m and then transmits, to the determination unit 130, the on/off state information g (t) and sub module voltage Vsm (t) of each of first to sixteenth sub modules SM_1 to SM_16 that are grouped as the first sub module group Group_1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rogers such that “wherein the characteristic of the conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules indicates whether a corresponding power converter module actively contributes to a distribution of energy conversion workload of the multilevel converter” as shown by Son. The selection of “the characteristic of the conduction state of each one of the plurality of power converter modules indicates whether a corresponding power converter module actively contributes to a distribution of energy conversion workload of the multilevel converter” would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase safety, enhance control precision, and ensure system reliability, as taught by Son, cited above.
In re claim 18, Rogers discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer programs which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to execute the method (Page 6 Paragraph [0098]: the computer program is capable of execution by the computer apparatus and is configured, on execution, to cause the computer apparatus to perform the method including the steps of the functional blocks).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nicolas A Chapa Mills whose telephone number is (571)272-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm.
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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-1682. 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.
/NICOLAS ALDEN CHAPA MILLS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights