DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The Amendment filed 1 May 2026 (hereinafter “the Amendment”) has been entered and considered. Claims 1, 15, and 17 have been amended. Claims 16 and 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-15, 17, and 21-24, all the claims pending in the application, are rejected. All new grounds of rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments; accordingly, this action is made final.
Response to Amendment
On page 7 of the Amendment, Applicant contends that the applied art does not teach or suggest the newly added features of independent claims 1, 15 and 17: “generating a three-dimensional representation of the object from the first MIDMR based on the spatial information”, and “comparing the three-dimensional representation with a plurality of reference MIDMRs”. In support of this assertion, Applicant asserts that Holzer’s disclosure is focused on view interpolation and user interaction with pre-captured image data, rather than on constructing a three-dimensional representation from an incoming MIDMR for comparison purposes. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Holzer does indeed teach the limitations in question.
Initially, the Examiner notes that Holzer expressly discloses “reconstructing a model of the content in three-dimensions based on the information provided in the first surround view” corresponding to the claimed MIDMR ([0150]; emphasis added). Here, Holzer explicitly discloses the claimed step of generating a three-dimensional representation of the object from the first MIDMR based on the spatial information, contrary to Applicant’s assertions.
Holzer further discloses a “process for providing visual search of an object” involving “three-dimensional models” in which “a visual search query that includes a first surround view is received” and the “first surround view is then compared to stored surround views” by “extracting first measurement information for the object in the first surround view and comparing it to second measurement information extracted from the one or more stored surround views” ([0168]; emphasis added). The first measurement information extracted from the surround view can be 3D “shape” information of the object in the first surround view or 3D “textures” included in the first surround views, and a determination can be made as to whether “measurement information associated with a stored surround view dimensionally fits the object associated with the first surround view” by comparison with the first measurement information ([0169]). Importantly, the shape or texture information of the object extracted from the query/first surround view is 3D information that constitutes a 3D representation of the object since the determination of whether the stored surround view “dimensionally fits” the object in the query surround view is a comparison of “three-dimensional models” of the stored surround views ([0168-0171] and Fig. 19, as contrasted with [0172-0176] and Fig. 20 which discusses a two-dimensional query process).
Here, Holzer discloses the generation of 3D shape and texture measurements of the object in the surround view, either of which reads on the claimed generation of a 3-D representation of the object. Holzer further discloses that this generated 3D shape and/or texture representation is compared with “three-dimensional models” of the stored surround views. That is, Holzer does indeed disclose “generating a three-dimensional representation of the object from the first MIDMR based on the spatial information”, and “comparing the three-dimensional representation with a plurality of reference MIDMRs”, as claimed in the amended independent claims, contrary to Applicant’s assertions.
In view of the foregoing, the prior art rejections based on Holzer are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15, 17, and 21-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 1 recites “wherein identifying the visual feature comprises comparing three-dimensional representation” which should be amended to recite “wherein identifying the visual feature comprises comparing the three-dimensional representation” for clarity.
Claims 2-14 and 21-24 inherit this deficiency by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Independent claim 15 recites “wherein identifying the visual feature comprises comparing three-dimensional representation” which should be amended to recite “wherein identifying the visual feature comprises comparing the three-dimensional representation” for clarity.
Independent claim 17 recites “wherein identifying the visual feature comprises comparing three-dimensional representation” which should be amended to recite “wherein identifying the visual feature comprises comparing the three-dimensional representation” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0339846 to Holzer et al. (hereinafter “Holzer”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0193863 to Cao (hereinafter “Cao”).
As to independent claim 1, Holzer discloses a method comprising: visual feature identification for a first multi-view interactive digital media representation (MIDMR) of an object, the first MIDMR including spatial information ([0139-0144] discloses identifying an object within a surround view; [0049] discloses that the surround view is a “multi-view interactive digital media representation” (MIDMR) including a plurality of images and accompanying location data captured as the capture device moves along a path around the object; see, for example, Fig. 4B in which capture device 414 moves along path 416 around object of interest car 418; [0048, 0063] disclose that the surround views are created by “analyzing the spatial relationship between multiple images and video together with the location information data” and thus include “spatial information”); generating a three-dimensional representation of the object from the first MIDMR based on the spatial information ([0150] discloses “reconstructing a model of the content in three-dimensions based on the information provided in the first surround view” corresponding to the claimed MIDMR; [0168-0171] and Fig. 19 further discloses a “process for providing visual search of an object” involving “three-dimensional models” in which “a visual search query that includes a first surround view is received” and the “first surround view is then compared to stored surround views” by “extracting first measurement information for the object in the first surround view and comparing it to second measurement information extracted from the one or more stored surround views”, wherein the first measurement information extracted from the surround view can be a “shape” of the object in the first surround view or “textures” included in the first surround views, and a determination can be made as to whether “measurement information associated with a stored surround view dimensionally fits the object associated with the first surround view” by comparison with the first measurement information; importantly, the shape and texture information of the object extracted from the query/first surround view is 3D information that constitutes a 3D representation of the object since the determination of whether the stored surround view “dimensionally fits” the object in the query surround view is a comparison of “three-dimensional models” of the stored surround views); identifying via a processor a visual feature in the first MIDMR of the object based at least in part on the spatial information and the three-dimensional representation ([0177] discloses a processor 2301 “for implementing particular embodiments of the present invention”; [0139-0144] discloses identifying an object of interest across multiple views in the MIDMR based on a visual tag thereof, as selected by a user; [0168-0176] and Fig. 19 discloses comparing the first surround view with one or more stored surround views in order to match items therein, the comparison including comparison of extracted 3D measurements of the object), wherein identifying the visual feature comprises comparing the three-dimensional representation with a plurality of reference MIDMRs, wherein comparing the three-dimensional representation with a plurality of reference MIDMRs comprises comparing spatial information of the three-dimensional representation with spatial information of the plurality of reference MIDMRs ([0168-0176] and Fig. 19 discloses comparing the extracted measurements of the object in the first surround view with one or more stored surround views in order to match items therein, and that the comparison between the extracted measurements of the object in the first surround view and one or more stored surround views for matching items therein may use 3D shape and/or texture of the object, wherein each of these attributes constitute spatial information contained in the respective surround views); transmitting a feature identification message associated with the first MIDMR, wherein the feature identification message includes a request for a focused MIDMR of the first MIDMR, the request for the focused MIDMR requesting additional images or video of the visual feature associated with the object ([0066, 0122-0130] discloses that, “if a surround view is determined to need additional views to provide a more accurate model of the content or context, a user may be prompted to provide additional views”, wherein the prompt constitutes a transmitted message associated with the surround view; for example, if the images in the surround view are “not sufficient to allow recognition of an object of interest, then a prompt is given for the user to provide additional image(s) from different viewing angles”; similarly, if the images in the surround view are “not sufficient to distinguish the object of interest from similar but non-matching items at 1210, then a prompt is given for the user to provide additional image(s) from different viewing angles”; see fig. 12-13, wherein the additional views are necessarily associated with a particular visual feature of the object that is required to “allow a visual search query to yield more accurate results” or “allow recognition of [the] object of interest”; for example, in Fig. 13B, the prompt for additional images is requested to provide “more specific information about the graphics on the mug”, wherein the graphics are a visual feature associated with the mug; another example is found in [0125]: “a portrait of a person may not sufficiently show the person's hairstyle if only pictures are taken from the front angles. Additional pictures of the back of the person may need to be provided to determine whether the person has short hair or just a pulled-back hairstyle”, wherein the hairstyle is a visual feature associated with the person), wherein the focused MIDMR is used to construct a sub-MIDMR, wherein the sub-MIDMR operates as a full-featured MIDMR of the visual feature, wherein the sub-MIDMR is a separate MIDMR from the first MIDMR ([0066, 0122-0130] discloses that, once the additional views (e.g., claimed focused MIDMR) are received, they are “incorporated into the surround view”, thus creating a new and distinct surround view (e.g., claimed sub-MIDMR) from the original surround view (e.g., claimed first MIDMR); [0108-0113] discloses that each surround view (including the one newly-created from the additional images) “can be viewed and navigated”, thus making it fully-featured; in an alternative interpretation, the newly-created surround view which incorporates the additional images can correspond to the claimed focused MIDMR, and [0150-0152] discloses that content in a surround view can be automatically segmented and a new surround view (sub-MIDMR) is created including the segmented content without any background) but is linked to the first MIDMR via a tag associated with the first MIDMR ([0119-0120] discloses that “any two surround views” which “have some overlap in content…can be linked to one another through this overlap”; such linking pre-supposes a tag, but [0139-0144] expressly discloses that “tagging can provide identification for objects” common throughout surround views; since the first surround view and the focused and sub-surround views both include overlapping content (e.g., the mug or the person with the hairstyle), these surround views can be linked by virtue of that overlap in content).
Holzer does not expressly disclose that the surround view query matching is performed in a client-server setting or that the matching involves comparison of scale information. That is, Holzer does not expressly disclose receiving via a communications interface at a server a visual feature identification request, wherein comparing the three-dimensional representation of the first MIDMR with the plurality of reference MIDMRs comprises comparing scale information of the three-dimensional representation of the first MIDMR with scale information of the plurality of reference MIDMRs or that the feature identification message is transmitted from the server via the communications interface in response to the feature identification request.
Cao, like Holzer, is directed to identifying a visual feature in an image and searching for images that include similar visual features (Abstract). In particular, Cao discloses a server which receives a product search query corresponding to at least one product image, searches for product images that are similar to the at least one product image, and transmits the found product images to a user terminal in response to the query ([0081-0086] and Fig. 2). Cao discloses that the search for product images that are similar to the at least one product image comprises identifying product images that have a similarity in size to the query product image that is greater than or equal to a preset similarity threshold value ([0097-0100, 0064]). Cao further discloses that the similarity search also compares texture ([0083, 0100, 0064]) much like Holzer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holzer to perform the object identification process in response to a user request to a server, to perform the comparison between the first image set (first MIDMR) and the database image set (plurality of reference MIDMRs) by comparing a size (scale) and texture of objects therein, and to transmit results of the query back from the server to the user terminal, as taught by Cao, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have allowed a user to remotely query database MIDMRs for matching objects, thereby reducing storage requirements in the user’s client device.
As to claim 2, Holzer as modified by Cao further teaches identifying the visual feature comprises processing user input that identifies a first location on the first MIDMR ([0140] of Holzer discloses that the user selects a point or region for the object tag in the MIDMR).
As to claim 3, Holzer as modified by Cao further teaches that the spatial information is determined at least in part based on inertial data ([0049] of Holzer discloses that the location information can be obtained from an Inertial Measurement Unit).
As to claim 4, Holzer as modified by Cao further teaches that identifying the visual feature further comprises: selecting a reference MIDMR that is similar to the first MIDMR, identifying a reference visual feature associated with the reference MIDMR, and locating the reference visual feature in the first MIDMR ([0168-0176] of Holzer discloses comparing the surround views in the first surround view with the respective surround views in one or more stored surround views, creating a ranked list of stored surround views matching the first surround view, and matching items therein).
As to claim 9, Holzer as modified by Cao further teaches that the spatial information comprises depth information ([0049-0050] of Holzer discloses that the spatial information may include depth information).
As to claim 10, Holzer as modified by Cao further teaches that the first MIDMR includes a plurality of different viewpoint images of the object ([0049] of Holzer discloses that the surround view is a multi-view interactive digital media representation including a plurality of images captured as the capture device moves along a path around the object (i.e., from different viewpoints)).
As to claim 11, Holzer as modified by Cao further teaches the spatial information comprises three- dimensional location information ([0049, 0149] of Holzer discloses that the surround views include 3D characteristics of objects in the image data).
As to claim 12, Holzer as modified by Cao further teaches that the visual feature represents a physical location on the object ([0139-0144] of Holzer discloses that a point on an object of interest may be selected as the tagged visual feature).
As to claim 14, Holzer as modified by Cao further teaches that the MIDMR of the object further comprises three-dimensional shape information ([0157-0169] of Holzer discloses that the surround views include 3D shape information).
Independent claim 15 recites a system comprising: a processor; and memory configured to store instructions, the instructions configured to cause the processor ([0179] and Fig. 23 of Holzer discloses a processor 2301 and memory 2303, the memory storing program instructions for execution by the processor) to perform the method steps recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1.
Independent claim 17 recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon for performing a method ([0180] of Holzer discloses machine readable media that include program instructions for performing the disclosed algorithm), the method comprising the method steps recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1.
Claims 5-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer in view of Cao and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0242686 to Lenka et al. (hereinafter “Lenka”).
As to claim 5, Holzer as modified by Cao does not expressly disclose that identifying the visual feature comprises: determining an object type associated with the object, identifying a predefined visual feature associated with the object type, and locating the predefined visual feature in the first MIDMR.
Lenka, like Holzer, is directed to comparing objects in images (Abstract). Lenka discloses a trained classifier that classifies parts and subparts of an object in an image based on visual features thereof, the visual features including contours and boundaries ([0031-0034]). Lenka further discloses comparing an image of a damaged vehicle (Fig. 5) with a previous image of the vehicle when undamaged (Fig. 4) in order to assess damage ([0040]). As part of the damage assessment process, Lenka discloses identifying parts and subparts of an object in a received query image ([0045] and Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Holzer and Cao to use a trained classifier to classify parts and subparts of an object in the query image (first MIDMR), as taught by Lenka, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have facilitated the assessment of damage to a vehicle ([0040] of Lenka).
As to claim 6, the proposed combination of Holzer, Cao, and Lenka further teaches identifying a visual feature in a second MIDMR of the object, wherein the first MIDMR of the object represents the object at a first point in time and wherein the second MIDMR of the object represents the object at a second point in time ([0139] of Holzer discloses that the tagged feature from a first view of the surround view (MIDMR) is maintained in subsequent images of the surround view; see, for example, Fig. 4B in which capture device 414 moves along path 416 around object of interest car 418; that is, the multiple views in the surround view are captured at different points in time).
As to claim 7, the proposed combination of Holzer and Cao does not expressly disclose comparing the visual feature in the first MIDMR of the object to the visual feature in the second MIDMR of the object to identify a change in the object between the first time and the second time. However, [0035-0048] of Lenka discloses comparing visual features in an image of a damaged vehicle (Fig. 5) with visual features of a previous image of the vehicle when undamaged (Fig. 4) in order to assess damage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Holzer and Cao to compare visual features between Holzer’s surround views (MIDMRs) to identify changes in an object over time, as taught by Lenka, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have facilitated the assessment of damage to a vehicle ([0040] of Lenka).
As to claim 8, the proposed combination of Holzer, Cao and Lenka further teaches that the object is a vehicle and wherein the change in the object represents damage to the object ([0040] of Lenka discloses that the object is a vehicle and the change between images represents damage to the vehicle; the reasons for combining the references are the same as those discussed above in conjunction with claim 7).
As to claim 21, Holzer as modified above further teaches that identifying the visual feature comprises: providing the three-dimensional representation to a machine-learning model that has been trained to recognize one or more predefined features; and identifying the visual feature based on an output of the machine-learning model ([0149] of Holzer discloses that “surround view-based object segmentation can be used to generate object models that are suited for training artificial intelligence search algorithms that can operate on large databases, in the context of visual search applications”). Holzer as modified above does not expressly disclose that the features are vehicular ones.
Lenka, like Holzer, is directed to comparing objects in images (Abstract). Lenka discloses a trained classifier that classifies parts and subparts of a vehicle in an image based on visual features thereof, the visual features including contours and boundaries, wherein a previously-unseen image of the vehicle can be provided to the classifier which identifies the parts, subparts, and changes thereof ([0031-0049]). For example, Lenka discloses that the model compares an image of a damaged vehicle (Fig. 5) with a previous image of the vehicle when undamaged (Fig. 4) in order to assess damage ([0040]). As part of the damage assessment process, Lenka discloses identifying parts and subparts of an object in a received query image ([0045] and Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Holzer and Cao to use a trained classifier to classify parts and subparts of a vehicle in the query image (first MIDMR), as taught by Lenka, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have facilitated the assessment of damage to a vehicle ([0040] of Lenka).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer in view of Cao and further in view of “A Spatio-Temporal Pyramid Matching for Video Retrieval” by Choi et al. (hereinafter “Choi”).
As to claim 13, Holzer as modified by Cao further teaches that the spatial information comprises depth information ([0049-0050] of Holzer discloses that the spatial information may include depth information). The proposed combination of Holzer and Cao does not expressly disclose that the spatial information also comprises visual flow between the different view point images.
Choi, like Holzer, is directed to a retrieval system which searches relevant multi-image (video) clips based on a given query multi-image (video) clip (Abstract). In particular, Choi discloses that the optical flow in each clip is determined and compared with the optical flow of the query clip in order to find the closest matching clips (Section 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Holzer and Cao to perform a comparison between the optical flow of the query multi-image media item and the optical flow of the database multi-image media items, as taught by Choi, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved retrieval performance by virtue of including an additional feature for comparison – namely, optical flow (Abstract of Choi).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer in view of Cao and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0140049 to Chefalas et al. (hereinafter “Chefalas”).
As to claim 22, Holzer as modified above further teaches that the tag associated with the first MIDMR includes a link to a service provider for the visual feature ([0139] of Holzer discloses that the “tags 1512 can store different types of data, such as…a link to a website/webshop…for purchasing a tagged object” and “can become visible when a user selects an item in the surround view” or “can be automatically displayed”). Holzer as modified above does not expressly disclose a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that activates the link or the service provider being one of a repair shop, a parts supplier, or an insurance claim portal.
Chefalas, like Holzer, is directed to user “search query” (Abstract). Chefalas discloses “the URL of a webpage along with a tag corresponding to a location…and an estimated higher-level descriptor of the location (e.g…car dealer repair shop…)” ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holzer such that the link is activated by a URL for a repair shop service provider, as taught by Chefalas, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved user experience by providing a wider range of service providers whose websites can be accessed by the user.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer in view of Cao and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,824,453 to Collins et al. (hereinafter “Collins”).
As to claim 23, Holzer as modified above does not expressly disclose transmitting, to an external computing system, a damage identification message that includes the sub-MIDMR and an indication of the visual feature, wherein the external computing system is associated with at least one of an insurance provider, a vehicle auction platform, or a repair estimation service.
Collins, like Holzer, is directed to 3D image analysis (Abstract). In particular, Collins discloses a system in which a user or agent can capture images of a damaged vehicle, and the images of damaged portions can be sent to an enhanced claims processing server 101 associated with the insurance company, as well as to a preferred repair shop that can return a cost estimate of the damage (see at least col. 25, line 34 – col. 28, line 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Holzer and Cai such that the surround view is of a damaged vehicle, and the system transmits a damage identification message that includes images of the vehicle portions that are damaged to an insurance provider for claims processing and to a repair shop for repair cost estimation, as taught by Collins, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved an insurance claims process by facilitating the sharing of pertinent information with the insurance company and the repair shop.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer in view of Cao and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0061582 to Lucey et al. (hereinafter “Lucey”).
As to claim 24, Holzer as modified above further teaches that the spatial information comprises inertial measurement unit (IMU) data captured during generation of the first MIDMR ([0049] of Holzer discloses that “the data used to generated a surround view” can include “location information” obtained by an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) system). Holzer as modified above does not expressly disclose that the scale information of the three-dimensional representation is estimated based on the IMU data. However, Lucey discloses “improving upon scale estimation accuracy” using an IMU (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Holzer and Cai to estimate the scale information using the IMU data, as taught by Lucey, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have “improv[ed] upon scale estimation accuracy” (Abstract of Lucey).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M CONNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1486. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM Monday through Friday, and some Saturday afternoons.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/SEAN M CONNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights