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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 4/24/26, the following is a final office action. Claims 1, and 9-20 are amended. Claim 6 and 7 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, and 8-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous rejection has been modified to reflect claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC $101
3.35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title,
Claims 1-5, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (I.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 9 and 15, these claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite analyzing historic metaverse collaborative events, generating a knowledge corpus, comparing questions, determining whether participants are asking sufficient questions, identifying factors associated with emotional effectiveness, and determining a question and emotional response for a virtual avatar. These limitations constitute methods of organizing human interactions and mental processes. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of
the methods of organizing human interactions. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, claims 1, 9 and 15 are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole
merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of monitoring participant behavior, evaluating
engagement and emotional effectiveness, prompting interaction when engagement is low, using AI to
make a decision, and displaying an automated response through a dummy avatar in a computer
environment. The claimed computer components including a processor, artificial intelligence model, metaverse environment, and virtual avatar are recited at a high level of generality and are merely
invoked as tools to implement an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic
computer is not a practical application.
Finally, claims 1, 9 and 15 do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole
merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of monitoring participant behavior, evaluating
engagement and emotional effectiveness, prompting interaction when engagement is low, using Al to
make a decision, and displaying an automated response through a dummy avatar in a computer
environment. However, controlling the avatar to ask a question and displaying an emotional response merely automates and presents the results of the abstract analysis within a virtual environment and does not improve the functioning of a computer, virtual world platform or other technology. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8, 10-14, and 16-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human interactions and mental processes. The additional elements of the computer-implemented method in claims 2-5 and 8; computer program product in claims 10-14; and system in claims 16-20, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same
under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections
set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is
not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention
and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
TAYA (JP 2024067914 A) and further in view of Solomon (US 20170206797 A1), and further in view
of GIARD (WO 1156828 A1).
As per claim 1, TAYA discloses:
wherein the metaverse collaborative event takes place in a three-dimensional space in a virtual world
and the participants and presenter are visible to each other in the three-dimensional space,
(TAYA (JP 2024067914 A)The virtual space here is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional virtual space
configured on a network (on a computer) such as the metaverse. Online conferences include
conferences, lectures, classes, etc. that are conducted online using images, such as video conferences
and online classes. In this embodiment, virtual spaces and online conferences are collectively referred to
as "virtual spaces, etc." Also, virtual places and events set as virtual spaces, etc., and virtual rooms and
meeting places for online conferences, etc. are referred to as "virtual events." Also, images for
displaying virtual events on the screen D of the terminal device 20 are referred to as "event images);
determining, by the processor set, a plurality of factors associated with emotional effectiveness by
utilizing the AI model to identify patterns associated with the emotional effectiveness, (TAYA (JP 2024067914 A): when a specific movement or other behavior is performed, or when information such as concentration or emotions is obtained through behavior analysis. This electronic information is accumulated in the memory unit 12 of the server device 10 via the network N. This accumulated information may be data after data analysis. These analyses may use Al such as machine learning and deep learning);
Taya does not disclose the following limitations, however, Solomon discloses:
analyzing, by a processor set, historic metaverse collaborative events based on application of an artificial intelligence (AI) model, (Solomon: [0049] FIG. 4 illustrates how the advanced response generator is expanded into the learning system. The advance response generator adds the functions of searching the student profile database for history on the student's interactions with the Expert Avatar, as well as adding the learning manager functions to assist in identifying the appropriate query and response match);
generating, by the processor set, a knowledge corpus based on the analysis of the historic metaverse collaborative events, (Solomon: [0037] Authoring manager software may also be employed to provide automatic generation of an initial primary knowledge base; [0038] Unanticipated, but important, queries that students have previously made (and resulted in a response from the Expert Avatar obtained from the search of a knowledge base consisting of general information related to the course such as biographies, web pages, encyclopedia entries and research papers) would be added to the primary knowledge base for continuous improvement of the system)
comparing, by the processor set, questions asked during a metaverse collaborative event with questions from the generated knowledge corpus, (Solomon (Abstract:...The avatar's responses are based on artificial intelligence comparisons between the student queries and a knowledge base of anticipated questions, responses and learning goals. An authoring manager system employs natural language processing to identify an underlying meaning in the student's query and to add semantically equivalent questions in the knowledge base and internet searches to aid in compiling the list of anticipated questions. A student profile is stored containing student information and a history of the student's interaction with the avatar. Learning manager software, using the learning goals in the knowledge base and a record of the conversation, can compare and assess the student's progress to the learning goals).
in response to the comparing, determining, by the processor set, that participants in the metaverse collaborative event are not asking sufficient questions to a presenter of the metaverse collaborative event; in response to the determining, causing, by the processor set, a dummy avatar in the metaverse collaborative event to ask a question to the presenter during the metaverse collaborative event, the instructions further allow the processor to connect an avatar to each persona, make each avatar accessible for dialog with metaverse users in the Metaverse, receive persona interaction data based on an interacting persona that interacts with a metaverse user, (Solomon: [0020] An important innovation of the invention are the learning manager functions which compare the conversation log to the learning goals (that are also included in the primary knowledge base) to create a formative assessment of the student's progress, which is then stored in the student profile database for access by the teacher and student. Based on the student's progress the learning manager may provide suggestions or recommendations through the Expert Avatar of additional queries that the student should make or on topics that the student might like to know about, provide guidance if the student is off topic, increase or decrease the complexity (grade level) of Expert Avatar responses and instruct the Expert Avatar to test the student's understanding of responses previously provided. Continued lack of performance exhibited by the student can result in a simplification of responses and a suggestion from the Expert Avatar to repeat problem area queries.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Solomon in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
TAYA does not disclose the following limitations, however, GIARD discloses:
patterns associated with the emotional effectiveness (GIARD (WO 2013155828 A1) discloses in : [0065]
In one embodiment, the subject video is streamed in substantially real-time to the server while being
recorded, and automatically analyzed to determine which Idle video is to be presented to the subject.
For example, audio and video analysis may be applied to the subject video to determine the emotional
state of the subject while answering the interview question. For example, If smiles or laughs are
detected in the subject video, then on idle video in which the actor/avatar smiles may be presented to
the subject.
In another example, if It is determined that the subject is sad while answering the Interview question,
then on Idle video in which the actor/avatar appears to be compassionately listening is presented. in a
further example, If hesitations, surprises, grimaces, etc. are detected, then an Idle video in which the
actor/avatar has 0 neutral attitude may be presented to the subject);
and display an emotion response corresponding to the plurality of factors, (GIARD (WO2013156828 A1):
[0079] in one embodiment, the emotional state of the subject is also determined for each subject video.
An expression recognition analysis is performed on the video and/or audio tracks of the subject video in
order to determine the emotional state of the subject while recording the subject video. For example,
laughs may be identified within the audio tracks, smiles may be detected from the video tracks in order
to determine whether the subject is happy or sad. Basic statistics such as agitation, head position,
mouth and eye status, etc. can also be retrieved from the video analysis. The determined emotional
state may then be tagged to the corresponding subject video. In the same or another embodiment, the
emotional state may correspond to an index keyword assigned to the subject video. In a health care
embodiment, the system can be used to detect patterns in emotional state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by GIARD in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is
merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, TAYA discloses:
wherein the determining that the participants in the metaverse collaborative event are not asking
sufficient questions comprises determining that one of the participants does not understand a topic
presented by the presenter during the metaverse collaborative event, (The information processing
system 1 according to this embodiment has a function of asking questions about things that the user
does not understand using photos, videos, audio, etc. in the virtual space, selecting those questions, and
teaching them);
As per claim 9, this claim recites limitations similar to those recited in independent claim 1 and is
therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As pr claim 14, TAYA, discloses:
wherein the determining that the participants in the metaverse collaborative event are not asking
sufficient questions comprises one of: comparing questions asked during the metaverse collaborative
event to questions determined from a knowledge corpus; and determining that one of the participants
does not understand a topic presented by the presenter during the metaverse collaborative event,
(The information processing system 1 according to this embodiment has a function of asking questions
about things that the user does not understand using photos, videos, audio, etc. in the virtual space,
selecting those questions, and teaching them);
As per claim 15, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is
therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 20, TAYA discloses:
wherein the determining that the participants in the metaverse collaborative event are not asking
sufficient questions comprises one of: comparing questions asked during the metaverse collaborative
event to questions determined from a knowledge corpus; and determining that one of the participants
does not understand a topic presented by the presenter during the metaverse collaborative event,
(The information processing system 1 according to this embodiment has a function of asking questions
about things that the user does not understand using photos, videos, audio, etc. in the virtual space,
selecting those questions, and teaching them0.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 10, 12-13, 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYA (JP 2024067914 A) and further in view of Solomon (US 20170206797 A1), and further in view of GIARD (WO 1156828 A1), and further in view of (LE US 20240281052 A1).
As per claim 2, TAYA discloses:
further comprising causing the dummy virtual avatar to display one or more positive influencing factors to the participants and the presenter, (TAYA: Electronic information is exchanged between the terminal device 20 and the server device 10 through this external device 30. In addition, by analyzing the electronic information, it is possible to obtain information such as the level of concentration, tension, whether the person is positive (independence), and study time).
TAYA does not disclose: identifying types of body language which are linked to the emotional
effectiveness.
However, Le discloses in: ([0016] In some embodiments, avatars can represent movement of a user through simple facial movements (e.g., nods). In some embodiments, avatars can replicate an entire user and/or their body movements to create a vivid feeling of the user being physically present in the metaverse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, TAYA does not disclose: further comprising inviting one or more of the participants to the metaverse collaborative event based on determining that the one or more of the participants are interested in the metaverse collaborative event,
However, Le discloses: (Le: In some implementations, a cloned avatar can advertise a particular profile
for jobs or services, which can be selected by another interested avatar. For example, advertised
content (e.g., presented via speech or text) can include "here are my skills, do you have work for me" or
"lam a subject matter expert in mathematics for beginners, would you be interested in my services?" ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, TAYA does not disclose: further comprising dynamically rearranging the participants to different locations in the three-dimensional space.
However, Le discloses: ([LE, [0126] In
some implementations, a cloned avatar (e.g., a cloned avatar which was previously the primary avatar of
the user) can be directed and/or controlled by the cloned avatar management system based on the
location and/or activity of the primary avatar. For example, a cloned avatar may be instructed or
controlled to follow a primary avatar as the primary avatar moves around the metaverse (e.g., at a
particular distance, directly behind, and/or directly to the side of the primary avatar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, TAYA discloses: wherein program instructions are executable to cause the
dummy avatar to display one or more positive influencing factors to the participants and the presenter,
(TAYA: Electronic information is exchanged between the terminal device 20 and the server device 10
through this external device 30. In addition, by analyzing the electronic information, it is possible to
obtain information such as the level of concentration, tension, whether the person is positive
(independence), and study time);
TAYA does not disclose: identifying types of body language which are linked to the emotional
effectiveness.
However, Le discloses in: ([0016] In some embodiments, avatars can represent movement of a user
through simple facial movements (e.g., nods). In some embodiments, avatars can replicate an entire
user and/or their body movements to create a vivid feeling of the user being physically present in the
metaverse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 12, TAYA does not disclose: wherein program instructions are executable to invite
one or more of the participants to the metaverse collaborative event based on determining that the one
or more of the participants are interested in the metaverse collaborative event.
However, Le discloses: ((Le: In some implementations, a cloned avatar can advertise a particular profile
for jobs or services, which can be selected by another interested avatar. For example, advertised
content (e.g., presented via speech or text) can include "here are my skills, do you have work for me" or
"lam a subject matter expert in mathematics for beginners, would you be interested in my services ?").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable).
As per claim 13, TAYA does not disclose:
wherein program instructions are executable to dynamically rearrange the participants to different
locations in the three-dimensional space,
However, LE discloses: ({[LE, [0126] In some implementations, a cloned avatar (e.g., a
cloned avatar which was previously the primary avatar of the user) can be directed and/or controlled by
the cloned avatar management system based on the location and/or activity of the primary avatar. For
example, a cloned avatar may be instructed or controlled to follow a primary avatar as the primary
avatar moves around the metaverse (e.g., at a particular distance, directly behind, and/or directly to the
side of the primary avatar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 16, TAYA, discloses: wherein program instructions are executable to cause the
dummy avatar to display one or more positive influencing factors to the participants and the presenter,
(TAYA: Electronic information is exchanged between the terminal device 20 and the server device 10
through this external device 30. In addition, by analyzing the electronic information, it is possible to
obtain information such as the level of concentration, tension, whether the person is positive
(independence), and study time).
TAYA does not disclose: identifying types of body language which are linked to the emotional
effectiveness.
However, Le discloses in: [0016] In some embodiments, avatars can represent movement of a user
through simple facial movements (e.g., nods). In some embodiments, avatars can replicate an entire
user and/or their body movements to create a vivid feeling of the user being physically present in the
metaverse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18, TAYA does not disclose the following, however, Le discloses:
wherein program instructions are executable to invite one or more of the participants to the metaverse
collaborative event based on determining that the one or more of the participants are interested in the
metaverse collaborative event, (Le: In some implementations, a cloned avatar can advertise a particular
profile for jobs or services, which can be selected by another interested avatar. For example, advertised
content (e.g., presented via speech or text) can include "here are my skills, do you have work for me" or
"lama subject matter expert in mathematics for beginners, would you be interested in my services?").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 19, TAYA does not disclose the following, however, Le discloses:
wherein program instructions are executable to dynamically rearrange the participants to different
locations in the three-dimensional space, ([LE, [0126] In some implementations, a cloned avatar (e.g., a
cloned avatar which was previously the primary avatar of the user) can be directed and/or controlled by
the cloned avatar management system based on the location and/or activity of the primary avatar. For
example, a cloned avatar may be instructed or controlled to follow a primary avatar as the primary
avatar moves around the metaverse (e.g., at a particular distance, directly behind, and/or directly to the
side of the primary avatar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYA (JP 2024067914 A) and further in view of Solomon (US 20170206797 A1), and further in view of GIARD (WO 1156828 A1).and further in view of Zavesky et al (US 20230410159 A1).
As per claim 3, TAYA does not disclose the following limitations, however, Zavesky discloses:
further comprising masking negative influencing factors of one or more of the participants, (Zavesky (US
20230410159 A1): [0198] In one or more embodiments, features that are positively recited can also be
negatively recited and excluded from the embodiment with or without replacement by another
structural and/or functional feature;
identifying positive influencing factors that cause the metaverse collaborative event to improve the
emotional effectiveness, (Zavesky (US 20230410159 A1): [0087] As yet another example, the immersion
evaluation platform 202 may identify repeated visits to the metaverse object as an indication of positive
exposure to the metaverse object, and factor this finding in its generation of the personalized
recommendation or review of the metaverse object for the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Zavesky in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is
merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, TAYA does not disclose the following limitations, however, Zavesky discloses:
further comprising masking negative influencing factors of one or more of the participants, (Zavesky (US
20230410159 A1): [0198] In one or more embodiments, features that are positively recited can also be
negatively recited and excluded from the embodiment with or without replacement by another
structural and/or functional feature;
identifying positive influencing factors that cause the metaverse collaborative event to improve the
emotional effectiveness, (Zavesky (US 20230410159 A1): [0087] As yet another example, the immersion
evaluation platform 202 may identify repeated visits to the metaverse object as an indication of positive
exposure to the metaverse object, and factor this finding in its generation of the personalized
recommendation or review of the metaverse object for the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Zavesky in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 17, TAYA does not disclose the following limitations, however, Zavesky discloses:
further comprising masking negative influencing factors of one or more of the participants, (Zavesky (US
20230410159 A1): [0198] In one or more embodiments, features that are positively recited can also be
negatively recited and excluded from the embodiment with or without replacement by another
structural and/or functional feature;
identifying positive influencing factors that cause the metaverse collaborative event to improve the
emotional effectiveness, (Zavesky (US 20230410159 A1): [0087] As yet another example, the immersion
evaluation platform 202 may identify repeated visits to the metaverse object as an indication of positive
exposure to the metaverse object, and factor this finding in its generation of the personalized
recommendation or review of the metaverse object for the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by Zavesky in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is
merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection, Applicant disagrees that the claimed invention is directed
"Certain Methods of Human Activity" category since the claim recites as according to the Applicant: “The claimed subject matter inextricably requires physical object such as "a processor set" to apply an AI model on historical data for generating a knowledge corpus such that, the generated knowledge corpus is used for comparison of question in the knowledge corpus and question of a metaverse event (virtual world), and further, controlling a virtual avatar to ask questions to a user based on the comparison, which is not possibly a method for organizing human activity and a mental process. Therefore, the claimed features are inextricably tied to a machine and do not represent "organizing human activity." Therefore, Applicant's claims are not similar to the alleged abstract idea.”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims remain directed to a judicial exception since the recite processor set, artificial intelligence model, knowledge corpus, and virtual avatar are used as tools to perform the abstract idea of analyzing information from historical collaborative events, generating and comparing information, evaluating participant engagement, and determining questions to be asked during a collaborative event. Such limitations constitute both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity including managing interactions between participants and a presenter during a collaborative event. Reciting a processor, artificial intelligence model, or virtual avatar does not integrate the exception into a practical application because these elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions. In addition, controlling a virtual avatar to ask a question based on the analysis merely automates a human interaction within a virtual environment and does not improve the functioning of a computer artificial intelligence system, or metaverse technology. Accordingly, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant's arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed 4/24/26, with respect to the rejection(s)
of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been
withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Solomon (US 20170206797 A1).
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 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 Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
June 8, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights