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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an extra “,” in the last clause. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,476.
Table: 1
Mapping of contending claims in the patent that contains double patenting issues.
Current Application (19056038)
Patent (12,293,476)
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
1
9
8
10
9
11
10
12
11
13
12
14
13
15
10
16
14
17
15
18
16
19
17
20
14
Table: 2
Current Application (19056038)
Patent (12,293,476)
Claim 1, A system for controlling access privileges within virtual reality computing environments, the system comprising:
at least one virtual reality computing system, each virtual reality computing system having a computing platform including a memory and one or more computing processor devices in communication with the memory, wherein the memory stores:
a virtual reality application executable by at least one of the one or more computing processor devices and configured to:
present a virtual reality computing environment that includes a plurality of virtual locations defined by virtual boundaries, each virtual location associated with a non-virtual entity and is configured to present a plurality of virtual objects, each virtual object is under control of a user and configured to virtually interact with (i) other virtual objects from amongst the plurality of virtual objects and (ii) the plurality of virtual locations;
an authentication application executable by at least one of the one or more computing processor devices and configured to:
in response to users requesting entry to the virtual reality computing environment, authenticate an identity of each user of the plurality of virtual objects,
an access control application executable by at least one of the one or more computing processor devices and configured to:
in response to authenticating the identity of the users, determine access privileges for each user based at least on the identity of each user, wherein the access privileges restrict or allow user access to at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) one or more of the virtual locations, and (ii) one or more of the virtual objects, and
implement the access privileges, for each user, during a corresponding user session within the virtual reality computing environment, and
wherein the authentication application is further configured to authenticate the identity of each user of the plurality of virtual objects continuously throughout the corresponding user session by implementing multi-factor authentication, wherein the type and/or timing of implementing multi-factor authentication is based on one or more user session parameters.
Claim 1, A system for controlling access privileges within virtual reality computing environments, the system comprising:
at least one virtual reality computing system, each virtual reality computing system having a computing platform including a memory and one or more computing processor devices in communication with the memory, wherein the memory stores:
a virtual reality application executable by at least one of the one or more computing processor devices and configured to:
present a virtual reality computing environment that includes a plurality of virtual locations defined by virtual boundaries, each virtual location associated with a non-virtual entity and is configured to present a plurality of virtual objects, each virtual object is under control of a user and configured to virtually interact with (i) other virtual objects from amongst the plurality of virtual objects and (ii) the plurality of virtual locations;
an authentication application executable by at least one of the one or more computing processor devices and configured to:
in response to users requesting entry to the virtual reality computing environment, authenticate an identity of each user of the plurality of virtual objects,
an access control application executable by at least one of the one or more computing processor devices and configured to:
in response to authenticating the identity of the users, determine access privileges for each user based at least on the identity of each user, wherein the access privileges restrict or allow user access to at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) one or more of the virtual locations, and (ii) one or more of the virtual objects, and
implement the access privileges, for each user, during a corresponding user session within the virtual reality computing environment, and
wherein the authentication application is further configured to authenticate the identity of each user of the plurality of virtual objects continuously throughout the corresponding user session by implementing multi-factor authentication at various times throughout the corresponding user session, wherein at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) a type of multi-factor authentication and (ii) a time for implementing multi-factor authentication is determined based on one or more user session parameters.
Claim 1 is rejected for obviousness type double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,476 for having similar limitations as described in Table 2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the inventions is the same. Claim 1 of current application is an obvious variant and anticipated by claim 1 U.S. Patent No. 12,293,476.
The same logic applies to Claims 2-20. They are rejected for obviousness type double patenting under claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,476.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuster et al. (US 20210058397 A1), in view of Van Wie (US 20180041603 A1), and further in view of Juarez et al. (US 11288675 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shuster discloses A system (ABST reciting “Systems and methods of virtual world interaction, operation, implementation, instantiation, creation, and other functions related to virtual worlds (note that where the term “virtual world” is used herein, it is to be understood as referring to virtual world systems, virtual environments reflecting real, simulated, fantasy, or other structures, and includes information systems that utilize interaction within a 3D environment).”) for controlling access privileges within virtual reality computing environments, the system comprising:
at least one virtual reality computing system, each virtual reality computing system having a computing platform including a memory and one or more computing processor devices in communication with the memory, wherein the memory stores: (Fig. 9 showing service provider(s) 901. ¶195 reciting “Service providers 901 include computing devices and systems offering virtual worlds services. Service providers 901 may include computing hardware and/or software configured to perform one or more of the processes described throughout this specification.” Further, Fig. 24 showing a computing system 2401 as a service provider, ¶323. ¶325 reciting “The computing system 2401 may include one or more central processing units (“CPU”) 2401, . . . The computing system 2401 may further include one or more memories 2402, such as random-access memory (“RAM”), . . . The memory 2402 may store software code, or instructions, for execution by the processor 2401 in order to cause the computing device to perform certain operations”)
a virtual reality application executable by at least one of the one or more computing processor devices and configured to: (¶329 reciting “computing system 2401 includes virtual worlds module 2406” )
present a virtual reality computing environment that includes a plurality of virtual locations (¶200 reciting “Service provider may maintain multiple virtual worlds 1003”, and ¶201 reciting “Virtual worlds 1003 may in turn include scenes 1005. Following the analogy from above, each scene may be likened to a building or room within a city. Scenes represent virtual locations where avatars may visit and enter. A scene may be defined by various attributes such as appearance, size, furniture, included items, architecture, and so on.”), each virtual location associated with a non-virtual entity and is configured to present a plurality of virtual objects, each virtual object is under control of a user and configured to virtually interact with (i) other virtual objects from amongst the plurality of virtual objects and (ii) the plurality of virtual locations; (¶117 reciting “Worlds servers 10 provide 2-dimensional and/or 3-dimensional virtual worlds services, such as hosting avatars and maintaining spaces and objects with which avatars can interact.” ¶200 reciting “each virtual world may be operated by different users or administrators of service provider 1001. Thus, a service provider may be analogously likened to a country, and each world may be likened to a city within that world.” Further, ¶201 reciting “Virtual worlds 1003 may in turn include scenes 1005. Following the analogy from above, each scene may be likened to a building or room within a city. Scenes represent virtual locations where avatars may visit and enter.” )
an authentication application executable by at least one of the one or more computing processor devices and configured to: (¶329 reciting “computing system 2401 includes . . . authentication module 2408.”)
in response to users requesting entry to the virtual reality computing environment, authenticate an identity of each user of the plurality of virtual objects, (¶144 disclosing a user of location 1 requesting entry to location 2, and reciting “At block 303, the computer system of location 1 communicates with a computer system of location 2, to initiate a transfer of the avatar. . . Location 2 receives the transfer request at block 304.” Further, ¶145 reciting “the computer system of location 2 authenticates the avatar for transfer. Authentication may be used to determine whether the avatar is permitted to access the new location”)
an access control application executable by at least one of the one or more computing processor devices and configured to: (¶329 reciting “computing system 2401 includes . . . authentication module 2408.”)
in response to authenticating the identity of the users, determine access privileges for each user based at least on the identity of each user (¶145 reciting “location 2 may maintain a whitelist or blacklist of avatars and/or associated users, and/or avatar or user characteristics, for example to keep track of exiled, banned, or otherwise unwanted entities. ”), wherein the access privileges restrict or allow user access to at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) one or more of the virtual locations, and (ii) one or more of the virtual objects,(¶145 reciting “Avatars may be rejected from a location based on administrator settings for the location and/or by automated processes such as behavioral analysis. For example, location 2 may not permit an avatar to enter if the location determines that the avatar poses a security risk to others, does not meet rules of the location, has a history of undesirable behavior, and so on.”) and
implement the access privileges, for each user, during a corresponding user session within the virtual reality computing environment. (¶145 reciting “Authentication may be based on avatar data and/or other data transferred at blocks 303 and 304, if such data had been transferred, as well as other data available at location 2.”)
and wherein the authentication application is further configured to authenticate the identity of each user of the plurality of virtual objects continuously throughout the corresponding user session. (Shuster, ¶145 reciting “location 2 may maintain a whitelist or blacklist of avatars and/or associated users, and/or avatar or user characteristics, for example to keep track of exiled, banned, or otherwise unwanted entities.”)
However, Shuster does not explicitly disclose the plurality of virtual locations being defined by virtual boundaries.
Van Wie discloses virtual locations defined by virtual boundaries, and teaches “An area typically is represented by the three-dimensional coordinates of three or more coplanar vertices that define a boundary of a closed two-dimensional shape in the virtual area. A volume typically is represented by the three-dimensional coordinates of four or more non-coplanar vertices that define a closed boundary of a three-dimensional shape in the virtual area.” (¶45).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings from Shuster and Van Wie and have the plurality of virtual locations defined by virtual boundaries. The suggestions/motivations would have been to trigger a digital rights management (DRM) function when a communicant crosses a virtual area boundary (¶88), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
the authentication application by implementing multi-factor authentication, wherein the type and/or timing of implementing multi-factor authentication is based on one or more user session parameters.
It is well known in the art to determine the type and/or timing of implementing multi-factor authentication based on one or more user session parameters. In addition, Juarez teaches “FIG. 11 is a schematic view of an authentication process for allowing a user to change one or more financial control settings.” (col. 10, ln. 44-46). Further, Juarez recites “Later in the session, during step 1108, the provider receives a request to change one or more financial control settings. For example, the user could request to turn-on wires. That is allow wires whereas before they had been disabled. To ensure that the changes are being requested by the owner (or administrator) of the account and not an unauthorized user, the provider may request a second type of authentication at step 1110. This second type of authentication could be a more secure type of authentication. Examples include, but are not limited to: biometric authentication, two-factor authentication or other suitable security methods.” (col. 10, ln. 56-66). Thus, Juarez teaches the type and/or timing of multi-factor authentication based on one or more user session parameters.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Shuster and Van Wie) to implement a multi-factor authentication type and/or timing based on one or more user session parameters (taught by Juarez). The suggestions/motivations would have been to improve financial transaction security (col. 1, ln. 24-39), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Shuster and Van Wie and Juarez discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the access control application is further configured to restrict user access to at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) one or more of the virtual locations, and (ii) one or more of the virtual objects by:
defining a virtual sphere of proximity for each of the at least one of (i) the one or more of the virtual locations, and (ii) the one or more of the virtual objects, (Van Wie, ¶45 teaching a virtual area for the one or more of the virtual locations, and reciting “A volume typically is represented by the three-dimensional coordinates of four or more non-coplanar vertices that define a closed boundary of a three-dimensional shape in the virtual area.” Defining a virtual sphere for the one or more of the virtual locations is merely a normal design option which someone with ordinary skilled in the art would select, in accordance with circumstances, without the exercise of inventive skill, in order to solve the problem posed.) and
in response to a virtual object associated with an authenticated user coming in contact with the virtual sphere of proximity, providing for at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) forbidding the virtual object from further interaction with the corresponding virtual location or the corresponding virtual object, and (ii) presenting a visual or audible warning to the user that notifies the user of their restricted access to the corresponding virtual location or corresponding virtual object. (Van Wie, ¶88 reciting “a virtual area is associated with a governance mesh that associates one or more zones of the virtual area with a digital rights management (DRM) function. The DRM function controls access to one or more of the virtual area or one or more zones within the virtual area or objects within the virtual area. The DRM function is triggered every time a communicant crosses a governance mesh boundary within the virtual area.” Further, ¶189 reciting “only those communicants who are associated with an age declaration that is above a specified age threshold and has an inferred trust level above a specified confidence level may enter an adult entertainment virtual area”)
Regarding Claim 3, Shuster and Van Wie and Juarez discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the access control application is further configured to determine access privileges for each user based further on at least one role associated with the identity of each user. (Van Wie, ¶59 reciting “Exemplary social network tie types include a kinship type (e.g., father-of, cousin-of), an affective type (e.g., respects, likes), a cognitive type (e.g., friends-with, acquaintance-of), and social role type (e.g., teacher-of, works-with).” Further, ¶61 teaching access privileges is determined based on the user’s role, and reciting “The network infrastructure service environment 30 also may restrict which communicants can contact the user (e.g., only those communicants who have an explicit tie or an inferred tie with the user may contact the user).” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 4, Shuster and Van Wie and Juarez discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the access control application is further configured to:
monitor, for each user, virtual interactions between a virtual object associated a corresponding user and (i) the other virtual objects and (ii) the plurality of virtual locations, (Van Wise, ABST reciting “As such the present invention provides necessary control over what areas of a virtual reality computing environment a user can access and/or which virtual objects/avatars a user can interact with.”. Further, ¶143 reciting “the area service receives realtime motion data streams from the network nodes associated with objects in the virtual area, tracks the communicants' avatars and other objects that enter, leave, and move around in the virtual area based on the motion data. The area service updates the objects register in accordance with the current locations of the tracked objects.”)
as a result of the monitoring, determine that the virtual object associated with the corresponding user interacts with at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) the one or more of the virtual locations having access restrictions, and (ii) the one or more of the virtual objects having access restrictions, and
in response to determining an interaction, alter the access privileges for a corresponding user during at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) the user session and (ii) further user sessions within the virtual reality computing environment. (Van Wie, ¶189 reciting “the area service is able to restrict which communicants can enter a virtual area based on an inferred attribute value (e.g., an inferred trust level attribute value) that is associated with the user or with one or more of the elements of the user's social network profile. For example, in some embodiments, only those communicants who are associated with an age declaration that is above a specified age threshold and has an inferred trust level above a specified confidence level may enter an adult entertainment virtual area. In some embodiments, the area service restricts which virtual areas of the virtual environment are visible to the communicants based on the respective inferred trust levels that are associated with the communicants or their respective identity assertions. For example, in some of these embodiments, the area service prevents communicants who are associated with age declarations that are above specified age thresholds but are associated with an inferred trust level below a specified confidence level to perceive the existence of virtual areas (e.g., an adult entertainment virtual area) that are associated with the age thresholds.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 5, Shuster and Van Wie and Juarez discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the access control application is further configured to determine the access privileges for each user by accessing an internal database that stores access privileges for each user, wherein at least a portion of the stored access privileges are defined by a third-party entity other than the user and the virtual reality computing system. (Shuster, ¶76 reciting “The system includes a database containing information defining permissions each of the objects, scenes, and virtual environments is permitted to grant to, or exercise against, one or more of the other objects, scenes, or virtual environments.” ¶78 reciting “database comprises data encoded into objects themselves and not centrally stored.” In addition, ¶145 disclosing access privileges defined by a third-party entity, and reciting “Avatars may be rejected from a location based on administrator settings for the location”)
Regarding Claim 6, Shuster and Van Wie and Juarez discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the access control application is further configured to determine the access privileges for each user by accessing an external database that stores data associated with one or more of the users and determining the access privileges for the least one or more of the users based at least on the data. (Shuster, ¶117 reciting “The client software accesses a worlds server 10 via a wide area network 60 and either authenticates a customer account against a database 20 or creates a customer account in a database 20.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Shuster and Van Wie and Juarez discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the access control application is further configured to determine the access privileges wherein the access privileges further restrict or allow other virtual objects associated with other users to interact with the virtual object controlled by the user. (Van Wie, ¶189 reciting “only those communicants who are associated with an age declaration that is above a specified age threshold and has an inferred trust level above a specified confidence level may enter an adult entertainment virtual area. In some embodiments, the area service restricts which virtual areas of the virtual environment are visible to the communicants based on the respective inferred trust levels that are associated with the communicants or their respective identity assertions. For example, in some of these embodiments, the area service prevents communicants who are associated with age declarations that are above specified age thresholds but are associated with an inferred trust level below a specified confidence level to perceive the existence of virtual areas (e.g., an adult entertainment virtual area) that are associated with the age thresholds. In these embodiments, the area service effectively removes those virtual areas from the virtual environment that is presented to those communicants who do not satisfy the age requirements with sufficient confidence.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Shuster and Van Wie and Juarez discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the multi-factor authentication is performed at various times throughout the corresponding user session, wherein at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) a type of multi-factor authentication and (ii) a time for implementing multi-factor authentication is determined based on one or more user session parameters. (Juarez, col. 10, ln. 56-66 reciting “Later in the session, during step 1108, the provider receives a request to change one or more financial control settings. For example, the user could request to turn-on wires. That is allow wires whereas before they had been disabled. To ensure that the changes are being requested by the owner (or administrator) of the account and not an unauthorized user, the provider may request a second type of authentication at step 1110. This second type of authentication could be a more secure type of authentication. Examples include, but are not limited to: biometric authentication, two-factor authentication or other suitable security methods.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 9, Shuster and Van Wie and Juarez discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more user session parameters include at least one chosen from the group consisting of (i) current duration of the user session, (ii) current virtual location of the user within the virtual reality computing environment, (iii) actual physical location at which the user is currently located, (iv) a virtual reality computing system from amongst the at least one virtual reality computing system, (v) a computing device which the user is using to conduct the user session, (vii) direction or speed of movement of the virtual object controlled by the user during the user session, (viii) current behaviors of the user during the user session, and (ix) previous behaviors of the user during previous user sessions. (Juarez, col. 10, ln. 56-66 reciting “Later in the session, during step 1108, the provider receives a request to change one or more financial control settings. For example, the user could request to turn-on wires. That is allow wires whereas before they had been disabled. To ensure that the changes are being requested by the owner (or administrator) of the account and not an unauthorized user, the provider may request a second type of authentication at step 1110. This second type of authentication could be a more secure type of authentication. Examples include, but are not limited to: biometric authentication, two-factor authentication or other suitable security methods.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 10, Shuster and Van Wie and Juarez discloses The system of claim 1, the at least one virtual reality computing system comprises a plurality of virtual reality computing systems that are interconnected by one or more computing networks (Shuster, Fig. 9) and provide for the users to navigate between the virtual reality computing environments of the plurality of virtual reality computing systems, wherein the access control application are further configured to implement the access privileges across the virtual reality computing environments of the plurality of virtual reality computing systems. (Shuster, ¶194-196 disclosing virtual reality computing systems 901 interconnected by network 902 with user 903. ¶142 reciting “At block 301, the computing system of location 1 identifies an attempt of an avatar to cross a world boundary.”; and ¶144 reciting “At block 303, the computer system of location 1 communicates with a computer system of location 2, to initiate a transfer of the avatar.”)
Claim 11, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1.
Claim 12, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 2.
Claim 13, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 4.
Claim 14, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 9, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 9.
Claim 15, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 8, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 8.
Claim 16, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1.
Claim 17, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 2.
Claim 18, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 4.
Claim 19, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 9, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 9.
Claim 20, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 8, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights