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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-21, 23-29 and 31-46 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to reasonably suggest each of the features of claim 15. In particular, Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose:
“…output a notification information based on determining that the detected package is separated from a first person among the detected persons after the detected package was held by the first person.”
“based on determining that a second person among the detected persons approaches the detected package which was held by the first person, determine that the second person is a suspicious person;”
output an alert based on the determination of the suspicious person who approaches the detected package, the alert being different from the notification information.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
After further evaluation, including the issue discussed during the interview, the Examiner maintains that the cited combination to teach, disclose or at least reasonably suggest each of the features of claim 15.
Okatani teaches detecting and monitoring an article, acquiring past images, tracing the locus of monitoring article, acquiring the feature value of the person located around the monitoring article when it appeared, acquire size and position of the monitoring article and image of the owner, and issuing information and alarm when the owner is absent (Okatani, ¶¶ [0039]- [0045], [0089]- [0092], [0135]- [0145] and FIG. 5)
Although Okatani does not use the exact words “package” or “held,” Okatani expressly teaches a relevant scenario: “Assuming that a person who carries an object moves out of the monitoring area while leaving the object behind, and another person stays around the object …” (Okatani, ¶ [0004]). Oktani further discloses detecting the left object and determine whether “a person who owned the article” matches a person in the image (Okatani, ¶ [0006]). Thus, Okatani teaches or suggest that the detected article was previously held or carried by the first person before being separated from that person.
To the extend Applicant argues that the claimed object is specifically a “package,” Sirian expressly teaches detecting an object including “bags, packages, backpacks, luggage, items, etc.” and associating such objects with persons. (Sriram, ¶¶ [0026] and [0031]- [0032]).
Ficher discloses an approach based alarm system in which an approaching object or person entering zones cause audible and/or visual warning outputs (Ficher, ¶¶ [0002], [0005]- [0008], [0016]- [0017] and [0023]).
Aggarwal teaches detecting and tracking persona and/or objects in video, determining suspicious activity based on movement and attribute information and generating an alert (Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0010]- [0016] and [0023]- [0038]).
Applicant argues that independent claims are allowable for reason similar to those presented with respect to f claim 15. For the reasons discussed above, this is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that dependent claims are allowable for their dependency on allegedly allowable independent claim. For the reasons discussed above, this is not persuasive.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejections and the claims remain unpatentable under 35 U.S.C §103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-14 and 31-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US20050281435A1), hereinafter referred to as Aggarwal, in view of Fischer et al. (US20060250230A1), hereinafter referred to as Fischer and Okatani et al. US20220148322A1) hereinafter referred to as Okatani.
Regarding claim 1, Aggarwal discloses monitoring system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (See Aggarwal, FIG. 3 and ¶¶ [0040] and [0041]);
at least one image sensor acquiring a video (See Aggarwal, FIG. 3 and ¶ [0011]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (See Aggarwal, FIG. 3 and ¶¶ [0040] and [0041]):
detect a first object and a first attribute information of the first object in the video acquired by the at least one image sensor (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0012], [0013], [0016], [0023]- [0028] and [0042] disclosing low-level feature sets (representing people, objects, etc.) and attributes such as direction, displacement and speed);
monitor the first object in the video (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0012]- [0013]);
detect a second object and a third object in the video (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0012], [0013], [0016] and [0023]- [0028]);
detect a third attribute information of the third object in the video (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0012], [0013], [0016] and [0023]- [0028]);
determine that the second object is a person based on the second attribute information (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0016] and [0042]);
determine that the third object is a second person based on the third attribute information (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0016] and [0042]);
determine that the first object is not associated with the third object (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0017] - [0020] disclosing representation of the object as graph nodes with arcs indicating association confidence wherein the absence of an arc or failure to satisfy association criteria indicates the object are not associated);
determine that the third object is performing a suspicious activity based on a change in the third attribute information (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0014], [0031]- [0038] disclosing that the system evaluates changing attributes (e.g. direction, displacement and speed) against a predefined criteria. A confidence weight C is computed, if it exceeds a threshold, the person is flagged as suspicious);
output a first alert via the at least one image sensor based on determining that the third object is performing the suspicious activity (See Aggarwal, Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0015] and [0016]).
wherein the first attribute information comprises a feature value of the first object (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0012]- [0013] and [0016]).
wherein the second attribute information comprises at least one of distance information, regarding the first object, or a feature value of the second object (See Aggarwal, Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0015] and [0016]).
wherein the third attribute information comprises at least one of the distance information, regarding the first object, or a feature value of the third object information (See Fischer ¶¶ [0016] and [0030] – [0035]).
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose output a notification information based on determining the first object is separated from the second object after the first object was held by the second object; wherein the change in the third attribute information is based on a determination that the third object approaches the first object; wherein the first alert includes an audible modality and a visual modality; and wherein the first alert is different from the notification information.
However, Fischer from the same or similar endeavor of security system discloses wherein the change in the third attribute information is based on a determination that the third object approaches the first object (See Fischer, ¶¶ [0010]- [0016] and [0031]- [0038]);
based on the determination that the third object approaches the first object (See Fischer, ¶¶ [0010]- [0017], [0023] and [0049]); and
wherein the first alert includes an audible modality and a visual modality (See Fischer ¶¶ [0014] and [0017]).
wherein the first alert is different from the notification information (See Fischer ¶¶ [0014], [0016], [0023] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Aggarwal to add the teachings of Fischer as above, in order to immediately inform a user about the escalation of a situation and avoid unnecessary false alarms by setting threshold values of the signal intensity which is measured by the sensor apparatus, was activation of the reaction apparatus being prevented when signal intensity drops below threshold values (See Fischer ¶¶ [0016] and [0017]).
Furthermore, Okatani from the same or similar endeavor of monitoring system discloses output a notification information based on determining the first object is separated from the second object after the first object was held by the second object (Okatani, ¶¶ [0004], [0006], [0090]- [0092]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Aggarwal and Fischer to add the teachings of Okatani as above, in order to reduce the burden on the monitoring staff and ensure accurate detection of the left objects (See Okatani ¶¶ [0002] and [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein determining that the second person is performing the suspicious activity based on the change in the third attribute information includes determining a degree of suspicion, wherein based on determining that the degree of suspicion is above a threshold (See Fischer ¶¶ [0025] and [0031]- [0038]).
the first alert is output (See Aggarwal, Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0015] and [0016]).
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose a second alert is output to a mobile device.
However, Fischer from the same or similar endeavor of security system discloses a second alert is output to a mobile device (See Fischer ¶¶ [0016] and [0017] -audible, visual and/or haptic information, in particular via the vehicle key).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 4, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the third object is determined to approach the first object based on a positional relationship.
However, Aggarwal from the same or similar endeavor of monitoring system discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the third object is determined to approach the first object based on a positional relationship (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0014]- [0016] and [0031]- [0038], which renders obvious determining that the second object approaches the first object based on a positional relationship)
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: associate a plurality of objects in a plurality of images included in the video as a same object (See Aggarwal, and ¶¶ [0016] - [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: associate a first label with the first object; and associate a third label with the third object (See Aggarwal, and ¶¶ [0017] - [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1,
wherein the detection of the first object comprises detecting a position of the first object, and wherein the detection of the second object comprises detecting a position of the second object; wherein the detection of the third object comprises detecting a position of the third object
wherein the change in the attribute information of the second object is determined based on a change in the position of the second object that is closer to the position of the first object (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0005], [0009]- [0010]- [0027], [0015]- [0017] and [0030]- [0034]).
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 11-14, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the system of claims 1, 2 and 4-7, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Regarding claim 31, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the first object that is separated from the second object is the same object as the first object that is approached by the third object.
However, Okatani from the same or similar endeavor of security system discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the first object that is separated from the second object is the same object as the first object that is approached by the third object (See Okatani ¶¶ [0004] [0076] and [0089]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 32, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the outputting the first alert further comprising outputting the first alert (See Fischer ¶¶ [0015] and [0016]).
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose based on both determining that the first object is separated from the second object and determining that the third object is performing the suspicious activity based on the determination that the third object approaches the first object.
However, Okatani from the same or similar endeavor of security system discloses based on both determining that the first object is separated from the second object and determining that the third object is performing the suspicious activity based on the determination that the third object approaches the first object. (See Okatani ¶¶ [0004]- [0007], [0076] and [0098]- [0092]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 33, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 32, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose the monitoring system according to claim 32, wherein the second object is a different person from the third object.
However, Okatani from the same or similar endeavor of security system discloses the (See Okatani ¶ [0004]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 34, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 33, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses the monitoring system according to claim 33, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: output the first alert (See Fischer ¶¶ [0015] and [0016]).
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose determine that the first object is separated from the second object; determine, based on the determination of the first object is separated from the second object, a change in the second attribute information; output the notification information based on that the change in the second attribute information is associated with a first context which is different from a second context associated with determination of the suspicious activity; determine, based on determining that the third object approaches the first object which was held by the second object, the change in the third attribute information; and output the first alert based on that the change in the third attribute information which is different from the first context.
However, Okatani from the same or similar endeavor of security system discloses determine that the first object is separated from the second object (See Okatani, ¶¶ [0004] and [0076]);
determine, based on the determination of the first object is separated from the second object, a change in the second attribute information (See Okatani, ¶¶ [0004] and [0076]);
output the notification information based on that the change in the second attribute information is associated with a first context (See Okatani, ¶¶ [0004] – [0006] and [0089]- [0092]); determine, based on determining that the third object approaches the first object which was held by the second object, the change in the third attribute information (See Okatani, ¶¶ [0004], [0076] and [0089])
Moreover, Fischer from the same or similar endeavor of security system discloses which is different from a second context associated with determination of the suspicious activity (See Fischer, ¶¶ [0005] – [0008], [0016]- [0017] and [0023])
output the first alert based on that the change in the third attribute information which is different from the first context (See Fischer, ¶¶ [0005] – [0008], [0016]- [0017] and [0023])
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 35-38, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the system of claims 31-34, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal, in view of Fischer, Okatani. and Official Notice of routine practice.
Regarding claim 3, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses a terminal, the terminal being different from the at least one image sensor (See Aggarwal, ¶ [0040])
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: output an image of the third object in a case where the second alert is output, wherein the image is displayed on a terminal, and wherein the second alert is different from the first alert.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to output an image of the second object in a case where the second alert is output, and display the image on the display disclosed by Aggarwal because it is well-known in the art that, when a suspicious activity is detected or an alert is generate in a surveillance system, the corresponding image is displayed to an operator as evidenced by US 20170193279 A1, ¶ [0042]; US 20160342846 A1, ¶ [0041]; US 20180150683 A1, ¶ [0063]; US 20170109891 A1, [0038] and US 20140347486 A1, [0037] . Therefore, displaying/outputting such imagery is merely a partible use of an old and well-known expedient in the art.
Furthermore, Fischer from the same or similar endeavor of security system discloses the wherein the second alert is different from the first alert (See Fischer ¶¶ [0016] and [0017]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Examiner notes that Okatani also discloses a system that generates an alarm screen for displaying information about a left object. For example, but not limited to, an image of the owner of the left object (Okatani, ¶¶ [0050], [0092], [0116] and [0120]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the system of claim 3, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claims 15-21, 23-29 and 39-46 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal, in view of Fischer, Okatani and further, in view of Sriram (US 20200151489 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sriram.
Regarding claim 15, Aggarwal discloses monitoring system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (See Aggarwal, FIG. 3 and ¶¶ [0040] and [0041]);
at least one image sensor acquiring a video (See Aggarwal, FIG. 3 and ¶ [0011]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (See Aggarwal, FIG. 3 and ¶¶ [0040] and [0041]):
detect persons and an object shown in the video (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0012], [0013], [0016], [0023]- [0028] and [0042] disclosing low-level feature sets (representing people, objects, etc.));
output a notification information (See Aggarwal, ¶¶ [0012] and [0016])
output an alert based on the determination of the suspicious person (See Aggarwal, Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0015] and [0016]).
Examiner notes that Aggarwal also discloses determine that the person is the suspicious person based on the displacements, path length and region entry (See Aggarwal, FIG. 3 and ¶¶ [0031] - [0034]);
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose the object is a package; determining that the detected object is separated from a first person among the detected persons after the detected package was held by the first person; based on determining that a second person among the detected persons approaches the detected object which was held by the first person determine that second person is a suspicious person; who approaches the detected package, the alert being different from the notification information;
Furthermore, Okatani from the same or similar endeavor of monitoring system discloses based on determining that a second person among the detected persons approaches the detected object which was held by the first person (Okatani, Abstract and ¶¶ [0004], [0006], [0076], [0089]- [0092] and [0123]).
determining that the detected object is separated from a first person among the detected persons after the detected package was held by the first person (Okatani, Abstract and ¶¶ [0004], [0006], [0076], [0090]- [0092] and [0123]).
who approaches the detected package, the alert being different from the notification information (Okatani, Abstract and ¶¶ [0031], [0089]- [0092]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Aggarwal and Fischer to add the teachings of Okatani as above, in order to reduce the burden on the monitoring staff and ensure accurate detection of the left objects (See Okatani ¶¶ [0002] and [0005]).
Okatani and Fischer discloses record if the second person approaches the detect object (See Okatani, ¶¶ [0024], [0032] and [0034]; and Fischer ¶¶ [0010] - [0017]));
However, Fischer from the same or similar endeavor of security system discloses based on determining that the detected person approaches the detected object determine that second person is a suspicious person (See Fischer ¶¶ [0010] - [0017]); and
the alert being different from the notification information (See Fischer ¶¶ [0014] and [0016]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Aggarwal to add the teachings of Fischer as above, in order to immediately inform a user about the escalation of a situation and avoid unnecessary false alarms by setting threshold values of the signal intensity which is measured by the sensor apparatus, was activation of the reaction apparatus being prevented when signal intensity drops below threshold values (See Fischer ¶¶ [0016] and [0017]).
Moreover, Sriram from the same or similar endeavor of imaging system discloses the object is a package (See Sriram ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Aggarwal and Fischer to add the teachings of Sriram as above, in order to provide an object detector to use a computer vision algorithm, an object detection algorithm, and/or a machine learning model(s) to detect objects and/or persons represented by the sensor data 102 (e.g., depicted in images represented by the sensor data). For example, the object detector 106 may be used—and correspondingly trained or programmed—to generate bounding shapes corresponding to objects (e.g., bags, packages, backpacks, luggage, items, etc.) and persons (e.g., people, adults, kids, animals, etc.) (Sriram, [0031]).
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to claims 1 and 2, since it claims analogous subject matter for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the system claim 3, since it claims analogous subject matter for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Okatani from the same or similar endeavor of monitoring system discloses output an image of the first person based on determining that the detected object separated from the first person or determining that the second person approaches the detected objec(Okatani, ¶¶ [0050], [0092], [0116] and [0120]).
Moreover, Sriram from the same or similar endeavor of imaging system discloses the object is a package (See Sriram ¶ [0031]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer, Okatani and Sriram has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 15, above.
Regarding claim 18, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose the monitoring system according to claim 15, wherein the second person is determined to approach the detected object based on a positional relationship.
However, Okatani from the same or similar endeavor of monitoring system discloses the monitoring system according to claim 15, wherein the second person is determined to approach the detected object based on a positional relationship (See Okatani, ¶ [008]9)
Moreover, Sriram from the same or similar endeavor of imaging system discloses the object is a package (See Sriram ¶ [0031]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer, Okatani and Sriram has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 15, above.
Regarding claim 19, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses the monitoring system according to claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: associate a plurality of images included in the video as a same person (See Aggarwal, and ¶¶ [0016] - [0017]).
Regarding claim 20, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses the monitoring system according to claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: associate a first label with the first person; associate a second label with the detected object; and associate the second label with the first label. (See Aggarwal, and ¶¶ [0017] - [0020]).
Moreover, Sriram from the same or similar endeavor of imaging system discloses the object is a package (See Sriram ¶ [0031]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer, Okatani and Sriram has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 15, above
Regarding claim 21, Aggarwal, Fischer and Okatani disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Aggarwal discloses the monitoring system according to claim 15, wherein the detection of the person comprises detecting each position of the persons, and wherein the detection of the object comprises detecting a position of the object. (See Aggarwal, and ¶¶ [0031] - [0034]).
Moreover, Sriram from the same or similar endeavor of imaging system discloses the object is a package (See Sriram ¶ [0031]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer, Okatani and Sriram has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 15, above
Regarding claims 23, 24 and 26-29, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the system of claims 15, 16 and 18-21, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Regarding claim 25, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the system claim 3, since it claims analogous subject matter for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Regarding claims 39-42, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to claims 31-34, since they claim analogous subject matter for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Sriram from the same or similar endeavor of imaging system discloses the object is a package (See Sriram ¶ [0031]).
The motivation for combining Aggarwal, Fischer, Okatani and Sriram has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 15, above
Regarding claims 43-46, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to claims 39-42, since they claim analogous subject matter for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
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 extension fee 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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached on (571) 272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights