`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www .uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`90/013,239
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`05/14/2014
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`7593812
`
`GRCP.022015
`
`1705
`
`KLEIN,O'NEILL. & SINGH, LLP aee
`PAIR
`rTP
`IL.
`KLE
`16755 VON KARMAN AVENUE
`TARAE, CATHERINE MICHELLE
`SUITE 275
`IRVINE, CA 92606
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/21/2015
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Corarnissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1440
`wunUSPTO.gow
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`Erise IP, P.A.
`
`5600 GreenwoodPlaza Blvd.
`
`Suite 200
`
`GreenwoodVillage, CO 80111
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/013,239.
`
`PATENT NO. 7593812.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, orthe timeforfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledgedor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`The present application is being examined underthe pre-AlA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This is a Final Office Action in the ex parte reexamination of claims 10-17 and 20
`
`of U.S. Pat. No. 7,593,812 to Obradovichetal. (“812”).
`
`No claims have been amended. Claims 10-17 and 20 are pending andrejected
`
`below.
`
`References Presented in Request and Relied Upon by Examiner
`
`e User Guide for Sony SkyMap Pro & SkyMapTraveler, printed June 1998
`
`(“SkyMap User Guide”);
`
`e
`
`“Etak SkyMap Navigation Products to Carry Sony Brand Name,” Business
`
`Wire, July 27, 1998 (“SkyMap Press Release”); and
`
`e
`
`“Human Factors Design Guidelines for Advanced Traveler Information
`
`Systems (ATIS) and Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO),” U.S.
`
`Departmentof Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Publication
`
`No. FHWA-RD-98-057, Campbell et al., September 1998 (“Human Factors”).
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`Patent Owner's (“PO”) argumentsfiled March 30, 2015 have beenfully
`
`considered, but are found unpersuasive. For ease of reference, within this Responseto
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`Arguments, Examinerwill follow the same nomenclature of the references as PO
`
`(Remarksat6):
`
`
`
`In the Remarks, PO arguesthe following:
`
`1) that the Office Action improperly relies on the SkyMap Software’s “sale” date
`
`within the SkyMap Press Release instead of a publication date and that the SkyMap
`
`User Guide does nothave a printed publication date (Remarks at 6-14);
`
`2) that the SkyMap User Guide does not anticipate claims 10 or 12-17 (/d. at 14-
`
`17); and
`
`3) that the combination of the SkyMap User Guide and Human Factors does not
`
`render claims 11 or 20 obvious (/d. at 17-18).
`
`1) that the Office Action improperly relies on the SkyMap Software’s “sale” date
`
`within the SkyMap Press Release instead of a publication date andthat the
`
`SkyMap User Guide does not have a printed publication date
`
`In responseto this argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page ii of the
`
`SkyMap User Guide is reproduced below. As indicated by the bottom circle, the
`
`SkyMap User Guide wasprinted in June 1998. The top circle identifies a notice to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number
`Art Un : 3992
`
`90/013,239
`
`Page 4
`
`users on how they can order add
`
`iona
`
`| documentation or replacementparts for the
`
`SkyMap Software.
`
`Th
`
`is not
`
`ice inc
`
`ludes a company address and telephone number.
`
`Further, at the bottom of the page,
`
`the SkyMap User Guide
`
`Is Mar
`
`ked w
`
`th “P/N 3-050-
`
`006-01.” The label
`
`3
`
`“P/N,
`
`refers to
`
`part number
`
`and is a well-established business
`
`practice for un
`
`ique
`
`ly identifying a part
`
`icu
`
`lar part w
`
`thin a company.
`
`=
`
`
` RS]
`t
`Se
`Ne NALSBNE. EAS
`
`PLERS
`
`EOSSEaYS Th
`
`SPE
`
`te.
`
`3
`
`SEE
`
`SIRES ANE SURG
`
`&
`RHATIONS
`
`eeae=
`
`eo
`SAAS
`ss
`ee
`
`gee
`=
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`Per MPEP 2128 l, “A referenceis proven to be a “printed publication”
`
`“upon a
`
`satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made
`
`available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter
`
`or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locateit.” In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 210
`
`USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981) (quoting /.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp. 738,
`
`743, 148 USPQ 537, 540 (SDNY 1966)).” The fact that the SkyMap User Guide was
`
`printed in June 1998, labeled with a company P/N andincluded contact information with
`
`a company address and phone numberfor usersinterested in ordering additional
`
`SkyMap User Guides, is sufficient evidence that the SkyMap User Guide was made
`
`available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter
`
`or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it in June 1998.
`
`With regard to the SkyMap Press Release, Examiner notes that only the SkyMap
`
`User Guide wasrelied upon in the 35 USC § 102 and 103 claim rejections. Contrary to
`
`PO's allegations, Examiner has not asserted that the SkyMap User Guide was sold and
`
`therefore is a printed publication. (Remarks at 13) While there is sufficient evidence
`
`within the SkyMap User Guideitself to show that it is a printed publication, the SkyMap
`
`Press Release, which hasa printed publication date of July 27, 1998, was relied upon
`
`as additional supporting evidence to show when the SkyMap User Guide was
`
`accessible to persons interested in locating it. Since it is standard businesspractice for
`
`a software user guide to be made available with its corresponding software product, it
`
`follows that the SkyMap User Guide would have been made available around the same
`
`time that the SkyMap Software was made available. This is reinforced by pp. 9-18 of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`the SkyMap User Guide, which is an entire chapter dedicatedto installation instructions
`
`of the SkyMap Software. A user would need to have both the SkyMap Softwareas well
`
`as the SkyMap User Guideto install the product. The SkyMap Press Release reads,
`
`“Designed for Windows 95-compatible notebook PCs, both products were made
`
`available in the first quarter of 1998.” [emphasis added] Accordingly, the date of
`
`availability of the SkyMap Software being the first quarter of 1998 supports the assertion
`
`that the SkyMap User Guide, which included installation instructions for the SkyMap
`
`Software, was made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled
`
`in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it in June 1998.
`
`In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Databaseprintouts of
`
`abstracts which were not themselvesprior art publications were properly relied as
`
`providing evidence that the software products referenced therein were “first installed” or
`
`“released” more than one yearprior to applicant’s filing date.). [emphasis added]
`
`Therefore, Examiner has not improperly relied on a sale date to reject the claims
`
`under reexamination. Further, the evidence shows the SkyMap User Guideis a valid
`
`printed publication with a printed publication date more than one year prior to PO’s
`
`priority date.
`
`2) that the SkyMap User Guide does notanticipate claims 10 or 12-17
`
`In responseto this argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, PO
`
`arguesthat nothing in the SkyMap User Guide describes a feature where a user can
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`establish a communications connection with a selected point of interest ("POI") that was
`
`suggested based on the user preference data (Remarksat 16).
`
`The claims nor the specification define what user preference data is. At best, the
`
`disclosure of ‘812 says, “...user preferences such aspreferred types of restaurants,
`
`shops, entertainments, etc.” (2:5-6 and 4:66-67) Fig. 3 of ‘812 showscategories of
`
`preferences such as restaurants, shopping, services and entertainment. Accordingly,
`
`the broadest reasonableinterpretation of user preferencedatain light of the
`
`specification of ‘812 is some type of user interest data. The SkyMap User Guide allows
`
`users to enter their preference data to search for points of interest (POI) (SkyMap User
`
`Guide at 32). Like the user preference data of '812, the preference data for POls in the
`
`SkyMap User Guideis also divided into categories such as restaurants and shopping
`
`(/d. at 29). The user can entertheir preference information such as category,
`
`subcategory, distance and name (/d. at 29).
`
`The specification of ‘812 is also silent as to what is meant by “suggesting” POls.
`
`In fact the word, suggest, is only found in the claims. At best, “suggested” POls
`
`appears to be a generatedlist of POls (812, 11:6-15 and 38-40; item 1103 in Fig. 9).
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of suggested POls in light of the
`
`specification of ‘812 is a generated list of POls. After the user enters their preference
`
`data, a list of POls that match the user’s preference data is displayed to the user
`
`(SkyMap User Guide at 33). Right-clicking on a POI displays the POI’s address and
`
`phone number(i.¢., connection data) and allows a userto set the POI as a waypointor
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`add the POI to the user’s address book (/d. at 30 and 40). Once a POI is added to a
`
`user’s address book, the POI may be autodialed (/d. at 47).
`
`As such, Examiner submits the SkyMap User Guide does describe a feature
`
`where a user can establish a communications connection with a selected point of
`
`interest ("POI") that was suggested based on the userpreferencedata.
`
`Further, in support of his argument PO asserts that the telephone icon is only
`
`shown whenin Edit View mode of the Address Book function (Remarks at 16; SkyMap
`
`User Guide at 47). This argument is immaterial as the claims don't preclude use of "edit
`
`view mode"to establish communications with a POI; rather, the limitation concerned
`
`with establishing a communications connection recites, “an interface for allowing a user
`
`entry to cause a lookup of the connection data in the record to establish a
`
`communications connection with the selected point of interest.” The limitation only
`
`requires a "user entry" to cause a lookup... to establish a communications connection.
`
`This limitation is met by the citations in the SkyMap User Guide as discussed above.
`
`Additionally, PO is arguing limitations not claimed including a user selecting a
`
`point of interest and establishing a communications connection with the selected point
`
`of interest. Neither of these limitations is positively recited in the claims; rather the
`
`limitations argued are mere intended use. The specific claim language of system claim
`
`10 reads:
`
`-
`
`adisplay element for presenting thereon the plurality of points of interest, a user
`
`being allowed to select one ofthe plurality of points of interest, and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`-
`
`aninterface for allowing a user entry to cause a lookup of the connection data in the
`
`record to establish a communications connection with the selected pointof interest.
`
`In the above claim language, a user selection or entry at the display element is
`
`not positively recited (i.e., it does not actually occur); nor is a communications
`
`connection with a point of interest ever actually established. A recitation of the intended
`
`use of the claimed invention mustresult in a structural difference between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from
`
`the prior art.
`
`If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intendeduse, thenit
`
`meets the claim. As shown above, the SkyMap User Guide is capable of performing the
`
`intended use.
`
`3) the combination of the SkyMap User Guide and Human Factors
`
`does not render claims 11 or 20 obvious
`
`In responseto this argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
`
`In support of his
`
`argument PO asserts that Human Factors doesn’t indicate that POls are displayed in
`
`suggestion based on previously received inputs of user data (Remarksat 17).
`
`However, Examinerdid not rely on Human Factors for that teaching. As outlined in the
`
`rejection of claim 11 as well as discussed above, the SkyMap User Guide teaches
`
`displaying POls based on user preference data. The SkyMap User Guide also displays
`
`POls based on userpreference data indicative of a certain radius in miles (/d. at 32).
`
`SkyMap User Guidefails to explicitly disclose that the radius is in relation to a planned
`
`route. Human Factors wasrelied on to teach this. Human Factors discloses displaying
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`points of interests to a driver within a predetermined radius surrounding a route (Human
`
`Factors at 5-14).
`
`SkyMap User Guide and Human Factors are analogous referencesasthey are in
`
`the same field of vehicle navigation systems. Both discuss receiving user
`
`preference/interest data as well as displaying POls to the user (SkyMap User Guideat
`
`29-33; Human Factors at 5-14 and 5-15). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the SkyMap User Guide,
`
`which already teach displaying POls based on user preference data indicative of a
`
`certain radius in miles, so that the radius is in relation to a user's planned route, as
`
`taught by Human Factors.
`
`It would have been obvious because suggesting POls based
`
`on their locations in relation to a planned route providesdrivers with the flexibility to
`
`choose whetheror not to adjust their route and travel plans to include a specific POI
`
`(Human Factors, 5-14).
`
`Therefore, the combination of SkyMap User Guide and Human Factors as
`
`discussed in the rejection does render claims 11 and 20 obvious.
`
`In conclusion, POs arguments have beenfully considered, but are not found
`
`persuasive. The rejections of claims 10-17 and 20 are maintained and provided below.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section madein this Office action:
`
`A personshall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country
`or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one yearprior to the date of application
`for patent in the United States.
`
`Claims 10 and 12-17 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by “Sony SkyMap™ User Guide: SkyMap™ Pro and SkyMap™Traveler,”
`
`printed June 1998 (“SkyMap”).
`
`The article, “Etak SkyMap Navigation Products to Carry Sony Brand Name,”
`
`Business Wire, July 27, 1998 serves as further evidence to show when the SkyMap
`
`User Guide was madeavailable to the public.
`
`As per claim 10, SkyMap discloses a navigation system (pp. 4 and 9, the
`
`navigation system includes a notebook computerwith the SkyMap application installed
`
`and CD-ROMS), comprising:
`
`storage for storing records associated with different points of interest (pp. 4-5,
`
`and 29-32, a Points of Interest (POI) directory may be queried and a POI toolbar may
`
`be used to access POls. POls are stored with street maps and street maps are stored
`
`on CD-ROMsand/or the computer harddisk.);
`
`a device for receiving user preference data (pp. 32 and 63, the notebook
`
`computer with the installed Skymap application is the device that receives user
`
`preference data:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`OTE
`
`Finding Paiste af Inserest
`
`IMPOSTANT: Step. &.
`
`
`
`Shay & iGprionst youre lsokiig tina. specitis Pod sper tieAret tiewfewetes anf tes
`as br Bas Steg WS Flak.
`
`Step 7.
`
`
`);
`
`a processor configured to suggest a plurality of points of interest based on the
`
`user preference data (pp. 29-33, the notebook computerprocessor is configured to
`
`suggest POls based on the category selected by the user:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`4
`
`Step %.
`
`(Optional) Select your choice from the Net
`SBS
`as
`and click ©
`1
`
`:
`
`
`Step.0, (Optional) Select your choice
`list and clickayPn
`
`
`
`
`
`a display element for presenting thereon the plurality of points of interest, a user
`
`being allowed to select oneof the plurality of points of interest (pp. 29-33, POI icons are
`
`displayed on the userinterface. The user can right-click on the POI icon for more
`
`detailed information about the POI:
`
`ACCESSING POY Isromeanon
`
`
`ScSocal
`
`
`
`
`
`a mechanism for retrieving a record associated with a user selected point of
`
`interest, the record containing at least connection data (p. 30, As shownin the previous
`
`limitation, POI information includes a telephone number(i.¢., connection data).); and
`
`an interface for allowing a user entry to cause a lookup of the connection data in
`
`the record to establish a communications connection with the selected point of interest
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`using the connection data (pp. 30 and 47, A user can look up the telephone numberof a
`
`POI in order to call the POI. When a modem is connected to a SkyMap-enabled laptop,
`
`a user can select to establish a phone call with an entry in the Address Book, e.g., with
`
`a suggested POI added to the Address Book:
`
`PHONE DIALER We Mispend Suvag sow
`
`Examiner notes that the part of the limitation that reads, “to establish a
`
`communications connection with the selected point of interest using the connection
`
`data,” is mere intended use as establishing a communications connection with the POI
`
`is neverpositively recited. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention
`
`mustresult in a structural difference between the claimed invention andthe prior art in
`
`order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
`
`If the prior art
`
`structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`As per claim 12, SkyMap discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the plurality
`
`of points of interest include goodsor service providers (p. 29, POls include goods or
`
`service providers:
`
`POINTS GF INTEREST
`
`
`
` Dardghag Hots
`Bemrice Basks
` Barks &#
`
`
`
`Shappiag |
`
`Tourist dntiacaiogns fstysnscar
`MS; HraeMatiotas, Maen anal Pismreiy dis
`WHS
`
`¢ heome
`forvetie
`tee are’
`mh
`&i
`Ave Sepetees Csas carton
`TOCA SERS, Sd fesady ARES
`
`Aie Se. Badd Crscunarect
`
`As perclaim 13, SkyMap discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the goodsor
`
`service providers include a restaurant (/d. at 29).
`
`As per claim 14, SkyMapdiscloses the system of claim 10, wherein the user
`
`entry includes a user selection of an option provided by the system (/d. at 30, 33 and
`
`47, The user can select a POI provided by the system and then select further options
`
`related to the POI such as selecting the POI as a waypoint, adding the POI to the user’s
`
`address book andcalling the POI from the address book.).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`As per claim 15, SkyMap discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the option is
`
`presented on the display element (/d. at 30 and 47, see screenshots of display elements
`
`in claim 10).
`
`As per claim 16, SkyMap discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the
`
`connection data includes a telephone number (/d. at 30).
`
`As per claim 17, SkyMap discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the
`
`communications connection includes a telephonic connection (/d. at 47).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousnessrejections setforth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of thistitle, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`Claims 11 and 20 are rejected underpre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over SkyMap and “Human Factors Design Guidelines for Advanced
`
`Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) and Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO),” U.S.
`
`Departmentof Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA-
`
`RD-98-057, Campbell et al., September 1998 (“Human Factors”).
`
`As per claim 11, SkyMap discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the
`
`processor is further configured to plan a route to a desired destination (p. 34, A route
`
`can be planned betweenuser-identified travel points.).
`
`While SkyMapdiscloses searching for POls within a certain distance (p. 32),
`
`SkyMap doesnot expressly disclose the plurality of points of interest are suggested
`
`based on locations thereofin relation to the planned route. Human Factors discloses
`
`this at 5-14, “Point of interest information refers to information presented to the driver
`
`that identifies scenic routes, historical sites, national parks, and recreational areas
`
`within a predetermined radius surrounding the route. Having this information will allow
`
`drivers to choose whether or not they wish to adjust their route and travel plans to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`include a specific point of interest.”
`
`Page 18
`
`Sitiemuth: Banaipisof Penseaiing Baked ot Lannie Ladieecian
`
`ine
`SieseSatinetsRte
`Daeantous or Spree!feDENRA:ake
`
`AAR?graHae LaTOPRISEER:
`RSIS AFAen SMEARS sect
`
`Rivkin oThe RARE
`
`) .
`
`At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to have the navigation system suggest POls basedon their locations in
`
`relation to the planned route as doing so providesdrivers with the flexibility to choose
`
`whetheror not they wish to adjust their route and travel plans to include a specific point
`
`of interest (Human Factors, 5-14).
`
`As per claim 20, SkyMap does not expressly disclose the system of claim 10,
`
`wherein the interface includes an audio input. Human Factorsdisclosesthis at 9-8,
`
`“Drivers should have some methodfor entering this type of information (e€.g., phone, key
`
`pad, touch screen, voice input, etc.”).
`
`At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a personof ordinary
`
`skill in the art to have the navigation system include audio input as doing so provides
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 19
`
`users with an additional meansof interacting with the navigation system, thereby
`
`enhancing the user-friendliness of the system’s interface.
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
`
`Extensionsof time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) do not apply in reexamination
`
`proceedings. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant” and notto
`
`parties in a reexamination proceeding. Further, in 35 U.S.C. 305 and in 37 CFR
`
`1.550(a), it is required that reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special
`
`dispatch within the Office.”
`
`Extensions of time in reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37
`
`CFR 1.550(c). A request for extension of time must befiled on or before the day on
`
`which a responseto this action is due, and it must be accompanied bythe petition fee
`
`set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g). The merefiling of a request will not effect any extension of
`
`time. An extension of time will be granted only for sufficient cause, and for a reasonable
`
`time specified.
`
`The filing of a timely first responseto this final rejection will be construed as
`
`including a request to extend the shortenedstatutory period for an additional month,
`
`which will be granted evenif previous extensions have been granted.
`
`In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for response expire later than SIX MONTHS from the
`
`mailing date of the final action. See MPEP § 2265.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 20
`
`Future Correspondence
`
`If attempts to reach Examiner Michelle Tarae by telephone at 571-272-6727 are
`
`unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Woo Choi can be reached on 571-272-4179.
`
`All correspondencerelating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be
`
`directed:
`
`By Mail to:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner of Patents
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By Hand:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Registered users of EFS-Web mayalternatively submit such correspondencevia
`the electronic filing system EFS-Web, at
`
`nitos://efs usoto.aqov/efile/mvyportal/efs-reqistered
`
`EFS-Weboffers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the
`Office that needs to act on the correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissions are "soft
`scanned”(i.e., electronically uploaded) directly into the officialfile for the reexamination
`proceeding, which offers parties the opportunity to review the contentof their
`submissions after the "soft scanning" process is complete.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Central
`
`Reexamination Unit at (5671) 272-7705.
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,239
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Signed:
`
`/C. Michelle Tarae/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Conferees:
`
`/D.M.H./, PE AU3992
`
`IWHC/
`SPRSArt Unit 3992
`
`

`

`10. CT Other: cc: Requester (if third party
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/013,239
`
`Examiner
`MICHELLE TARAE
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`7593812
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`AIA (First Inventor to
`File) Status
`No
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`aX Responsive to the communication(s)filed on 3/30/2015 .
`LIA declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`b. BX] This action is made FINAL.
`
`c._] A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date ofthis letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`certificate in accordancewith this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified aboveis less than thirty (80) days, a response within the statutory minimum ofthirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part]
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1.
`2.
`
`CL] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`[_]
`Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`
`CL]
`3.
`4.0
`
`Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`.
`
`OOOUOWODORR
`
`Part Il
`
`ta.
`
`1b.
`
`2.
`
`3 4 5
`
`6 7 8
`
`.
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`Claims 70-17 and 20 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims 7-9, 78 and 19 are not subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims ____—s have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims sare patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims 10-17 and 20 are rejected.
`
`Claims ___s are objectedto.
`
`The drawings, filedon__—_—s are acceptable.
`The proposed drawing correction, filed on
`
`has been (7a) C approved (7b)C] disapproved.
`
`Acknowledgment is made ofthe priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`[1 Some* c)[ None
`a) CAI b)
`1 £] beenreceived.
`
`2 (1 not been received.
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`3 LJ beenfiled in Application No.
`4 CL] beenfiled in reexamination Control No.
`5 CL] beenreceived by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action foralist of the certified copies not received.
`9. L] Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D.
`11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`requester)
`
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-13)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20150408
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket