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 Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on September 19, 2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-2 and 13-14 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 remain pending.
The amendment to claims 13-14 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C § 112(b) rejections from the previous Office action. Those rejections are hereby withdrawn.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a memory coupled to a processor which when executed, causes the processor to perform personal authentication of the user based on the image captured in claim 13 is a computer implemented mean-plus-function, see MPEP 2181(II)B, the corresponding structure is disclosed in [0054] and [0058] of instant specification as filed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The term or phrase “costume-like” and “the external member is integrated with the robot body” each lack antecedence basis in the specification.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-14, claim 1 as amended, introduces the word or terminology “costume-like”. As noted in the objection to the specification above, this term/phrase finds no counterpart in the specification, much less, an Applicant defined definition. As such, this word or phrase takes the full breadth of its ordinary meaning, for example, “a set of clothes you wear when you want to dress up like another person” https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/costume. The most relevant section of the specification as filed is page 5, first paragraph in regards to “soft cloth and the like” in reference to external member 10. A costume is not limited to soft cloth, as such, the amendment to claims 1 and 3-14 goes beyond the original disclosure and fails to convey to those of ordinary skill in the art that the Applicant was in possession of the invention now claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the amendment in the last line to recite that “the entire external member is integrated with the robot body” fails to meet the written description requirement. The most relevant section of the disclosure as filed in specification [0018] that discusses integration of external members of the torso and arm, there is no disclosure of external member being integrated with a robot body. If examiner is mistaken, Applicant is respectfully requested to cite specific section of the original disclosure that provide written description for the limitations in question.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recite in part, costume-like exterior. The scope of the phrase “costume-like” is unclear considering the phrase is not defined in the specification as filed. Claims 3-14 are likewise rejected, because they inherit the deficiency of base claim 1.
Claim 13 recite in part, “a memory coupled to the processor which when executed causes the processor to….”. However, memory as best understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, is the thing or element that stores the thing or element that is usually executed by a processor. This is consistent with instant specification as filed , page 17, first paragraph and page 18 first full paragraph. For this reason, claim 13 is rejected, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the thing or element that is stored in the memory, to be executed by the processor.
Claim 14 is rejected under this Statue for substantially similar rationale as claim 13, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the thing or element that is stored in the memory, to be executed by the processor. For examination purposes only, for claims 13 and 14, it will be presumed that the claims recite the memory storing one or more programs, which are executed by the processor.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Hayashi et al., US 20200030707 A1 hereinafter "Hayashi" in view of previously cited Ouchi US 20060217612 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a robot (“100”), comprising: an external member, wherein the external member is a costume-like exterior ([0039] “… The robot 100 may be clothed. By the body 104, which is rounded, soft, and pleasant to touch”; [0057] “The outer skin 314 is formed of urethane sponge, and covers the main body frame 310 from an outer side”; and [0133] “the outer skin 314 is configured by a base material 520 having elasticity being housed in a fabric bag 522, and is formed of a soft material that feels good to touch all over. The fabric bag 522 is such that a fabric material smooth to the touch, such as polyester, is sewn into a bag form, and a non-woven fabric (non-woven fabric) is provided on an inner side of a face that forms an outer side when mounted on the robot 100” - see the 35 USC § 112 rejections above, robot 100 is clothed, hence costume-like under broadest reasonable interpretation, see definition noted above. Moreover, external member disclosed by Hayashi is also substantially similar, if not the same as the external member disclosed in Application specification as filed in page 5, first paragraph, as such external member of Hayashi is taken to read on recited “costume-like exterior”, see also MPEP 2112.01 (I) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)); and
an electromagnetic wave sensor that is provided internally of the external member ([0079]”The internal sensor 128 is a collection of various kinds of sensor incorporated in the robot 100. Specifically, the internal sensor 128 is… a distance measuring sensor (infrared sensor)”).
Hayashi does not explicitly disclose that the internal sensor is configured to obtain biological information of a user by using electromagnetic waves.
Ouchi discloses a biological information monitoring apparatus ([abstract], [0001]) comprising an electromagnetic sensor configured to obtain biological information of a user by using electromagnetic waves ([0006]) wherein the sensor may be arranged underneath a surface ([0042]) because the electromagnetic waves can be transmitted through back cushion, cloth and wear of a subject ([0043]). Ouchi expressly suggest incorporating the sensors into a robot, “so as to operate as remote sensing and feedback means so that people can be positively assisted by the robot on the basis the biological information of the people acquired by the system” ([0049]). In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the robot of Hayashi to include an electromagnetic wave sensor underneath the external member (outer skin 314) of Hayashi, as suggested by Ouchi, so as to operate as remote sensing and feedback means so that people can be positively assisted by the robot on the basis the biological information of the people acquired by the system” while maintaining the external appearance of the robot.
Regarding claims 3-8, Hayashi in view of Ouchi discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, Hayashi further discloses wherein the outer skin 314 is formed of a soft material having elasticity [0039] - [claim 3], urethane sponge [0057], fabric bag such as polyester sewed into a bag form and a non-woven fabric provided on an inner side [0134], rubber sponge [0177] or resin material will have a hardness as claimed by virtue of the materials disclosed by Hayashi being the same as the claimed materials, see MPEP 2112.01 (I) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) [claim 4]; and will have a soft portion externally of the electromagnetic wave sensor by virtue of the sensor being underneath the outer skin 314 as modified by Ouchi [claim 5]. The robot as disclosed by Hayashi comprise a robot body “104” see e.g., Figs. 1A-1B, wherein the body includes the soft portion [claim 6]; the robot body can be described as including a torso (part of body 104 that excludes the head, neck, arms and legs) and the torso includes the soft portion [claim 7]; and the torso includes an abdomen, and the abdomen includes the soft portion [claim 8].
Regarding claims 9-10, Hayashi in view of Ouchi discloses the invention of claim 3 as discussed above, as modified by Ouchi, the external member will have a transmittance greater than 1% with respect to electromagnetic waves having a frequency greater 300 MHz and lower than 300 GHz in view of teachings of Ouchi in [0043] that the electromagnetic waves can be transmitted through back cushion, cloth and wear of a subject [claim 9], also note: the electromagnetic wave sensor of Hayashi as modified by Ouchi and the external member are similar to the claimed elements and are expected to have the same properties, MPEP 2112.01 (I) section noted in preceding paragraph is also applicable here.
As to claim 10, the thickness of the external member of Hayashi will have a thickness that falls in the claimed range, in any event, Hayashi teaches in [0181] that a thickness of the base material is variable to achieve an intended elasticity. Since the particular parameter of the thickness range affects elasticity, it is a matter of optimization as being result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to use the particular parameter of the thickness range in order to achieve a suitable elasticity of the external member, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233(MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claims 11-12, Hayashi in view of Ouchi discloses the invention of claim 3 as discussed above, the robot of Hayashi comprise a robot body (“104”) see illustration Figs. 1A-1B, and a driven body that includes an arm (“106”) that is displaceable relative to the robot body ([0061] “A drive mechanism for driving the arm 106…”).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi in view of Ouchi discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising: a camera, configured to capture an image of the user; a processor and a memory a coupled to the processor ([0083]), which when executed, cause the processor to send a signal to the camera to capture the image of the user and perform personal authentication of the user based on the image captured ( see Fig. 7, data processing unit 136[0099] “… person recognizing unit 214 determines what person a filmed user corresponds to by comparing a feature vector extracted from an image filmed by the camera incorporated in the robot 100 and a feature vector of a user (cluster) registered in advance in the individual data storage unit 218 (a user identification process)” person recognizing unit 214 is an equivalent thereof controller 13 that achieves functions of authentication unit 104 disclosed in [0054] and [0058] of the instant specification as filed).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi discloses a robot (“100”), comprising: a robot body “104” see e.g., Figs. 1A-1B, an external member, wherein the external member includes an organic material ([0057] “The outer skin 314 is formed of urethane sponge, and covers the main body frame 310 from an outer side”; and [0133] “the outer skin 314 is configured by a base material 520 having elasticity being housed in a fabric bag 522, and is formed of a soft material that feels good to touch all over. The fabric bag 522 is such that a fabric material smooth to the touch, such as polyester, is sewn into a bag form, and a non-woven fabric (non-woven fabric) is provided on an inner side of a face that forms an outer side when mounted on the robot 100” - each portion of external member (outer skin 314) noted above is an organic material; an electromagnetic wave sensor that is provided internally of the external member ([0079]”The internal sensor 128 is a collection of various kinds of sensor incorporated in the robot 100. Specifically, the internal sensor 128 is… a distance measuring sensor (infrared sensor)”).
Hayashi does not explicitly disclose that the internal sensor is configured to obtain biological information of a user by using electromagnetic waves.
Ouchi discloses a biological information monitoring apparatus ([abstract], [0001]) comprising an electromagnetic sensor configured to obtain biological information of a user by using electromagnetic waves ([0006]) wherein the sensor may be arranged underneath a surface ([0042]) because the electromagnetic waves can be transmitted through back cushion, cloth and wear of a subject ([0043]). Ouchi expressly suggest incorporating the sensors into a robot, “so as to operate as remote sensing and feedback means so that people can be positively assisted by the robot on the basis the biological information of the people acquired by the system” ([0049]). In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the robot of Hayashi to include an electromagnetic wave sensor underneath the external member (outer skin 314) of Hayashi, as suggested by Ouchi, so as to operate as remote sensing and feedback means so that people can be positively assisted by the robot on the basis the biological information of the people acquired by the system” while maintaining the external appearance of the robot.
To continue, the external member above the electromagnetic wave sensor in modified Hayashi would have a thickness, although Hayashi does not specify a thickness, Hayashi teaches in [0181] that a thickness of the base material is variable to achieve an intended elasticity. Since the particular parameter of the thickness range affects elasticity, it is a matter of optimization as being result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to use the particular parameter of the thickness range in order to achieve a suitable elasticity of the external member, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233(MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Hayashi further discloses wherein the outer skin 314 includes a soft portion ([0039]) and is made of urethane sponge [0057], fabric bag such as polyester sewed into a bag form and a non-woven fabric provided on an inner side [0134], rubber sponge [0177] or resin material will have a hardness as claimed by virtue of the materials disclosed by Hayashi being the same as the claimed materials, see MPEP 2112.01 (I) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
In regards to the entire external member being integrated with the robot body, see the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections above, examiner notes Figs. 11A-11B of Hayashi that depict an external member 314 that is integrated consistent with the disclosure as filed. In regards to the recitation in the claim, Hayashi discloses the external member and the robot body as separate, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have integrated the entire external member of Hayashi with the robot body, because it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993)( : MPEP 2144.04 (V-B)). IN view of these,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Ouchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al., US 20130141306 A1 hereinafter “Chiang”.
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi in view of Ouchi discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising a processor and a memory storing one or more programs ([0083]), however, Hayashi does not explicitly disclose a tactile sensor or capacitive sensor configured to detect contact or proximity of the user to the robot and cause the electromagnetic wave sensor to start obtainment of the biological information based on a detection result obtained.
However, Ouchi teaches in [0021] “The distance good for remote sensing is typically not longer than 1 m. A heat sensor 20 adapted to detect an approaching person may be arranged in the wash basin or the like for the purpose of turning on and off the switch of the monitoring apparatus. Instead of a heat sensor 20, a camera may be arranged to check if a person is standing in front of the wash basin or not and identify the person standing in front of the wash basin and the site of the body to be sensed by the bio monitor” . Accordingly, Ouchi teaches use of proximity sensors to detect proximity of a person, to activate the electromagnetic wave sensor.
Chiang in the same problem solving area of activating an electromagnetic wave generating circuit of a sensor, discloses a mixed antenna system consisting of a control integrated circuit which switches the antenna to a capacitive proximity sensor for enabling the capacitive proximity sensor to sense an approaching external object, and then switches the antenna away the capacitive proximity sensor to an electromagnetic wave generating circuit of a sensor, thus saving energy and reducing heat ([abstract], [0002]).
In view of the combined teachings of Ouchi and Chiang, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified Hayashi to include a proximity sensor and electromagnetic wave sensor in a single antenna and a control integrated circuit that switches the antenna to a capacitive proximity sensor for enabling the capacitive proximity sensor to sense an approaching person to the robot, and then switches the antenna away the capacitive proximity sensor to an electromagnetic wave generating circuit to collect biological information of the user, because Ouchi teaches in [0021] that distance good for remote sensing is typically not longer than 1 m, and activating the electromagnetic wave sensor to collect biological information after detecting a user is less than 1 m from the robot would increase accuracy in collecting the biological information and in view of the teachings of Chiang, the modified system would save electrical energy and reduce heat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 19, 2025 have been fully considered and are each addressed as follows:
In regards to claim interpretation of claim 13, examiner notes that recitation of “a memory coupled to the processor” does not recite sufficient structure for performing the function “perform personal authentication of the user based on the image captured”, because this function is directed towards an algorithm. As such, in the current form, the claim language invokes claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) - see MPEP 2181 (II) B. Computer implemented means=plus-function limitations.
In response to arguments directed to the prior art rejections, Applicant refers to [0005] of Hayashi, however, examiner notes that [0006] of Hayashi is geared towards overcoming the effects of costumes that causes an oddity to occur in an external appearance of the robot, such as a wrinkle. As noted in the rejection section, the costume-like recitations raises 35 U.S.C 112(a) issues as noted above, moreover, as noted in the rejection section, the external member of Hayashi is substantially similar, if not the same as the external member disclosed in instant specification as filed in page 5, first paragraph, as such external member of Hayashi is taken to read on recited external member “costume-like exterior”, see also MPEP 2112.01 (I) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
In arguments directed to claim 2, examiner notes that similar limitations were previously addressed in previously presented claims 3-10, because Applicant does not point out disagreements with the examiner' s contentions, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them, Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 2 are deemed not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797