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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/01/2024, 11/11/2024, 12/05/2024/ and 02/04/2025 has been acknowledged
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 02/25/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-20 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder (bolded) coupled with functional language (underlined) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Imaging devices configured to capture inspection images…
Computing devices configured to: capture calibration images …. Process the calibration images….
Actuation devices to adjust each corresponding imaging device …
Since Claims 1-20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the corresponding structure to “imaging device” is a camera ([0126]).
In reviewing the specification, the corresponding structure to “computing device” is a computer ([0350]).
In reviewing the specification, the corresponding structure to “actuation device” is a general motor ([0143]).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20200408682-A1 to Mian et. al. (“Mian”) in view of US-20220377251-A1 to Grata et. al. (“Grata), further in view of US-20200364488-A1 to Newman et. al. (“Newman”).
Regarding claim 1, Mian teaches a system comprising (Mian Claim 9):
one or more computing devices in communication with the plurality of imaging devices, the one or more computing devices being configured to (Mian Fig. 1):
capture calibration images of the plurality of calibration targets with the plurality of imaging devices (Mian [0062] – [0063] “For example, calibration module 41 can obtain a set of baseline images of known calibration targets placed on the rail taking the place of wheels 60 present during actual measurement. … Further, calibration module 41 can obtain image data for one or more “known good” rail wheels 60.”);
determine a degree of correctness of each of the calibration images (Mian [0063] “This image data can be analyzed and processed as described herein to determine whether all modules/systems in environment 10 are functioning properly and yield the correct results.”);
and in response to determining that at least one of the calibration images has a correctness that is less than a threshold, output instructions to adjust calibration settings for one or more corresponding imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices (Mian [0063] “When one or more errors are detected, an adjustment to the corresponding module/system can be made and image data can be reacquired until all modules/systems generate the correct results”).
Mian does not teach a plurality of imaging devices configured to capture inspection images of a passing railcar travelling along a railway and a calibration cart configured to travel along the railway, the calibration cart comprising a plurality of calibration targets, the plurality of calibration targets each corresponding to a spatial location of one or more target regions of the passing railcar, wherein each of the plurality of calibration targets corresponds to one or more of the plurality of imaging devices. However, Grata teaches a plurality of imaging devices configured to capture inspection images of a passing railcar travelling along a railway (Grata Abstract “A plurality of cameras is secured to railroad ties to take high resolution images of the underside of a train car as it passes over this plurality of cameras.” and Fig. 4) and a calibration cart configured to travel along the railway (Grata Fig. 5 and [0025] “FIG. 5 is an in-use view of the device on the track with a train car passing over the device”), the calibration cart comprising a plurality of calibration targets, the plurality of calibration targets each corresponding to a spatial location of one or more target regions of the passing railcar, wherein each of the plurality of calibration targets corresponds to one or more of the plurality of imaging devices (Grata [0011] – [0015] and [0019] “Two cameras are specifically designed to take images of the F-pin and its surrounding structure and the other cameras are used to take images of other parts of the underside of a moving train car”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Mian to incorporate the teachings of Grata such that the system comprises a plurality of imaging devices configured to capture inspection images of a passing railcar travelling along a railway and a calibration cart configured to travel along the railway, the calibration cart comprising a plurality of calibration targets, the plurality of calibration targets each corresponding to a spatial location of one or more target regions of the passing railcar, wherein each of the plurality of calibration targets corresponds to one or more of the plurality of imaging devices. Doing so would allow calibration to occur even while the train is moving and insure the structural integrity of the train is maintained (Grata [0012] – [0013] and [0038]).
Mian as modified by Grata does not teach determining a degree of focus of images. However, Newman teaches determining a degree of focus of images (Newman [0050] “Contrast module 104 is configured to determine contrast (difference in luminance) between different portions of an image.”), and determining that at least one of the images has a degree of focus that is less than a focus threshold (Newman Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Newman to Mian as modified by Grata such that the system comprises determining a degree of focus of images, and determining that at least one of the images has a degree of focus that is less than a focus threshold. Doing so would allow for lower quality images to be identified (Newman [0122]).
Regarding claim 2, Mian as modified by Grata and Newman teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Mian further discloses that determining the degree of focus of each of the calibration images comprises:
determining one or more determined image characteristics for each of the calibration images (Mian [0057] “It is understood that many other optical arrangements, such as Fresnel or cylindrical lenses, are possible to produce advantageous imaging characteristics as will be recognized by one skilled in the art”);
comparing the one or more determined image characteristics to one or more corresponding image characteristic threshold values (Mian [0062] For example, calibration module 41 can obtain a set of baseline images of known calibration targets placed on the rail taking the place of wheels 60 present during actual measurement. The set of baseline images are processed by calibration module 41 to determine the mapping to transform measurement images into Cartesian coordinate data over the entire measurement volume for each imaging device 96 and/or illumination device 94 in the capture system 30. “”);
and determining whether the one or more determined image characteristics satisfies the one or more corresponding image characteristic threshold values (Mian [0063] “When one or more errors are detected, an adjustment to the corresponding module/system can be made and image data can be reacquired until all modules/systems generate the correct results”).
Regarding claim 3, Mian as modified by Grata and Newman teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Mian further discloses that the one or more determined image characteristics comprises a contrast measurement (Mian [0064] “Further, adjustment module 42 can enhance/manipulate contrast and/or brightness for the image data to remove noise or compensate for low illumination, glare, surface conditions…”).
Regarding claim 4, Mian as modified by Grata and Newman teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Newman further teaches that the contrast measurement comprises a standard deviation of image pixel intensities associated with each of the calibration images (Newman [0077] “For example, contrast module 104 can compute contrast 138A from a plurality of different locations in frames 132A, 133A, etc. Determining a plurality of image characteristics of the camera image includes calculating an entropy of the camera image (206). For example, entropy module 106 can compute entropy 139A from frames 132A, 133A, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Newman to Mian as modified by Grata and Newman such that the contrast measurement comprises a standard deviation of image pixel intensities associated with each of the calibration images. Doing so would allow for lower quality images to be identified (Newman [0122]).
With respect to Claims 10-12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 1-3. The system taught/disclosed in claims 1-3 can clearly perform the method of claims 10-12. Therefore claims 10-12 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 16-18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 1-3. The system taught/disclosed in claims 1-3 can clearly perform the medium of claims 16-18, including the non-transitory, computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or processors, causes a computing system to perform the instructions (Mian [0030] and [0075]). Therefore claims 16-18 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mian in view of Grata, further in view of Newman and US-20210366132-A1 to Minagawa et. al. (“Minagawa”).
Regarding claim 5, Mian as modified by Grata and Newman teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Mian as modified by Grata and Newman does not teach that the one or more determined image characteristics comprises a phase measurement. However, Minagawa teaches that the one or more determined image characteristics comprises a phase measurement (Minagawa [0176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Minagawa to Mian as modified by Grata and Newman such that the contrast measurement comprises a standard deviation of image pixel intensities associated with each of the calibration images. Doing so would allow for accurate correction of deviation in captured images (Minagawa [0006]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mian in view of Grata, further in view of Newman and US-5502485-A (“Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 6, Mian as modified by Grata and Newman teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Mian as modified by Grata and Newman does not teach that the one or more determined image characteristics comprises a compressibility coefficient. However, Suzuki teaches that the one or more determined image characteristics comprises a compressibility coefficient (Suzuki col 3 lines 2-7 “a compression unit which receives the digital image data from the photographic unit and compresses the digital image data according to a compressibility coefficient, and a compressibility control unit which controls the compressibility coefficient of the compression unit based on the stop value of the stop mechanism.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Suzuki to Mian as modified by Grata and Newman such that the one or more determined image characteristics comprises a compressibility coefficient. Doing so would allow for effective utilization of memory when storing images (Suzuki col 1 lines 14 - 19).
Regarding claim 7, Mian as modified by Grata, Newman, and Suzuki teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. However, Mian as modified by Grata, Newman, and Suzuki does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach that the one or more corresponding image characteristic threshold values comprises a threshold compressibility coefficient of 70. Nevertheless, Smith at least suggests the idea that the one or more corresponding image characteristic threshold values comprises a threshold compressibility coefficient (Suzuki col 3 lines 2-7 “a compression unit which receives the digital image data from the photographic unit and compresses the digital image data according to a compressibility coefficient, and a compressibility control unit which controls the compressibility coefficient of the compression unit based on the stop value of the stop mechanism.”). It is further the Office's stance that the specification of a compressibility coefficient of 70, without any explanation of any well-known benefit of a compressibility coefficient of 70 over other compressibility coefficients is a mere design choice. By choosing a compressibility coefficient of 70, over any other compressibility coefficient, without the recitation of a known and understood benefit, does not distinct the invention over the prior art. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing any compressibility coefficients would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results as doing so would allow for effective utilization of memory when storing images (Suzuki col 1 lines 14 - 19).
Claim(s) 8, 13-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mian in view of Grata, further in view of Newman and US-10984521-B2 to Kohler et. al. (“Kohler”).
Regarding claim 8, Mian as modified by Grata and Newman teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Mian as modified by Grata and Newman does not teach that one or more actuation devices corresponding to one or more of the at least one of the plurality of imaging devices, wherein: the one or more computing devices are further configured to determine an amount of calibration adjustment required for each of the one or more corresponding imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices; and outputting the instructions to adjust calibration settings for the one or more corresponding imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices comprising outputting instructions for the one or more actuation devices to adjust each of the one or more corresponding imaging devices according to a corresponding amount of calibration adjustment. However, Kohler teaches that the system further comprises one or more actuation devices corresponding to one or more of the at least one of the plurality of imaging devices (Kohler col 13 lines 49 – 65 and col 16 lines 24 - 38), wherein:
the one or more computing devices are further configured to determine an amount of calibration adjustment required for each of the one or more corresponding imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices (Kohler col 16 lines 24-38 “Controller 184 may initiate adjustments to one or more components of image capturing system 170. The adjustments may be initiated automatically by controller 184 in response to one or more conditions. For example, controller 184 may instruct HVAC system 180 to provide cooling to beam 174 when a temperature inside beam 174 exceeds a predetermined value.”);
and outputting the instructions to adjust calibration settings for the one or more corresponding imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices comprising outputting instructions for the one or more actuation devices to adjust each of the one or more corresponding imaging devices according to a corresponding amount of calibration adjustment (Kohler col 16 lines 24-38 “Controller 184 may initiate adjustments to one or more components of image capturing system 170. The adjustments may be initiated automatically by controller 184 in response to one or more conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kohler to Mian as modified by Grata and Newman such that the system further comprises one or more actuation devices corresponding to one or more of the at least one of the plurality of imaging devices, wherein: the one or more computing devices are further configured to determine an amount of calibration adjustment required for each of the one or more corresponding imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices; and outputting the instructions to adjust calibration settings for the one or more corresponding imaging devices of the plurality of imaging devices comprising outputting instructions for the one or more actuation devices to adjust each of the one or more corresponding imaging devices according to a corresponding amount of calibration adjustment. Doing so would allow for the cameras to be adjusted based on different conditions (Kohler col 16 lines 24-38).
With respect to Claims 13-14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 8. The system taught/disclosed in claims 8 can clearly perform the method of claims 13-14. Therefore claims 13-14 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 8. The system taught/disclosed in claims 8 can clearly perform the medium of claims 19. Therefore claims 19 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 9, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mian in view of Grata, further in view of Newman and US-20220343697-A1 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 9, Mian as modified by Grata and Newman teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Grata further discloses that the calibration cart comprises one or more motors configured to control movement of the calibration cart (Grata [0011] – [0015]) and that the one or more computing devices are further configured to output instructions for the one or more motors to move the calibration cart along the railway (Grata [0011] – [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Grata to Mian as modified by Grata and Newman such that the calibration cart comprises one or more motors configured to control movement of the calibration cart and that the one or more computing devices are further configured to output instructions for the one or more motors to move the calibration cart along the railway. Doing so would allow calibration to occur even while the train is moving (Grata [0012] – [0013]).
Mian as modified by Grata and Newman does not teach that the one or more computing devices are in communication with the calibration cart and that the one or more computing devices are further configured to output instructions for the one or more motors to move the calibration cart along the railway to position the plurality of calibration targets at corresponding three-dimensional locations at which the plurality of imaging devices are configured capture images of the one or more target regions of the passing railcar. However, Lee teaches that the one or more computing devices are in communication with the calibration cart (Lee Fig. 1); and
the one or more computing devices are further configured to output instructions for the one or more motors to move the calibration cart along the railway to position the plurality of calibration targets at corresponding three-dimensional locations at which the plurality of imaging devices are configured capture images of the one or more target regions of the passing railcar (Lee Abstract “a centering of the vehicle is completed, in which the MMP inspects a mounting state of an ADAS sensor by moving the calibration target unit to a target position while moving to at least one of the front, rear and both sides of the vehicle according to the ADAS inspection command.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Lee to Mian as modified by Grata and Newman such that the one or more computing devices are in communication with the calibration cart and that the one or more computing devices are further configured to output instructions for the one or more motors to move the calibration cart along the railway to position the plurality of calibration targets at corresponding three-dimensional locations at which the plurality of imaging devices are configured capture images of the one or more target regions of the passing railcar. Doing so would allow calibration to occur for each position of the imaging device (Lee [0009]).
With respect to Claims 15, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 9. The system taught/disclosed in claims 9 can clearly perform the method of claims 15. Therefore claims 15 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 9. The system taught/disclosed in claims 9 can clearly perform the medium of claims 20. Therefore claims 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 02/25/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Claim Objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Examiner acknowledges that applicant does not concede to the claim interpretations.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, the Office is still using some of the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
But the Office Action then alleges that Grata discloses a "calibration cart compris[ing] one or more motors configured to control movement of the calibration cart and that the one or more computing devices are further configured to output instructions for the one or more motors to move the calibration cart along the railway." Id. at 9, 17 (citing Grata at 11 [0011]-[0015]). However, Applicant respectfully submits the Office Action's rejection relies on a mischaracterization or misunderstanding of Grata's teachings. To wit, contrary to the Office Action's assertions, the cited portion of Grata (i.e., IT [0011]-[0015]) instead discloses a device for capturing "images of the underside of the train car as it moves over the tracks," which includes "a total of ten cameras, four from the middle looking out from the center of the track and upward at a predetermined angle from the track, four near the edges of the track pointing inward and upward, and two positioned on the outside edge of the interior of the track to capture images of the specific pin that is used on the train," such the "F pin" used to secure the interlocking knuckle that connects adjacent train cars. Moreover, the remainder of Grata is devoid of any discussion, teaching, or suggestion of the recited calibration cart.
Further, each of the remaining references fail to remedy the shortcomings of Mian. Indeed, none of Grata, Newman, Minagawa, Kohler, or Lee teach or suggest any of the above- highlighted elements of claims 1, 10, and 15.
Office Response:
See above updated mapping of Grata. Without any definition of calibration cart, any vehicle with specific target regions (in this case, the train with the F pin) would read on this limitation.
Please see updated mapping with Newman that teaches the degree of focus. Note that the office is treating degree of focus as a contrast measurement, as stated in applicant’s specification [0300].
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
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 JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights