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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 5/15/26, the following is a final office action. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are amended. Claims 21-25 are new. Claims 4, 7, 13, 15, 19 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14, 16-18 and 21-25 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14, 16-18 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (I.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. Under Step 2A, Prong One, independent claims 1, 9 and 16 as a whole recite the abstract idea of managing a building project workflow, including extracting information form project documents, determining tasks for assigned parties, generating a workflow, updating task status, and sending notifications, which fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and "Mental Processes" categories. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regard to Step 2A Prong Two, the claims are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely recite generic computer functions such as accessing documents, extracting information, generating a workflow, receiving data, updating status and transmitting notifications without improving computer technology or another technical field. The claimed computer
components are recited at a high level of generality and simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, with regard to Sep 2B, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination amount to no more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities and therefore do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC $ 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same
under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections
set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is
not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention
and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini: (US 11775750 B2).
As per claim 1, Goli et al discloses:
accessing a specification document...the specification document...related to a first building project, wherein assigned parties are associated with the first building project, (Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2) (32) In one embodiment, a project manual 205 is provided for automatic extraction and assignment of action items that the project manual 205 contains. A construction project manual (such as project manual 205) is a set of documents related to the construction work on a building construction project. The construction project manual includes technical specifications document(s), often along with sample documents, bidding requirements, and conditions of contract; (2) A construction project manual is a detailed document with technical and functional details of requirements to be fulfilled to advance a building construction project.... These construction action items include, for example, text descriptions of expected submittals, requests for information (RFIs), requests for proposal (RFPs), closeouts, documents or other items for which actions may be performed by one or more team members assigned to the building construction project...);
extracting a table of contents from the specification; wherein the table of contents includes a plurality of divisions and a plurality of sections, ((33) The construction project manual may be written to follow a standardized format for organizing the information contained in the construction project manual. For example, one such format typically used in North America is the MasterFormat® specifications-writing standard promulgated by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and Construction Specifications Canada (CSC). The standard lists section numbers and associated section titles for organizing data about construction requirements, products, and activities. These section titles and section numbers provide a uniform category for each type of requirement, product, and activity that makes up a construction project. The categories may be further grouped hierarchically within more general divisions. A construction project manual written in compliance with the standardized format will associate natural-language descriptions of the requirements, products, and activities related to a category with the relevant section titles and/or section numbers, for example by using the section title and/or section number as a heading for the natural-language description in the construction project manual);
extracting a first instruction from a first portion of non-standard textual content comprised in the specification document, wherein the first instruction is identified by the corresponding division and section, ((46) In one simple example, a pattern matching rule to identify a product data submittal in the extracted text could be written to find instances of the string “data sheet.” For each identified action item candidate, the basic extractor 210 identifies a section number and section title of the project manual in which the action item candidate is found. The basic extractor 210 writes the identified section number, identified section title, and type of action item (expected item) to a data structure. For example, basic extractor 210 may generate a list of possible or candidate action items extracted from the project manual file 205);
based on the extracted first instruction, determine a first task to be executed by a first party of the assigned parties, the first task comprising: (1) a first requested item, and (2) a corresponding first standardized division and section classification, ((67) Construction document management cloud system 105 directs provision and review of information for an action item to the responsible or authorized parties (or individuals) in accordance with the workflow class assigned to the action item. Thus, the workflow class assigned to the action item governs the steps or tasks for handling information about the action item in construction document management cloud system 105. Accordingly, workflow selector 245 further allocates extracted action items to a construction workflow class. For example, workflow selector 245 may classify each action item in the list of candidate action items into some predetermined construction workflow classes such as RFI, RFP, closeouts, questions and answers, inspection items, etc. In one embodiment, each extracted action item received by workflow selector 245 is assigned a workflow class by workflow selector 245. In one embodiment, workflow selector 245 assigns a workflow class to some, but not all of the extracted action items received by workflow selector 245. In one embodiment, workflow selector 245 may assign multiple workflow classes to an action item. In one embodiment, workflow selector 245 may assign no workflow class, one workflow class, or multiple workflow classes to each action item received by workflow selector 245. For example, erroneously identified action items may fail to be assigned to any workflow class by workflow selector 245. Or, for example, an action item such as a warranty may be assigned to multiple workflows, such as to a submittal workflow and an RFP workflow);
wherein the second task comprising: (1) a second requested item; and (2) a corresponding second standardized division and section classification; generating a project workflow corresponding to the first building project that comprises the first task and the second task; sending, to a first device corresponding to the first party, a first notification to complete the first task by providing the first requested item; upon receiving the first requested item from the first device, updating the project workflow by adjusting a task status corresponding to the first task, ((26) In one embodiment, other construction document management modules 125 include, for example, tools for organizing, distributing, and tracking construction documents, including action items. The other construction document management modules 125 may also include tools for reviewing, marking-up, editing, and making notes by users regarding construction documents, including action items. The other construction document management modules 125 may also include tools for status reporting or task assignment to users based on construction documents, including action items. The other construction document management modules 125 may also include tools for generating archives of construction project documents, including action items. The other construction document management modules 125 may also include tools for preparing workflows based on construction documents, including action items. Users associated with a project and having proper credentials may access one or more of these tools through a graphical user interface (GUI), for example a web-based GUI served by web interface server 135 and displayed to the users with a client device 115. Changes (including any form of update) to construction documents, including action items, is stored in data store 130 for further use by other construction document management modules 125).
Goli et al does not disclose the following limitations, however, Chegini: (US 11775750 B2) discloses:
accessing a drawings document, the drawings document related to a first building project, ((62) In an example embodiment, after intake for plan check, a drawing status for given plan sheet and a respective assigned department is set (automatically or manually) to ‘Not Started,’ and the drawing records are sent to a queue for pickup by the appropriate department or an assigned user. Once a departmental plan checker starts their departmental review, the plan management system will change the sheet status—for that department—from ‘Not Started’ to ‘WIP’ (work in progress). As a permit status or departmental workflow statuses are changed, the plan management system creates an audit record in the event log table);
extracting a first drawing feature from a first portion of non-standard visual content from the drawings document, wherein the first drawing feature is identified in the drawings document by a markup, ((37) Certain embodiments of the plan management system enable various stakeholders to add comments to an electronic plan/design document. By way of example, for a building plan, the stakeholders may include various departments in a government plan checking agency or architects, engineers, contractors, consultants, construction project managers, etc., that are involved in reviewing, commenting, and requiring changes to building related plans. The comments may be tied to a specific building feature in a plan drawing or to a specific location on the design drawing. The comments may also apply to the project overall and need not be directly associated to a specific building feature or location. Of course the stakeholders may be different with respect manufacturing documents, design documents, or other document types);
based on the first drawing feature, determine a second task to be executed by second party of the assigned parties, ((43) A given comment or group of comments may be assigned a label or flag indicative as to the subject matter and/or functional use. For example, a given comment or selected group of comments can be labeled as a “checklist” item. The system may display comments in a list format in a panel or window, rather than simply at various locations distributed over a drawing. A ‘checklist’ item denotes a comment/review which the designator indicates must always be performed by the plan reviewer, based on the business rules in place for the user. For example, checklist item may include a check to make sure that building modifications proposed in a plan do not fall outside a property line. A standard comment may or may not be designated as a ‘checklist’ item. (56) The user interface illustrated in FIG. 2 also provides a comment log control, which when activated causes the system to open a new page which generates a comprehensive table of comments for the given permit/project and any associated plan sheets (see FIGS. 9A, B, 10, and 11 which illustrate different sections of an example user interface), and metadata recorded by the system or user. This data may be filtered in a number of ways by the user and can be used to automatically generate a correction list for the permit applicant or end user, in response to a user activating a corrections report control provided via the comment log user interface. The comment log user interface page may include several sections);
and sending, to the first device, a second notification indicating the updated status of the first task.
(64) The plan management system may monitor the status of each plan sheet with respect to each department, and when the plan management system determines each departmental review has been completed, (e.g., all the drawing statuses have been set to Approved or Resubmit), the plan management system automatically changes the permit status to ‘Ready to Issue’ and notifies the appropriate personnel (e.g., permit supervisor) via email, instant messaging, SMS, MMS, or otherwise).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Chegini in the systems of Goli et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, this claim recites features similar to those of independent claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 16, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1, and is
therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 22:
generating a third task comprising a third requested submittal and a corresponding division and section by cross-referencing the first instruction and the first drawing feature.
Although prior art does not disclose the above limitation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to repeat the steps of the invention at a subsequent predetermined time, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As per claim 23, Goli et al discloses:
further comprising: inputting, into an AI model, the specification document and a request to extract the first instruction, wherein the AI model is trained on previously labeled specification documents; and receiving, from the AI model, the first instruction extracted from the first portion of the non-standard textual content comprised in the specification document, ((1) The systems and methods described herein relate to artificial intelligence computers and digital data processing systems for machine learning; (43) In one embodiment, basic extractor 210 retrieves a list of action items from the text of construction project manuals, such as project manual file 205. In one embodiment, basic extractor 210 accepts project manual file 205. Project manual file 205 may be provided to basic extractor 210 in response to a request to load project manual file 205 from a location in data store 130 where project manual file 205 was written after being uploaded. In one embodiment, the request is made by basic extractor 210 in response to a user indication that action items are to be acquired from project manual file 205).
As per claim 23, Goli et al discloses: wherein the markup comprises at least one of a user- drawn markup, a highlight, or a selection corresponding to the first portion of the non-standard visual content, ((37) Certain embodiments of the plan management system enable various stakeholders to add comments to an electronic plan/design document. By way of example, for a building plan, the stakeholders may include various departments in a government plan checking agency or architects, engineers, contractors, consultants, construction project managers, etc., that are involved in reviewing, commenting, and requiring changes to building related plans. The comments may be tied to a specific building feature in a plan drawing or to a specific location on the design drawing. The comments may also apply to the project overall and need not be directly associated to a specific building feature or location. Of course the stakeholders may be different with respect manufacturing documents, design documents, or other document types).
As per claim 25, Goli et al discloses:
further comprising: generating a first link corresponding to the first task; and sending, to a third device corresponding to a third party, a third notification comprising the first link to complete the first task by providing the first requested item, wherein the third party does not have access to the project workflow, (Goli et al: ((64) The plan management system may monitor the status of each plan sheet with respect to each department, and when the plan management system determines each departmental review has been completed, (e.g., all the drawing statuses have been set to Approved or Resubmit), the plan management system automatically changes the permit status to ‘Ready to Issue’ and notifies the appropriate personnel (e.g., permit supervisor) via email, instant messaging, SMS, MMS, or otherwise)).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini (US 11775750 B2), and further in view of Phillips et al (US 4370707 A).
As per claim 2, Goli et al discloses:
searching the file based on a keyword, ((36) In one embodiment, the construction project manual may not be written to conform to any particular standard. In this case, section numbers and titles confirming with the standard may be extrapolated from keyword matches within the natural language description of an action item).
Goli et al does not disclose the following, however, Phillips et al discloses:
identifying the instruction within the division and the section of the specification identified by the
keyword, (124) Section Group Number, ADD command, Division Title or Section Title...t the appropriate
subroutine is entered into, as illustrated. After the subroutine is finished, the program loops back to the
subroutine 303 to obtain the next word from the Instruction Input File.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Phillips et al the systems of Goli et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, Goli et al does not disclose the following, however, Phillips et al discloses:
wherein the keyword indicates one of a start of a section or an end of a section, ((23) END COMMAND
(24) When a specifier has completed a specification, he enters the command, END, in column 18, and
this will indicate to the computer program that a specification is finished).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Phillips et al the systems of Goli et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, Goli et al does not disclose the following, however, Phillips et al discloses:
identifying an error in the index, wherein the error includes one of an inconsistency between content of
the specification and the table of contents, a typographical error, a missing division or section, (Abstract:
The code is fed into a computer which has all the information in the Master Phrase Catalog stored on
permanent record file, called the specification data file, with an index file correlating the specifier's code
with the phrases that will eventually make up the specification. The computer is programmed to edit the
input code for errors, prepare a listing of the input specifier's code and prepare an architectural
specification from the specification data file together with a table of contents and listing of errors, if
any).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Phillips et al the systems of Goli et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, Phillips et al discloses:
wherein the file includes one of a floorplan, blueprint, layout, or a design, (Abstract: A computer system
is disclosed for preparing a complete set of architectural specifications for constructing a building,
including, if desired, sets of instructions that will be used by personnel during preparation of
construction drawings and during construction. (where the floor plan, blueprint, layout, or a design is
obvious with a complete set of architectural specifications for constructing a building, since managing a
project workflow in the field of construction always includes at least floorplans and layouts ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Phillips et al the systems of Goli et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, Phillips et al discloses: wherein the feature is one of a page number, a drawing number,
or a title, ((20) Once a section title is entered to begin a new section, that section title will continue
through the specification until the specifier enters a new section title or a division title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Phillips et al the systems of Goli et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 17,
searching the specification based on a keyword; and
identifying the instruction within a division and a section of the specification identified by the keyword.
Please see the rejection for claim 2.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini: (US 11775750 B2), and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al (JP 2006309390 A), and further in view of ZHANG (AU 2011369050 A1).
As per claim 12, Goli et al does not disclose: wherein receiving the user input indicating the feature
further comprises segmenting an area of the feature, wherein the area is one of a square, rectangle,
circle, oval, or triangle.
However, ZHANG (AU 2011369050 A1) discloses: [00411 Figure 2 shows a portion of a display screen
showing an index image generated by the system depicting the skeleton of a patient in a front view with
three target body parts highlighted in this embodiment by circles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by ZHANG in the systems of Goli et al, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 6, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini: (US 11775750 B2), and further in view of Lu et al (US 20100205052 A1).
As per claim 6, Goli et al does not disclose:
wherein the instruction includes one of a request for an action to be executed by a third party, or a
request for information from the third party,
However, Lu et al (US 20100205052 A1) discloses: ([0031] An example embodiment provides methods
and systems of a server device 100 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) to process a merchant-uploaded inventory
data (e.g., stock and/or supply data) to determine a set of meta-data attributes 412 (e.g., the set of
meta-data attributes 412 of FIG. 4) associated with the merchant-uploaded inventory data and to create
an index data 110 (e.g., the index data 110 of FIG. 1) using the set of meta-data attributes associated
with the merchant uploaded inventory data. The term "creating," as referred to in one embodiment, is
best defined as the formulation and development of the index data referred herein, based upon the
production of merchant-uploaded inventory data provided directly by third-party merchants. [where the
merchant-upload is analogous to the request for action by a third party].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by Lu et al in the systems of Goli et al, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18,
wherein the instruction includes one of a request for an action to be executed by a third party, or a
request for information from the third party.
Please see the rejection for claim 6.
Claim(s) 8, 14, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini: (US 11775750 B2), and further in view of MATSUOKA (CA 3230716 A1).
As per claim 8, Phillips et al does not disclose:
tracking progress of the task based on actions of a third party,
However, MATSUOKA discloses: ([0022] FIG. 12 shows an illustrative example of an environment in
which a task coordination system assigns and monitors performance of a task for the benefit of a
member by a representative and/or one or more third-party services in accordance with at least one
embodiment; [0022] FIG. 12 shows an illustrative example of an environment in which a task
Coordination system assigns and monitors performance of a task for the benefit of a member by a
representative and/or one or more third-party services in accordance with at least one embodiment);
and
updating a status of the task based on the tracked progress ([0133], For example, if the message 218 is
received and processed by the message processing module 1302B as associated with an existing task,
the tagging of the message 218 may be further processed by the system to identify a sense of frustration
or urgency associated with an existing task, and a representative may be alerted. In some situations, this
can involve identifying whether one or more existing representatives associated with the existing task
have failed to facilitate the task, or whether there is confusion or misunderstanding over the status of
the existing task. In some such implementations, the system may automatically identify a member task
that is delaying project progress, and can trigger a task reminder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by MATSUOKA in the systems of Phillips et al, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 14,
tracking progress of the task based on actions of a third party; and
updating a status of the task based on the tracked progress.
Please see the rejection for claim 8.
As per claim 20,
tracking progress of the task based on actions of a third party; and
updating a status of the task based on the tracked progress.
Please see the rejection for claim 8.
As per claim 21, Goli et al does not disclose:
sending, to a first device corresponding to the first party, a first notification to
complete the task by providing the first requested item;
upon receiving the first requested item from the first device, updating the project
workflow by adjusting a task status corresponding to the task; and
sending, to the first device, a second notification indicating the updated status of
the task.
However, MATSUOKA discloses: ([0021] FIG. 11 shows an illustrative example of an environment in
which a machine learning algorithm or artificial intelligence is implemented to process messages
exchanged between a member and a representative to inform a representative of new projects and
tasks in accordance with at least one embodiment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by MATSUOKA in the systems of Phillips et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection Applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter and directs the examiner to Examples 37 through42 of the 2019 patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, and specifically Example 42, which includes analysis of several hypothetical claims fort transmission of notifications when medical records are updated. Examiner further argues that in a similar manner, the claims of the present application set forth a practical application by disclosing a system for managing a building project workflow by “extracting a first instruction from a first potion of non-standard textual content comprised in the specification document”, “based on the extracted first instruction, determine a first task”, “extracting a first drawing feature from a first portion of non-standard visual content form the drawings document”, “:based on the firs drawing feature, determine a second ask”, and “generating a project workflow corresponding to the first building project that comprises the first task and the second task”, and may further send “a first notification to complete the first task, and “a second notification indicating the updated status of the first task”, which according to Applicant, is an improvement in standardizing, processing, and sharing information related to a building project workflow, and therefore integrates the idea into a practical application. However, Examine respectfully disagrees. Although the present claims disclose the above-mentioned limitations, these limitations merely automate the abstract idea of organizing and managing a building project using generic computer functionality. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to computer technology, or another technical field, nor recites a particular algorithm or technique by which the extraction or determination is performed. The additional elements of the present claims merely us a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed 5/15/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the present claim(s) 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25 is/are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini: (US 11775750 B2). Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 10-17 is/are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini (US 11775750 B2), and further in view of Phillips et al (US 4370707 A). Claim(s) 12 is/are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini: (US 11775750 B2), and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al (JP 2006309390 A), and further in view of ZHANG (AU 2011369050 A1). Claim(s) 6, 18, 19 is/are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini: (US 11775750 B2), and further in view of Lu et al (US 20100205052 A1). Claim(s) 7, 21 is/are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al: (US 11625660 B2), and further in view of Chegini: (US 11775750 B2), and further in view of Lu et al (US 20100205052 A1), and further in view of MATSUOKA (CA 3230716 A1). Claim(s) 8, 14, 20 is/are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 4370707 A), and further in view of MATSUOKA (CA 3230716 A1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is
Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday
6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor,
Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be
directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
July 13, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights