DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are currently pending.
2. Claims 5, 11, and 17 are canceled.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, and 18 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-4, 9-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krainer (US 11014533 B2).
8. Regarding Claim 1, Krainer teaches a method for operating a navigation system, the method being performed by a computing device, the method comprising (Krainer: [Column 5, Lines 64-67; and Column 6, Line 1]):
Adding a plurality of routine widgets to a widget slot of the navigation system, each routine widget indicating a routine of a user (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12], [Column 8, Lines 13-19], and [Column 8, Lines 27-32] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, indicating the routine of a user is equivalent to the modules providing recommendations or suggestions to the user.);
Determining an execution order of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [[Column 12, Lines 31-44]);
And executing the plurality of routine widgets based on the determined execution order to perform an operation corresponding to the routine of the user (Krainer: [Column 7, Lines 61-67; Column 8, Lines 1-4] and [Column 12, Lines 34-46]),
And wherein determining the execution order of the plurality of routine widgets includes: determining that an execution order of a routine widget related to a schedule, among the plurality of routine widgets, has priority over an execution order of other routine widgets of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 21-27], [Column 11, Lines 32-44], and [Column 11, Lines 45-56] Note that the entertainment module recommending a restaurant based on the user's location and schedule before the service module books the restaurant is equivalent to the routine widget related to a schedule has priority over an execution order of other routine widgets.);
Determining an execution order of a routine widget including temporal information among the other routine widgets, based on a temporal order thereof (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]);
And determining an execution order of a routine widget free of the temporal information, among the other routine widgets, based on a past routine pattern of the user (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 45-56] and [Column 12, Lines 41-47]).
Krainer does not explicitly teach the plurality of routine widgets is displayed inside the widget slot on a user interface of the navigation system. However, Krainer teaches in [Column 12, Lines 64-67; Column 13, Lines 1-11] that all the widgets available are displayed for the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to display routine widgets inside the widget slot on a user interface as similarly shown in Krainer’s [Column 12, Lines 64-67; Column 13, Lines 1-11] use of displaying all available widgets to provide the benefit of a display area for user selection. The widgets are useful for the users by adding functionality to their devices.
9. Regarding Claim 2, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the routine of the user includes at least one of a personal schedule of the user, contents periodically played by the user, a place periodically visited by the user, or a periodic SNS (Social Network Service) activity of the user, wherein the plurality of routine widgets includes detailed information about the routine (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 20-32] and [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
10. Regarding Claim 3, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches when detailed information of the plurality of routine widgets is modified in a user device, the modification is equally applied to the plurality of routine widgets added to the widget slot (Krainer: [Column 7, Lines 11-21]).
11. Regarding Claim 4, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches loading the plurality of routine widgets from a user device (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12]).
Krainer does not explicitly teach dragging the plurality of loaded routine widgets to the widget slot. However, Krainer teaches downloading the widgets onto the user's device in [Column 8, Lines 5-12]. It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to customize the location of the loaded routine widget by dragging the widget into a slot absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the loaded widget in its original location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to drag the at least one loaded widget to the widget slot as similarly shown in [Column 8, Lines 5-12] use of the user downloading a widget on their device to appear in a widget slot because it provides the benefit the user accessing the widget from the device.
12. Regarding Claim 9, Krainer teaches a computing device comprising (Krainer: [Column 5, Lines 64-67; and Column 6, Line 1]):
A processor; and a memory storing therein instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to (Krainer: [Column 1, Lines 44-56]):
Add plurality of routine widgets indicating a routine of a user to a widget slot of a navigation system, each widget indicating a routine of a user (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12], [Column 8, Lines 13-19], and [Column 8, Lines 27-32] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, indicating the routine of a user is equivalent to the modules providing recommendations or suggestions to the user.);
Determine an execution order of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [[Column 12, Lines 31-44]);
And execute the plurality of routine widgets based on the determined execution order to perform an operation corresponding to the routine of the user (Krainer: [Column 7, Lines 61-67; Column 8, Lines 1-4] and [Column 12, Lines 34-46]),
And wherein determining the execution order of the plurality of routine widgets includes: determining that an execution order of a routine widget related to a schedule, among the plurality of routine widgets, has priority over an execution order of other routine widgets of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 21-27], [Column 11, Lines 32-44], and [Column 11, Lines 45-56] Note that the entertainment module recommending a restaurant based on the user's location and schedule before the service module books the restaurant is equivalent to the routine widget related to a schedule has priority over an execution order of other routine widgets.);
Determining an execution order of a routine widget including temporal information among the other routine widgets, based on a temporal order thereof (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]);
And determining an execution order of a routine widget free of the temporal information, among the other routine widgets, based on a past routine pattern of the user (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 45-56] and [Column 12, Lines 41-47]).
Krainer does not explicitly teach the plurality of routine widgets is displayed inside the widget slot on a user interface of the navigation system. However, Krainer teaches in [Column 12, Lines 64-67; Column 13, Lines 1-11] that all the widgets available are displayed for the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to display routine widgets inside the widget slot on a user interface as similarly shown in Krainer’s [Column 12, Lines 64-67; Column 13, Lines 1-11] use of displaying all available widgets to provide the benefit of a display area for user selection. The widgets are useful for the users by adding functionality to their devices.
13. Regarding Claim 10, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, teaches loading the plurality of routine widgets from a user device (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12]).
Krainer does not explicitly teach dragging the plurality of loaded routine widgets to the widget slot. However, Krainer teaches downloading the widgets onto the user's device in [Column 8, Lines 5-12]. It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to customize the location of the loaded routine widget by dragging the widget into a slot absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the loaded widget in its original location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to drag the at least one loaded widget to the widget slot as similarly shown in [Column 8, Lines 5-12] use of the user downloading a widget on their device to appear in a widget slot because it provides the benefit the user accessing the widget from the device.
14. Regarding Claim 15, Krainer teaches a system comprising (Krainer: [Column 5, Lines 64-67; and Column 6, Line 1]):
A mobility apparatus (Krainer: [Column 4, Lines 9-10]);
A user device configured to generate a plurality of routine widgets, each routine widget indicating a routine of a user (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12], [Column 8, Lines 13-19], and [Column 8, Lines 27-32] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, indicating the routine of a user is equivalent to the modules providing recommendations or suggestions to the user.);
And a navigation system configured to (Krainer: [Column 5, Lines 64-67; and Column 6, Line 1]):
Load and add the plurality of routine widgets to a widget slot (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12], [Column 8, Lines 13-19], and [Column 8, Lines 27-32]);
Determine an execution order of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [[Column 12, Lines 31-44]);
And execute the plurality of routine widgets based on the determined execution order to perform a corresponding operation thereto (Krainer: [Column 7, Lines 61-67; Column 8, Lines 1-4] and [Column 12, Lines 34-46]),
And wherein determining the execution order of the plurality of routine widgets includes: determining that an execution order of a routine widget related to a schedule, among the plurality of routine widgets, has priority over an execution order of other routine widgets of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 21-27], [Column 11, Lines 32-44], and [Column 11, Lines 45-56] Note that the entertainment module recommending a restaurant based on the user's location and schedule before the service module books the restaurant is equivalent to the routine widget related to a schedule has priority over an execution order of other routine widgets.);
Determining an execution order of a routine widget including temporal information among the other routine widgets, based on a temporal order thereof (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]);
And determining an execution order of a routine widget free of the temporal information, among the other routine widgets, based on a past routine pattern of the user (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 45-56] and [Column 12, Lines 41-47]).
Krainer does not explicitly teach the plurality of routine widgets is displayed inside the widget slot on a user interface of the navigation system. However, Krainer teaches in [Column 12, Lines 64-67; Column 13, Lines 1-11] that all the widgets available are displayed for the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to display routine widgets inside the widget slot on a user interface as similarly shown in Krainer’s [Column 12, Lines 64-67; Column 13, Lines 1-11] use of displaying all available widgets to provide the benefit of a display area for user selection. The widgets are useful for the users by adding functionality to their devices.
15. Regarding Claim 16, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, teaches when detailed information of the plurality of routine widgets is modified in the user device, the modification is equally applied to the plurality of routine widgets added to the widget slot of the navigation system (Krainer: [Column 7, Lines 11-21]).
16. Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krainer (US 11014533 B2) in view of Bortolussi (US 20180112995 A1).
17. Regarding Claim 6, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is the routine widget related to the schedule, recommending a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
Krainer fails to explicitly teach guiding the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bortolussi teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is the routine widget related to the schedule, recommending a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule; and guiding the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation (Bortolussi: [0149] and [0165]).
Krainer and Bortolussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Bortolussi to guide the user along a route to the recommended destination in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of increased recommendation functionality. Bortolussi improves Krainer because it guides the user to the new location after it has been recommended.
18. Regarding Claim 12, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is the routine widget related to the schedule, recommending a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
Krainer fails to explicitly teach guiding the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bortolussi teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is the routine widget related to the schedule, recommending a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule; and guiding the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation (Bortolussi: [0149] and [0165]).
Krainer and Bortolussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Bortolussi to guide the user along a route to the recommended destination in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of increased recommendation functionality. Bortolussi improves Krainer because it guides the user to the new location after it has been recommended.
19. Regarding Claim 18, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is related to the schedule, recommend a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
Krainer fails to explicitly teach to guide the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bortolussi teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is related to the schedule, recommend a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule; and guide the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation (Bortolussi: [0149] and [0165]).
Krainer and Bortolussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Bortolussi to guide the user along a route to the recommended destination in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of increased recommendation functionality. Bortolussi improves Krainer because it guides the user to the new location after it has been recommended.
20. Claims 7, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krainer (US 11014533 B2) in view of Kim (US 20210342864 A1).
21. Regarding Claim 7, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is a routine widget related to contents, recommending playing the contents corresponding to the routine widget; and controlling a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is a routine widget related to contents, recommending playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation (Kim: [0021] and [0041]).
Krainer and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Kim to recommend playing contents in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of using recommendations for increased convenience in driving situations as explicitly taught in [0002] of Kim.
22. Regarding Claim 13, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is a routine widget related to contents, recommending playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is a routine widget related to contents, recommending playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation (Kim: [0021] and [0041]).
Krainer and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Kim to recommend playing contents in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of using recommendations for increased convenience in driving situation as explicitly taught in [0002] of Kim.
23. Regarding Claim 19, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 15.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to contents, recommend playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and control a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to contents, recommend playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and control a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation (Kim: [0021] and [0041]).
Krainer and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Kim to recommend playing contents in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of using recommendations for increased convenience in driving situations as explicitly taught in [0002] of Kim.
24. Claims 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krainer (US 11014533 B2) in view of Caballero (ES 2713354 A1).
25. Regarding Claim 8, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommending checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Caballero teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommending checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation (Caballero: [Page 4, Lines 21-25] and [Page 5, Lines 4-8]).
Krainer and Caballero are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Caballero to check for a new post on the SNS and control the user device to read the post aloud in response to an approval recommendation because it provides the benefit of informing the driver of the notification without putting them in danger by taking attention off of the road. This ensures the user is attentive to the road instead of the display, as explicitly explained in [Page 8, Lines 23-26] of Caballero.
26. Regarding Claim 14, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommending checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Caballero teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommending checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation (Caballero: [Page 4, Lines 21-25] and [Page 5, Lines 4-8]).
Krainer and Caballero are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Caballero to check for a new post on the SNS and control the user device to read the post aloud in response to an approval recommendation because it provides the benefit of informing the driver of the notification without putting them in danger by taking attention off of the road. This ensures the user is attentive to the road instead of the display, as explicitly explained in [Page 8, Lines 23-26] of Caballero.
27. Regarding Claim 20, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommend checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and control a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Caballero teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommend checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and control a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation (Caballero: [Page 4, Lines 21-25] and [Page 5, Lines 4-8]).
Krainer and Caballero are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Caballero to check for a new post on the SNS and control the user device to read the post aloud in response to an approval recommendation because it provides the benefit of informing the driver of the notification without putting them in danger by taking attention off of the road. This ensures the user is attentive to the road instead of the display, as explicitly explained in [Page 8, Lines 23-26] of Caballero.
Response to Arguments
28. Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
29. First, the Applicant has alleged "Claim 1 include features directed to a configuration in which multiple widgets representing routines are arranged on the UI of a navigation system, and the widgets are sequentially executed according to a determined execution order. Further the plurality of routine widgets and widget slot are all user interface components." The Examiner disagrees.
As currently claimed, a routine widget may be interpreted as a module that provides recommendations or suggestions to the user. The routine widgets indicate a routine of a user because the recommendations and suggestions indicate an order of actions completed by the user. Krainer teaches in [Column 7, Lines 61-67; Column 8, Lines 1-4] and [Column 12, Lines 34-46] that the entertainment module may be executed to determine a restaurant suggestion. Based on the user accepting the recommendation, a service module is executing to pay for the restaurant. Therefore, the entertainment module being executed before the service module is equivalent to determining an execution order of the plurality of routine widgets.
Further, there is no indication from the claim language that the routine widgets are arranged in which their execution order is defined. Instead, the claims only indicate that the routine widgets are displayed inside the widget slot on the user interface. Therefore, the widgets do not need to have a set arrangement when reading the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
30. Second the Applicant has alleged "Krainer does not disclose: (i) a concept of a 'routine widget' representing a user routine; (ii) a UI-based configuration such as a widget slot in which a plurality of widgets are display; or (iii) determining an execution order among a plurality of widgets and executing the widgets according to the determined order." The Examiner disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a routine widget is interpreted as a module that provides recommendations or suggestions to the user. The modules in Krainer represent a user routine because the recommendations and suggestions for the user indicate an order of actions associated with the user that are completed. Krainer's teaching of the modules (entertainment, health, service, etc.) are equivalent to the routine widgets as currently claimed.
Further, Krainer teaches in [Column 12, Lines 64-67; Column 13, Lines 1-11] that all of the widgets are displayed for the user. This is equivalent to displaying the routine widgets inside the widget slot on the user interface of the navigation system because multiple widgets are displayed in the same location (on display for the user). There is no indication from the claim language that routine widgets are arranged based on the execution order. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the widget slot is any location on the user interface. Therefore, displaying the widgets for the user is equivalent to displaying the routine widgets inside the widget slot.
Additionally, Krainer teaches that the execution order of the widgets based on recommendations or suggestions. For example, Krainer teaches that the entertainment, car, or health modules can make a recommendation which results in a service request by the service module. This is equivalent to determining an execution order of the routine widgets because the service module is determined to be executed after one of the other modules. The entertainment module’s execution results in a recommendation (e.g., restaurant) based on the user information/schedule. Therefore, the entertainment module is related to a schedule because the recommendation is made with temporal information.
As currently claimed, there is no indication what/who determines the execution order of the routine widgets or the location of the routine widgets displayed inside the widget slot. The Examiner does not read the specification into the claims, and as a result, Krainer teaches every limitation in the independent claims.
31. The cited references in the rejections above teach all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
32. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18-20 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
33. 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.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights