DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed March 5, 2026. Claims 1–3, 7, 15, 21–24, 28, 36, 40, and 42 are amended; claims 12, 17, 33, and 38 are canceled; and claims 43–46 are newly added. Currently, claims 1–4, 7, 15, 21–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 1, 7, 22, and 28 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objection to claims 1, 7, 22, and 28 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 12, 15, 17, 21–25, 28, 33, 36, 38, 40, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 12, 15, 17, 21–25, 28, 33, 36, 38, 40, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. More particularly, Applicant’s remarks are directed to amended subject matter, which is addressed for the first time herein. As a result, Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
To the extent Applicant asserts that the claims embody a “technological improvement to the coordination of a complex combination of diverse components and component users that are involved in video production,” Examiner disagrees. Examiner submits that any alleged improvements in coordination of a video production are improvements in an abstract, business process rather than improvements in technology, and as noted in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection asserted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–4, 7, 15, 21–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46 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.
Claims 1 and 22 recite “project details” in the element reciting “a plurality of digital file sources”. However, claims 1 and 22 previously recite “project details” in the element reciting “an administration control device”. As a result, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “project details”.
Claims 1 and 22 further recite “the digital file source” in the element reciting “a plurality of digital file sources”. Although the claims previously recite “the plurality of digital file sources comprising a source of one or more digital file,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the digital file source” in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “wherein each digital file source has an associated unique code configured for scanning by the mobile device associated with a production platform user to initiate a link to the administration control device for communicating the project details to the production platform user and for providing the one or more digital file obtained from the
Finally, claims 1 and 22 recite “a completed video production” in the elements reciting “a remote editing module” and “wherein the UI is further configured to deliver”. As a result, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “completed video production”.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “wherein the UI is further configured to deliver [[a]] the completed video production to a content distribution network (CDN)”.
In view of the above, claims 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–4, 7, 15, 21, 23–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46, which depend from claims 1 and 22, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–4, 7, 15, 21, 23–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–4, 7, 15, 21–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–4, 7, 15, 21–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements “operable by a project manager for managing a video production workflow for a specified project by providing instructions and access permissions to a plurality of platform users for displaying a dashboard comprising project details associated with the specified project, the project details comprising a project site plan and setup information”; “controlling a plurality of cameras associated with the specified project”; functionality “to receive and aggregate the one or more digital file for editing by a post-production platform user for generating a completed video production”; and “deliver a completed video production”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for managing video production workflows to deliver a completed video production. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 22 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 22 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–4, 7, 15, 21, 23–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46 further describe the process for managing video production workflows to deliver a completed video production and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–4, 7, 15, 21, 23–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a plurality of modules in communication with a network, an administration control device, a user interface comprising a display device, a mobile device, a navigation menu, an offsite camera control module, a plurality of digital file sources in communication with the network, an associated unique code configured for scanning by the mobile device, a hub, a remote editing module, a media storage device, and a content distribution network (CDN). When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computer components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 22 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 22 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
Claims 7, 15, 28, 36, 40, 43, and 45 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a machine learning module configured to artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted functions (claims 7 and 28), an element for “generating a master status dashboard (MSD) to display” (claims 15, 36, and 40), and an element to “launch a shoot setup screen” (claims 43 and 45). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 7, 15, 28, 36, 40, 43, and 45 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–4, 21, 23–25, 42, 44, and 46 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–4, 21, 23–25, 42, 44, and 46 depend. As a result, claims 2–4, 21, 23–25, 42, 44, and 46 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a plurality of modules in communication with a network, an administration control device, a user interface comprising a display device, a mobile device, a navigation menu, an offsite camera control module, a plurality of digital file sources in communication with the network, an associated unique code configured for scanning by the mobile device, a hub, a remote editing module, a media storage device, and a content distribution network (CDN). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computer components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 22 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 22 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Claims 7, 15, 28, 36, 40, 43, and 45 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a machine learning module configured to artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted functions (claims 7 and 28), an element for “generating a master status dashboard (MSD) to display” (claims 15, 36, and 40), and an element to “launch a shoot setup screen” (claims 43 and 45). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 7, 15, 28, 36, 40, 43, and 45 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–4, 21, 23–25, 42, 44, and 46 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–4, 21, 23–25, 42, 44, and 46 depend. As a result, claims 2–4, 21, 23–25, 42, 44, and 46 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–4, 7, 15, 21–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–4, 7, 15, 21–25, 28, 36, 40, and 42–46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAETZ et al. (U.S. 2015/0317571) in view of Masek et al. (U.S. 2021/0357265), and in further view of Lindley et al. (U.S. 2009/0024963) and Morgan et al. (U.S. 2021/0329812).
Claims 1 and 22: Maetz discloses a platform for managing video production workflows, the platform (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 29) comprising:
a plurality of modules in communication with a network (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 31, wherein the tool comprises interfaces and a plurality of modules accessed using web browsers), the plurality of modules comprising:
an administration control device comprising a user interface (UI) operable by a project manager for managing a video production workflow for a specified project by providing instructions and access permissions to a plurality of platform users (See paragraphs 31 and 33, wherein the project management module facilitates administration of the film making project), wherein each platform user is associated with a mobile device (See paragraph 106, wherein each user accesses the system using a tablet), wherein the UI comprises a display device configured for displaying a dashboard comprising project details associated with the specified project, the project details including a navigation menu configured for selectively activating links to other modules of the plurality of modules (See FIG. 1–2 and paragraphs 31 and 35, wherein the users access and manipulate the interface to navigate and actuate production options);
a plurality of digital file sources for providing the one or more digital file obtained from the digital file source to other modules of the plurality of modules (See paragraph 35, wherein each project is associated with a source file; see also paragraph 38, wherein each project file is uniquely identified according to the project name; see also FIG. 1–2 and paragraph 45, wherein files are generated from cameras);
a hub in communication with the network configured for routing the one or more digital file among the plurality of modules, wherein the navigation menu is configured to activate the hub and provide instructions for routing the one or more digital file to a destination module of the plurality of modules (See FIG. 1–2 and paragraph 33, wherein the tool facilitates administration of the film making project; see also paragraphs 36 and 38, wherein the system facilitates routing the project file between users and modules);
a remote editing module in communication with the network, the remote editing module configured to receive and aggregate the one or more digital file into a media storage device associated with an edit workstation for editing by a post-production platform user for generating a completed video production (See paragraphs 31 and 33, in view of paragraph 35, wherein the data access, asset recommendation, direction assistant, and pre-visualization modules facilitate viewing and modifying the film project; see also paragraphs 91, 98, and 102, wherein film editing elements are further disclosed). Maetz does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Masek discloses an offsite camera control module configured for controlling a plurality of cameras associated with the specified project (See paragraphs 23 and 30, in view of paragraph 21, wherein video sources, including remote video sources are operated by a director or technical director);
a plurality of digital file sources in communication with the network, each digital file source of the plurality of digital file sources comprising a source of one or more digital file, wherein each digital file source is selected from the plurality of cameras, one or more audio recorder, one or more independent camera, a computer, and a storage device (See FIG. 1, FIG. 3, and paragraph 36, wherein digital file sources are networked with additional virtual production control room sources, and wherein Examiner notes that the listed source types are afforded limited patentable weight because the listed source types merely establish a field of use and do not patentably limit the recited platform or method); and
wherein the UI is further configured to deliver a completed video production to a content distribution network (CDN) in communication with the network (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 106, wherein output content is transmitted to a server associated with a CDN).
Maetz discloses a system directed to managing film pre-production. Masek discloses a system directed to managing virtual production of media content. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing the production of media content. The techniques of controlling offsite cameras and delivery content to a CDN are applicable to the system of Maetz as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing the production of media content.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Masek would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Masek to the teachings of Maetz would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate media content production management into similar systems. Further, applying offsite camera control and content delivery to Maetz would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more reliable management. Maetz and Masek do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Lindley discloses the project details further comprising a project site plan and setup information (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 31, wherein the scene design tool facilitates placement of equipment and participants); and
to initiate a link to the administration control device for communicating project details to the production platform user (See paragraph 28, in view of FIG. 10 and paragraph 49, wherein the scene design tool facilitates transmission of scene details to relevant parties).
As disclosed above, Maetz discloses a system directed to managing film pre-production, and Masek discloses a system directed to managing virtual production of media content. Lindley discloses a system directed to designing film scenes. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing the production of media content. The technique of utilizing site plan and setup details is applicable to the systems of Maetz and Masek as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing the production of media content.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lindley would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lindley to the teachings of Maetz and Masek would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate media content production management into similar systems. Further, applying site plan and setup details to Maetz and Masek would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more reliable management. Maetz, Masek, and Lindley do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Morgan discloses wherein each source has an associated unique code configured for scanning by the mobile device associated with a user to initiate a link to the administration control device for communicating details to the user (See paragraph 188, in view of FIG. 22 and paragraphs 186–187, wherein information associated with each equipment element is accessed by scanning a barcode, and wherein the management platform may further provide positional recommendations for each equipment element).
As disclosed above, Maetz discloses a system directed to managing film pre-production, Masek discloses a system directed to managing virtual production of media content, and Lindley discloses a system directed to designing film scenes. Morgan discloses a system directed to managing equipment within a facility. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the equipment scanning features disclosed by Morgan into the content production features of Maetz, Masek, and Lindley because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further, although Morgan does not directly pertain to the field of content production, a reference in a field different from that of applicant's endeavor may be reasonably pertinent if it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his or her invention as a whole (MPEP 2141.01). The prior art of record provides common essential elements, even though the prior art applied is not content production based but rather based in equipment management; furthermore it solves the pertinent problem.
Claims 2 and 23: Maetz discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein the platform users comprise one or more of an administrator, the project manager, a producer, a director, a technical director, a camera operator, an audio operator, on-screen or voice-over talent, an editor, and a client (See paragraph 35, wherein directors and producers are platform users).
Claims 3 and 24: Maetz discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein instructions are configured to trigger one or more automated action within one or more of the plurality of modules and the plurality of digital file sources (See paragraph 35, wherein, upon creation and completion of tasks, the tools and digital file are automatically updated).
Claims 4 and 25: Maetz discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein the one or more digital file comprises one or a combination of an image, a sequence of images, an audio, and metadata describing one or more of the image, the series of images, the audio, and information relating to creation of the one or more digital file (See paragraphs 83–89, wherein audio features are disclosed in the context of the film production file, and paragraphs 91–105, wherein video and image features are disclosed in the context of the film production file).
Claims 7 and 28: Maetz discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein the plurality of modules further comprises one or a combination of a machine learning module configured for artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted asset identification and categorization, a remote production module configured for managing broadcast of the completed video production to the CDN, and a client review and collaboration module configured to provide edited content to a client to review and accept or reject the edited content prior to delivering the completed video production (See paragraphs 35 and 38, wherein edited content is validated within the tool module by a reviewing party; see also paragraph 32, wherein a rating agency may preview edited content using the tool module).
For purposes of compact prosecution, Masek further discloses a remote production module configured for managing broadcast of the video production to the CDN (See paragraph 69, in view of paragraph 89, wherein production operators manage broadcast distribution).
Claims 15 and 36: Maetz discloses the platform in claim 1, wherein the navigation menu is further configured to perform one or more of assigning access limits for controlling access to the plurality of digital file sources and the one or more digital file by each platform user as required for an assigned job for the platform user (See paragraph 32, wherein access is controlled according to role, and wherein access is managed by the director or producer; see also paragraph 38, wherein project control 216 is disclosed), and collecting status information and generating a master status dashboard (MSD) to display status and settings for communications and performance data in real time (See paragraph 32, wherein access is controlled according to role, and wherein access is managed by the director or producer; see also paragraph 38, wherein project control 216 is disclosed).
For purposes of compact prosecution, Masek discloses collecting status information for the plurality of digital file sources to display communications and performance data in real time (See paragraph 36, wherein video and audio sources are monitored using a multiview display), and Lindley discloses collecting status information for the plurality of digital file sources and generating a master status dashboard (MSD) to display status and settings for each digital file source (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 32–33, wherein camera status and settings data are displayed on a management interface).
Claims 21 and 42: Maetz discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein the remote editing module is configured to manage a workflow for jobs comprising editing, reviewing and finalizing the specified project (See paragraph 42, wherein workflow 220 discloses managing a workflow of project tasks), wherein the remote editing module is further configured to deliver a digital asset to a designated platform user when a job is assigned to the designated platform user (See paragraph 35, wherein tasks lists for a responsible party are updated in response to task assignments, and wherein tasks are associated with task assets).
Claim 40: Maetz discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the administration control device is further configured to collect status information for platform components and generate a master status dashboard (MSD) to display status and settings for communications and performance data in real time (See paragraph 36, wherein the tool visualizes continuous progress updates with respect to all data related to the film project file; see also paragraph 42, wherein workflow 220 discloses generating a task list within a workflow management tool). Maetz and Masek do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Lindley discloses functionality to generate a master status dashboard (MSD) to display status and settings for each digital file source (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 32–33, wherein camera status and settings data are displayed on a management interface)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lindley would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 45 and 43: Maetz discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein the navigation menu displays a crew menu listing one or more production platform user (See paragraphs 35 and 43, wherein the director assigns tasks to project members; see also paragraph 38, wherein the workflow element lists tasks by worker); and
and wherein selection of the selected team member identity automatically enables permissions for a production platform user associated with the selected team member identity (See paragraph 38, in view of paragraph 32, wherein roles of a given project may be assigned, and wherein roles are associated with standard access permissions unless modified). Although Masek discloses equipment identifiers (See FIG. 6 and paragraphs 74–75, wherein equipment identifiers are disclosed) Maetz and Masek do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Lindley discloses wherein the navigation menu is further configured to launch a shoot setup screen in response to selection by the project manager, wherein the shoot setup screen displays a diagram of the project site plan (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 31, wherein a scene design tool includes a GUI having a camera placement tool and an actor placement tool), and one or more of a gear menu listing the plurality of cameras within the project site plan (See paragraph 58, wherein the camera placement tool includes a list of available equipment) and a participant menu listing one or more production platform user (See paragraph 57, wherein actors may be dragged and dropped from a listing of available actors), wherein the project manager uses the shoot setup screen to set up each camera of the plurality of cameras by:
selecting a camera identity from the gear menu (See paragraph 58, wherein the camera placement tool includes a list of available equipment);
positioning the selected camera identity at a desired location within the displayed diagram of the project site plan (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 32–33, wherein cameras are positioned using the camera placement tool; see also paragraph 58);
selecting a participant identity from the participant menu (See paragraph 57, wherein actors may be dragged and dropped from a listing of available actors); and
positioning the selected participant identity at the desired location (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 31, wherein an actor icon is positioned and oriented);
wherein selection of the selected camera identity automatically provisions a camera associated with the selected camera identity (See paragraph 28, wherein equipment is situated and configured according to the designed scene).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lindley would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 46 and 44: Although Masek discloses a status indicator for each of the plurality of cameras (See paragraph 36, wherein video and audio source outputs are displayed to a graphics operator), Maetz and Masek do not expressly disclose the elements of claims 46 and 44.
Lindley discloses wherein the shoot setup screen is further configured to display a status indicator for each of the plurality of cameras (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 32–33, wherein equipment elements are displayed, and wherein status indicators display positioning information).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lindley would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623