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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCLACHLAN (No. WO-2022189832-A1 “McLachlan”) in view of YUAN (No. US-20170032263-A1 “Yuan”) and in further view of XU (No. US-20220254121-A1 “Xu”) in view of DU (No. US-20230206568-A1 “Du”).
Regarding claim 1, McLachlan teaches “A method performed by an electronic device for contextual based enhancement of an extended reality (XR) scene, the method comprising:” (a method of a system of one or more electronic devices supports an extended reality application at a user device; Para 0008);
“detecting at least one static object among a plurality of objects available in an XR scene for a predefined time period and at least one dynamic object among the plurality of objects in the XR scene;” (displaying static and dynamic content via extended reality (XR) overlays; Para 0043); (static objects that are to be subject to access controls must be detectable via object detection technologies Dynamic geospatial or object-based access controls work on the principles that given locations or objects are detectable; Para 0054);
“applying the contextual meta information retrieved from a contextual database based on the correlation, to the at least one dynamic object.” (The metadata describing a mobile dynamic content unit can be stored in the edgecloud, supply-side platform (SSP), or similar location; Para 0052); (The class information can be determined by a lookup in a database of objects maintained at the edgecloud; Para 0070); (visual overlay or projection of virtual content over the projected physical space corresponding to the mobile dynamic content unit opportunity in the map; Para 0084);
McLachlan does not teach “by applying a refined surface map, a refined depth map, and a refined light map to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene” and “obtaining a correlation between the context information of the at least one dynamic object and contextual meta information corresponding to the at least one dynamic object”.
McLachlan further teaches “determining context information of the at least one dynamic object” (incorporate contextual information from nearby objects in the environment to solve this problem; Para 0066);
Xu teaches “by applying a refined surface map, a refined depth map, and” (surface geometry of the environment is reconstructed using the depth map, the normal map, .... reconstructed surface geometry provides a mesh .... with point locations determined by the depth map and surface orientations determined by the normal map; Para 0044);
Du teaches “a refined light map to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene;” (may illuminate the AR scene 400 based on the depth data derived from the depth map and/or the color/reflectivity data derived from the color map; Para 0045);
McLachlan discloses contextual information about an object. Xu discloses refining reconstructed surface geometry from scene measurements and that geometry is used in AR rendering. As well as scaling the depth map which showcase refined depth map of the scene. Du discloses the lighting representation, that lighting information is processed with scene geometry to produce correct lighting. Du’s color map renders an obvious distinction to a light map. In combination, applying the surface geometry, depth map and lighting map information would render XR content. It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art to modify McLachlan’s spatial mapping and rendering of XR content with the reconstructed surface geometry and refined depth information of Xu and the depth dependent lighting information taught by Du. This would allow for the improvement of the dynamic XR content by employing the geometry, depth and lighting maps taught by Xu and Du.
The motivation for the above is to improve geometric, depth and light maps for better results of XR content.
McLachlan does not teach “obtaining a correlation between the context information of the at least one dynamic object and contextual meta information corresponding to the at least one dynamic object”.
Yuan teaches “obtaining a correlation between the context information of the at least one dynamic object and contextual meta information corresponding to the at least one dynamic object; and” (Given the particular information entity, its contextual background usually shapes the meaning and the value of the particular information entity, as well as any correlations the particular information entity may share with the other information entities; Para 0026); (However, without losing any generality, and for simplicity, it is assumed entity contextual features are stored in a persistent data repository, such as database 220 shown in FIG. 2; Para 0027); (database 220 includes data from data sources 222, contextual models 110, 120, contextual relationships 130 (shown in FIG. 1), and predictive information model 140 (shown in FIG. 1); Para 0044); (Such contextual information represents the information needs. Predictive information model 140 identifies meta and macro information; Para 0040);
McLachlan discloses an entity that has contextual information and the correlation between that entity and other entities. Which relates to the dynamic object’s contextual information. The contextual information is stored in a database.
McLachlan, Yuan, Xu and Du are analogous art as they are related to Extended reality and semantic information.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate and efficient storage for contextual information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified McLachlan by obtaining a correlation between the context information of the at least one dynamic object and contextual meta information corresponding to the at least one dynamic object as taught by Yuan and by applying a refined surface map, a refined depth map, and a refined light map to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene as taught by Xu and Du.
Regarding claim 2, McLachlan teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the context information includes at least one of a current time, a location or a lighting condition, and wherein the contextual meta information includes a surface map of the XR scene, a depth map of the XR scene and a light map of the XR scene.” (The dynamic content can be any type of sensory or related information (e.g., graphics, sounds, and similar information). ...The dynamic content units define the location and dimensions where the dynamic content can be displayed in the extended reality environment; Para 0036); (a spatial map and semantic understanding (hereinafter referred to as the semantic map) are generated for the area the resulting data is stored in the edgecloud and associated with the metadata to describe XR dynamic content; Para 0046); (The first step of the application of access controls can be to enroll, register, or similarly log information about a physical environment using spatial mapping and object detection. ...The information sent to the edgecloud could be either raw data (visual, audio, sensor, and other information); Para 0058);
McLachlan discloses sensory information like graphics or location that can relate to the lighting condition and location stored in the context information. Also, logging information about the environment relates to the current time of the context information. As for the contextual meta information, a spatial map and semantic map are known in the art to include the surface, depth and light maps in an XR scene. In combination with Xu and Du teaching a refined depth and light map, it showcases rendering XR content with information that such as time, location or lighting.
Regarding claim 4, McLachlan further teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
“storing the contextual meta information of each object of the plurality of objects in the contextual database,” (The metadata describing a mobile dynamic content unit can be stored in the edgecloud, supply-side platform (SSP), or similar location; Para 0052); (The class information can be determined by a lookup in a database of objects maintained at the edgecloud; Para 0070);
“wherein the XR scene is associated with a predefined area comprising the plurality of objects.” (a spatial map and semantic understanding (hereinafter referred to as the semantic map) are generated for the area the resulting data is stored in the edgecloud and associated with the metadata to describe XR dynamic content and overlays stored in supply-side platforms (SSP); Para 0046);
Regarding claim 7, McLachlan teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the context information comprises at least one of a current time, a location, a lighting condition, or user information.” (The dynamic content can be any type of sensory or related information (e.g., graphics, sounds, and similar information). ...The dynamic content units define the location and dimensions where the dynamic content can be displayed in the extended reality environment; Para 0036); (The first step of the application of access controls can be to enroll, register, or similarly log information about a physical environment using spatial mapping and object detection. ...The information sent to the edgecloud could be either raw data (visual, audio, sensor, and other information); Para 0058); (determining semantic information for the location and pose of the user device; Para 0010);
McLachlan discloses sensory information like graphics or location that can relate to the lighting condition and location stored in the context information. User information relates to dynamic content since the user is considered dynamic and the user device. Also, logging of information about the environment relates to the current time and even the user information of the context information.
Regarding claim 10, McLachlan teaches “An electronic device for contextual based enhancement of an extended reality (XR) scene, the electronic device comprising:” (electronic devices supports an extended reality application; Para 0009);
“a display including a touchscreen;” (the interaction may be via a touch screen... a touch display; Para 00131);
“memory storing one or more computer programs; and” (an electronic device may include non-volatile memory containing the code since the non-volatile memory can persist code; Para 0034);
“one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display, and the memory,” (the processor(s) of that electronic device is typically copied from the slower non volatile memory into volatile memory; Para 0034);
“wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to:” (machine operative to execute machine instructions stored as machine-readable computer programs; Para 00136); (an electronic device (e.g., a computer) includes hardware and software, such as a set of one or more processors; Para 0034);
Claim 10 is directed to an electronic device and its other limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Claim 12 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 12 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 4.
Claim 15 is directed to an electronic device and its other limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, McLachlan teaches “The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors includes a processor and a contextual meta information controller.” (one or more processors (e.g., wherein a processor is a microprocessor, controller, microcontroller, ...a combination of one or more of the preceding); Para 0034);
Regarding claim 20, McLachlan teaches “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform the method of claim 1.” (a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored therein a set of instructions, which when executed by an electronic device cause the electronic device to perform a set of operations; Para 0010); (an electronic device (e.g., a computer) includes hardware and software, such as a set of one or more processors; Para 0034);
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCLACHLAN in view of YUAN in further view of XU in view of DU and in further view of BHUSHAN (No. US-11048760-B1 “Bhushan”).
Regarding claim 3, while McLachlan, Yuan, Xu and Du fail to teach the limitation, Bhushan teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in case that the correlation between the context information of the at least one dynamic object and the contextual meta information corresponding to the at least one dynamic object is not available in the contextual database, displaying a partial rendering of the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene by applying non-contextual meta information of the at least one dynamic object.” (The XR object could be a full graphics overlay or a partial overlay; Col 62, Line 1-3); (The XR system displays a first XR object, such that the first XR object is visible in the XR environment; Col 71, Line 52-53); (adjusts the level of detail of information displayed within each XR object; Col 71, Line 61-62);
Bhushan discloses a partial overlay which relates to the rendering of a dynamic object in an XR scene. Also adjusting the information displayed with each XR object relates to the non-contextual meta information.
McLachlan, Yuan, Xu, Du and Bhushan are analogous art as they are related Extended reality and semantic information.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate partial rendering of dynamic objects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified McLachlan, Yuan, Xu and Du by displaying a partial rendering of the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene by applying non-contextual meta information of the at least one dynamic object as taught by Bhushan.
Regarding claim 5, while McLachlan, Yuan, Xu and Du fail to teach the limitation, Bhushan teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a complete rendering of the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene by applying the contextual meta information to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene;” (The XR object could be a full graphics overlay or a partial overlay; Col 62, Line 1-3); (The XR system displays a first XR object, such that the first XR object is visible in the XR environment; Col 71, Line 52-53); (adjusts the level of detail of information displayed within each XR object; Col 71, Line 61-62);
“refining the surface map, the depth map, and the light map based on the context information of the at least one dynamic object; and” (adjusting the level of detail of an extended reality object in an extended reality environment; Col 71, Line 61-62);
“displaying the complete rendering of the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene by applying the refined surface map, the refined depth map, and the refined light map to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene.” (The XR object could be a full graphics overlay or a partial overlay; Col 62, Line 1-3); (The XR system displays a first XR object, such that the first XR object is visible in the XR environment; Col 71, Line 52-53); (adjusts the level of detail of information displayed within each XR object; Col 71, Line 61-62);
While McLachlan teaches “retrieving the contextual meta information from the contextual database based on the correlation, wherein the contextual meta information comprises at least one of a surface map having three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed surface of the XR scene, a depth map having depth information of the XR scene, or a light map for the at least one dynamic object;” (physical environment such as depth, dimensionality, and surface textures; Para 0003); (Once in the edgecloud, spatial mapping is used to recognize the geometry of the environment to build a 3D model of the scene and measure the size and shape of elements in the environment in three-dimensions. This results in a three-dimensional spatial map; Para 0059); (semantic information of identified objects in the map, such as class, confidence and bounding box. The 3D pose of the object can be estimated directly from the depth data; Para 0068); (The first step of the application of access controls can be to enroll, register, or similarly log information about a physical environment using spatial mapping and object detection. ...The information sent to the edgecloud could be either raw data (visual, audio, sensor, and other information); Para 0058);
Bhushan discloses the full graphics rendering of a XR object based on the level of detail of information that goes with each object, which relates to the contextual information of a dynamic object. In combination with McLachlan’s teaching of a correlation of meta and contextual information of a surface, depth and light map.
The motivation for the above is to have an accurate display and refinement of a complete rendering of a dynamic object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified McLachlan, Yuan, Xu and Du by displaying a complete rendering of the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene by applying the contextual meta information to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene, refining the surface map, the depth map, and the light map based on the context information of the at least one dynamic object; and displaying the complete rendering of the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene by applying the refined surface map, the refined depth map, and the refined light map to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene as taught by Bhushan.
Regarding claim 6, McLachlan further teaches “The method of claim 5, further comprising:
storing the refined surface map, the refined depth map, and the refined light map of the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene in the contextual database.” (The metadata describing a mobile dynamic content unit can be stored in the edgecloud, supply-side platform (SSP), or similar location; Para 0052); (The class information can be determined by a lookup in a database of objects maintained at the edgecloud; Para 0070);
McLachlan discloses information that can be found in a database which relates to storing the refined maps in the contextual database. As Bhushan teaches the refined maps which are stored in a database.
Regarding claim 9, while McLachlan, Yuan, Xu and Du fail to teach the limitations, Bhushan teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in case that the correlation between the context information of the at least one dynamic object and the contextual meta information corresponding to the at least one dynamic object is available in the contextual database, displaying a complete rendering of the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene by applying contextual meta information to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene.” (The XR object could be a full graphics overlay; Col 62, Line 1-3); (The XR system displays a first XR object, such that the first XR object is visible in the XR environment; Col 71, Line 52-53); (adjusts the level of detail of information displayed within each XR object; Col 71, Line 61-62);
Bhushan discloses a full overlay which relates to the rendering of a dynamic object in an XR scene. Also adjusting the information displayed with each XR object relates to the contextual meta information.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate full rendering of a dynamic object for better rendering of XR content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified McLachlan, Yuan, Xu and Du by displaying a complete rendering of the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene by applying contextual meta information to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene as taught by Bhushan.
Claim 11 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 3.
Claim 13 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 13 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 5.
Claim 14 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 6.
Claim 17 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 9. Therefore, claim 17 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, Bhushan teaches “The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the contextual database is stored in the memory as a binary large object (BLOB) storage, a file system storage, or a Base64 encoding storage.” (file system may be processed; Col 15, Line 36);
The motivation for the above is to have efficient storage in memory.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified McLachlan by the contextual database is storing in the memory as a binary large object (BLOB) storage, a file system storage, or a Base64 encoding storage as taught by Bhushan.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCLACHLAN in view of YUAN in further view of XU in view of DU and in further view of SAAD (No. “Saad”).
Regarding claim 8, while McLachlan, Yuan, Xu and Du fail to teach the limitations, Saad teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting the at least one static object and the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene comprises:
detecting a plurality of parameters associated with each object of a plurality of objects in the XR scene, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a type of object and movements of each object of the plurality of objects in the XR scene; and” (generating a 3D representational map of the visual environment including one or both of one or more static objects and one or more dynamic objects; Para 0090); (static blockage, which may be caused by a static object in room 50 (e.g., bed 501, dining set 502, and couch 503) and dynamic blockage, which may be caused by a dynamic object (e.g., person) moving between UE; Para 0078); (UE 115 detects the motion of person 504 in direction 52; Para 0084);
“determining the at least one dynamic object from the plurality of objects based on the plurality of parameters, and determining the at least one static object from the plurality of objects when no movements are detected.” (static blockage, which may be caused by a static object in room 50 (e.g., bed 501, dining set 502, and couch 503) and dynamic blockage, which may be caused by a dynamic object (e.g., person) moving between UE; Para 0078);
Saad discloses dynamic and static objects and lists the type of object, and the motion of the object is determined by the type it is, static or dynamic, thus distinguishing static objects from moving dynamic objects. It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art to determine objects are static or dynamic based on object type and the detect motion as taught by Saad. Determining the absence of movement with an object is predictable when the detection of the objects gets classified as static or dynamic.
McLachlan, Yuan, Xu, Du and Saad are analogous art as they are related to Extended reality and semantic information.
The motivation for the above is to have classification of object type when detected for better rendering of XR content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified McLachlan, Yuan, Xu and Du by detecting a plurality of parameters associated with each object of a plurality of objects in the XR scene, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a type of object and movements of each object of the plurality of objects in the XR scene and by determining the at least one dynamic object from the plurality of objects based on the plurality of parameters, and determining the at least one static object from the plurality of objects when no movements are detected as taught by Saad.
Claim 16 is directed to an electronic device and its other limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg.9, filed 07/14/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 2, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 04/21/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims overcomes the previous rejection therefore the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg.9-15, filed 07/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of MCLACHLAN in view of YUAN and in further view of XU in view of DU.
Applicant argues that McLachlan describes displaying dynamic content as an extended reality overlay. While McLachlan describes incorporating contextual information from nearby objects in the environment to solve the problem of locating a suitable surface as possible dynamic content locations, McLachlan fails to describes determining context information of dynamic objects that are already in the XR scene by applying a refined surface map, a refined depth map, and a refined light map to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene, as proposed. Yuan describes a contextual information collating (CIC) computer system for collating relevant information to assist a user in a decision-making process. Thus, Yuan fails to disclose "determining context information of the at least one dynamic object by applying a refined surface map, a refined depth map, and a refined light map to the at least one dynamic object in the XR scene; obtaining a correlation between the context information of the at least one dynamic object and contextual meta information corresponding to the at least one dynamic object; and applying the contextual meta information retrieved from a contextual database based on the correlation, to the at least one dynamic object," as amended. For at least these reasons, McLachlan and Yuan, separately and in combination, fail to teach or suggest, as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the above- identified claim features recited in independent claim 1.
Examiner replies that while McLachlan does not expressly disclose the entirety of the newly amended limitations, the rejection does not rely upon McLachlan alone. McLachlan teaches detecting objects in an XR environment which includes static and dynamic objects thus generating semantic representations of the environment and rendering dynamic XR content based on the information. (SEE Para 0043, 0052, 0054, 0066, 0070, 0084). Xu supplies a depth map of an environment, reconstructing surface geometry using depth information and rendering a virtual object using the reconstructed surface geometry. While also utilizing the reconstructed surface geometry for lighting interactions in AR rendering. (SEE Para 0044). Du supplies generating a depth map and scene information and using that information to determine illumination of the AR scene. (SEE Para 0045). It would be obvious to utilize the known surface, depth and lighting representations with McLachlan’s XR rendering process to improve the dynamic XR content. Yuan is also not relied upon for its surface, depth and lighting map processing. Yuan teaches contextual models and calculating the contextual relationships based upon the models to determine information based on the calculated relationships. Yuan also discloses contextual mappings and alignments between contextual information, thus Yuan supplies the claimed correlation and retrieval of corresponding contextual information. (SEE Para 0026-0027, 0040, 0044). McLachlan would continue to detect objects and render contextual dynamic XR content. The addition references of Yuan, Xu and Du provide additional teachings that improve the XR environmental rendering. These references are considered for what they collectively teach to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that independent claim 10, although different in scope from independent claim 1, this claim recites subject matter related to independent claim 1. As such, the arguments set forth above with respect to independent claim 1 are applicable to independent claim 10.
Examiner replies that the limitations of claim 10 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Claims 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, and 20 variously depend from independent claims 1 and 10. Because the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the features presently recited in independent claims 1 and 10, dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are patentable for at least the reasons that independent claims 1 and 10 are patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein.
Examiner replies that claims 1 and 10 rejection is maintained and thus all dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected at least by virtue of dependency from base claim.
Applicant argues that Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 variously depend from independent claims 1 and 10. Because the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the features presently recited in independent claims 1 and 10, dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 are patentable for at least the reasons that independent claims 1 and 10 are patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein.
Examiner replies that claims 1 and 10 rejection is maintained and thus all dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected at least by virtue of dependency from base claim.
Applicant argues that Claims 4 and 12 variously depend from independent claims 1 and 10. Because the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the features presently recited in independent claims 1 and 10, dependent claims 4 and 12 are patentable for at least the reasons that independent claims 1 and 10 are patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein.
Examiner replies that claims 1 and 10 rejection is maintained and thus all dependent claims 4 and 12 are rejected at least by virtue of dependency from base claim.
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 BRIGITER D PROTAZI whose telephone number is (571)272-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Said A Broome can be reached at 5712722931. 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.
/B.D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights