DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, 2nd-3rd paragraphs, filed February 3, 2026, with respect to the objection and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-7 and 12-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-14 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection are made in view of Collins (US 20140218364A1).
Applicant argues that Sato (US 20060018539A1) does not teach acquiring a direction of a principal normal of an object to be observed as a characterized parameter of the object for subsequent use in identifying specular reflection locations. Sato does not actually use acquired illumination position, acquired principal normal direction, and acquired observation condition together to identify where specular reflection will occur. Even assuming Sato acquires illumination position and camera parameters, these acquired values are never combined with normal direction information to predict or identify specular reflection locations (p. 7, last paragraph-p. 8, 1st paragraph).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., identifying specular reflection locations, identifying where specular reflection will occur) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner points out that Claim 1 recites “identify, on a basis of the position of principal illumination, the direction of the principal normal, and the observation condition, a positional relationship with which a light component is reflected specularly by a plane corresponding to the principal normal”. Thus, Claim 1 recites identifying a positional relationship with which a light component is reflected specularly. Claim 1 does not recite identifying specular reflection locations and identifying where specular reflection will occur. Sato describes “it is premised as a prerequisite that a diffuse reflection region is dominant in a shot image compared with a specular reflection region. This is apparent from that specular reflection is caused only when a light source direction and a direction of a camera are in a relationship of regular reflection with respect to the normal direction of an object” [0193]. Thus, the positional relationship that is identified is that a light source direction and a direction of a camera are in a relationship of regular reflection with respect to the normal direction of an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light source direction of the light that causes the specular reflection depends on the position of principal illumination. Thus, Sato teaches identifying on a basis of the position of principal illumination, the direction of the principal normal, and the observation condition (direction of a camera), a positional relationship with which a light component is reflected specularly by a plane corresponding to the principal normal [0193].
Applicant argues that Sato does not teach generating an image of the object on a basis of the positional relationship, and display the generated image on a display of a terminal operated by a user, wherein the positional relationship is a direction of a half-vector, the half-vector being midway between an illumination vector indicating a direction of the principal illumination and a line-of-sight vector indicating a direction of observation defined by the observation condition (p. 9, last paragraph).
In reply, the Examiner points out that Ouzts (US 20150310635A1) was used to teach generating an image of the object on a basis of the positional relationship, and display the generated image on a display of a terminal operated by a user, as shown in the previous rejection for Claim 8. New grounds of rejection are made in view of Collins to teach wherein the positional relationship is a direction of a half-vector, the half-vector being midway between an illumination vector indicating a direction of the principal illumination and a line-of-sight vector indicating a direction of observation defined by the observation condition.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20060018539A1), Ouzts (US 20150310635A1), and Collins (US 20140218364A1).
As per Claim 1, Sato teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor (image processing apparatus in Fig. 1, [0119-0121]) configured to: acquire a position of principal illumination from a spherical image (an image of such a spherical mirror is analyzed to estimate the position of the light source, [0154]); acquire a direction of a principal normal of an object to be observed (normal direction of an object, [0193]). The Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure describes that the camera information give the position of the camera, and the camera information is an example of an “observation condition” ([0030], p. 8). Sato teaches acquiring the camera parameter which includes parameters such as a focal position, and posture of a camera [0136]. Thus, Sato teaches acquiring an observation condition (camera parameter) of the object [0136]. Sato describes that it is premised as a prerequisite that a diffuse reflection region is dominant in a shot image compared with a specular reflection region. This is apparent from that specular reflection is caused only when a light source direction and a direction of a camera are in a relationship of regular reflection with respect to the normal direction of an object [0193]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light source direction of the light that causes the specular reflection depends on the position of principal illumination. Thus, Sato teaches identifying, on a basis of the position of principal illumination, the direction of the principal normal, and the observation condition (direction of a camera), a positional relationship with which a light component reflected specularly by a plane corresponding to the principal normal [0193]. Sato describes “it is premised as a prerequisite that a diffuse reflection region is dominant in a shot image compared with a specular reflection region. This is apparent from that specular reflection is caused only when a light source direction and a direction of a camera are in a relationship of regular reflection with respect to the normal direction of an object” [0193]. Thus, the positional relationship that is identified is that a light source direction and a direction of a camera are in a relationship of regular reflection with respect to the normal direction of an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light source direction of the light that causes the specular reflection depends on the position of principal illumination. Thus, Sato teaches identifying on a basis of the position of principal illumination, the direction of the principal normal, and the observation condition (direction of a camera), a positional relationship with which a light component is reflected specularly by a plane corresponding to the principal normal [0193].
However, Sato does not teach wherein the processor is configured to generate an image of the object on a basis of the positional relationship, and display the generated image on a display of a terminal operated by a user. However, Ouzts teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate an image of the object on a basis of the positional relationship, and display the generated image on a display (systems for viewing images of objects with specular highlights, depending on the viewing angle of the composite image by the viewer, based on a tilt vector measured by gyroscopes in the display device, some of these multiple images may be made completely transparent, so that they are not viewable based on said viewing angle, while multiple images may be made more opaque, thus generating a sort of blended image of the object that displays a certain angle of light reflecting off the object, [0019]) of a terminal operated by a user (enhancing the specular highlights, composite image may ultimately be an interactive image of sorts, the interactive image configured to be manipulated in a display device to display varying light angles of the object 310 based on the multiple images and in accordance with a direction of a tilt of the display device, [0029], user of the viewer device may be able to slide his finger down the display, this may cause the image to scroll to a top-view composite image of the object 310, at which point the user can tilt and rotate the viewer device to experience how light reflects off the top of the object 310, the scrolling from the side view to the top view may be smoothly stitched together, using known image connecting techniques similar to those used to stitch pictures to form a panoramic view, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato so that the processor is configured to generate an image of the object on a basis of the positional relationship, and display the generated image on a display of a terminal operated by a user because Ouzts suggests that this way, the user is able to easily manipulate the interactive image to display varying light angles of the object in accordance with a direction of a tilt of the display device, so that the user can easily perform the manipulations as desired [0029, 0046].
However, Sato and Ouzts do not expressly teach wherein the positional relationship is a direction of a half-vector, the half-vector being midway between an illumination vector indicating a direction of the principal illumination and a line-of-sight vector indicating a direction of observation defined by the observation condition. However, Collins teaches wherein the positional relationship is a direction of a half-vector, the half-vector being midway between an illumination vector indicating a direction of the principal illumination and a line-of-sight vector indicating a direction of observation defined by the observation condition (specular reflection becomes visible when the surface normal vector is oriented halfway between the light vector and line of sight vector, the half-angle direction or half vector is a surface normal vector bisecting the angle formed by a light vector of incidence and a reflected ray pointing in the line of sight of the viewer, if the eye were positioned at the reflected ray R (if R was at the line of sight) then the viewer would observe the specular reflection of light source 101, because the normal vector bisects the angle 2ϴ, [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato and Ouzts so that the positional relationship is a direction of a half-vector, the half-vector being midway between an illumination vector indicating a direction of the principal illumination and a line-of-sight vector indicating a direction of observation defined by the observation condition because Collins suggests that it is well-known in the art that this is how images with specular reflection are generated [0004].
13. As per Claim 12, Sato teaches wherein the object has a three-dimensional shape (3D position/shape estimation of an object, [0216]).
14. As per Claim 13, Claim 13 is similar in scope to Claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
15. As per Claim 14, Claim 14 is similar in scope to Claim 13, except that Claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute the method of Claim 13. Sato teaches a program causing a computer to execute the method (the image processing methods according to the respective embodiments of the present invention can be realized by allowing a computer to execute a program for realizing the methods, [0336]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there is a non-transitory computer readable medium to store the program in order for the computer to access the program that is stored in order to execute the program. Thus, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 13.
16. Claim(s) 2, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20060018539A1), Ouzts (US 20150310635A1), and Collins (US 20140218364A1) in view of Ma (see citation below).
17. As per Claim 2, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins do not teach wherein the processor is configured to control, if an observation condition of the object is designated, an orientation of the object within the spherical image to satisfy the positional relationship. However, Ma teaches because we wish to illuminate our subject with many lights simultaneously, we must create a spherical direction field of linear polarization for the lights designed so that the light reflected specularly in accordance with Equation (7) toward the camera viewpoint will be vertically polarized (p. 5, last paragraph-p. 6, 1st paragraph). Ma teaches that specular reflection from the surface is governed by the Fresnel equations (Equation (7)) where rs is the ratio of the reflected to incident electric field component perpendicular to the plane of incidence, rp is the corresponding ratio for the parallel component, ϴi is the angle of incidence and ϴt is the refracted angle (p. 5, 4.1 Linear Polarization, 1st paragraph). Thus, Equation (7) is the positional relationship that needs to be satisfied. Thus, the processor is configured to control, if a camera viewpoint (observation condition of the object) is designated, the light reflected specularly to satisfy the positional relationship. Ma teaches the specular normal derived from the surface reflection tend to be the best estimates of true surface orientation (p. 8, last paragraph-p. 9, 1st paragraph). Thus, the orientation of the object depends on the surface reflection. Thus, the processor is configured to control, if a camera viewpoint (observation condition of the object) is designated, an orientation of the object (that depends of the surface reflection) to satisfy the positional relationship. Ma teaches a new reflectance acquisition technique that uses a small set of lighting conditions, but is able to acquire estimates of specular reflectance behavior across the entire object surface. The technique uses 4 spherical gradient illumination patterns which effectively compute the amount of light reflected toward the camera as the object is lit from each direction on the sphere (p. 1, Introduction, 3rd paragraph). Thus, the object is within the spherical image. Thus, the processor is configured to control, if a camera viewpoint (observation condition of the object) is designated, an orientation of the object (that depends of the surface reflection) within the spherical image to satisfy the positional relationship.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato, Ouzts, and Collins so that the processor is configured to control, if an observation condition of the object is designated, an orientation of the object within the spherical image to satisfy the positional relationship because Ma suggests that specular reflection from the surface is governed by equations that have a positional relationship that needs to be satisfied (p. 5, 4.1 Linear Polarization, 1st paragraph), and the specular reflection produces estimates of the surface normals that are the best estimates of true surface orientation (p. 8, last paragraph-p. 9, 1st paragraph).
18. As per Claim 3, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins do not teach wherein the processor is configured to control, if an orientation of the object within the spherical image is designated, an observation condition of the object to satisfy the positional relationship. However, Ma teaches the specular normal derived from the surface reflection tend to be the best estimates of true surface orientation (p. 8, last paragraph-p. 9, 1st paragraph). Thus, the orientation of the object depends on the surface reflection. Thus, the processor is configured to control, if an orientation of the object is designated, the surface reflection. Ma teaches because we wish to illuminate our subject with many lights simultaneously, we must create a spherical direction field of linear polarization for the lights designed so that the light reflected specularly in accordance with Equation (7) toward the camera viewpoint will be vertically polarized (p. 5, last paragraph-p. 6, 1st paragraph). Ma teaches that specular reflection from the surface is governed by the Fresnel equations (Equation (7)) where rs is the ratio of the reflected to incident electric field component perpendicular to the plane of incidence, rp is the corresponding ratio for the parallel component, ϴi is the angle of incidence and ϴt is the refracted angle (p. 5, 4.1 Linear Polarization, 1st paragraph). Thus, Equation (7) is the positional relationship that needs to be satisfied. Thus, the processor is configured to control, if an orientation of the object is designated, a camera viewpoint (observation condition of the object) to satisfy the positional relationship. Ma teaches a new reflectance acquisition technique that uses a small set of lighting conditions, but is able to acquire estimates of specular reflectance behavior across the entire object surface. The technique uses 4 spherical gradient illumination patterns which effectively compute the amount of light reflected toward the camera as the object is lit from each direction on the sphere (p. 1, Introduction, 3rd paragraph). Thus, the object is within the spherical image. Thus, Ma teaches the processor is configured to control, if an orientation of the object within the spherical image is designated, a camera viewpoint (observation condition of the object) to satisfy the positional relationship. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 2.
19. As per Claim 5, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins do not teach wherein the processor is configured to detect, if a composition of an image with which to observe the object is designated, an orientation of the object and the observation condition to satisfy the composition within the spherical image and the positional relationship. However, Ma teaches wherein the processor is configured to detect, if a composition of an image with which to observe the object is designated (cycling through the four lighting conditions, benefit of determining surface normal using gradient illumination is that the same set of four patterns works equally well for any viewpoint, images of a subject photographed under the four gradient patterns, normal maps captured for left, center, right views using the same four gradient lighting conditions, p. 7, section 5.1). Ma teaches the specular normal derived from the surface reflection tend to be the best estimates of true surface orientation (p. 8, last paragraph-p. 9, 1st paragraph). Thus, the orientation of the object depends on the surface reflection. Ma teaches because we wish to illuminate our subject with many lights simultaneously, we must create a spherical direction field of linear polarization for the lights designed so that the light reflected specularly in accordance with Equation (7) toward the camera viewpoint will be vertically polarized (p. 5, last paragraph-p. 6, 1st paragraph). Ma teaches that specular reflection from the surface is governed by the Fresnel equations (Equation (7)) where rs is the ratio of the reflected to incident electric field component perpendicular to the plane of incidence, rp is the corresponding ratio for the parallel component, ϴi is the angle of incidence and ϴt is the refracted angle (p. 5, 4.1 Linear Polarization, 1st paragraph). Thus, Equation (7) is the positional relationship that needs to be satisfied. Thus, it detects an orientation of the object that depends on the surface reflection and the camera viewpoint (observation condition) to satisfy the composition and the positional relationship. Ma teaches a new reflectance acquisition technique that uses a small set of lighting conditions, but is able to acquire estimates of specular reflectance behavior across the entire object surface. The technique uses 4 spherical gradient illumination patterns which effectively compute the amount of light reflected toward the camera as the object is lit from each direction on the sphere (p. 1, Introduction, 3rd paragraph). Thus, the object is within the spherical image. Thus, Ma teaches the processor is configured to detect, if a composition of an image with which to observe the object is designated, an orientation of the object and the camera viewpoint (observation condition) to satisfy the composition within the spherical image and the positional relationship. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 2.
20. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20060018539A1), Ouzts (US 20150310635A1), and Collins (US 20140218364A1) in view of Saito (see citation below).
Sato, Ouzts, and Collins are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins do not teach wherein the processor is configured to control, if a composition of an image with which to observe the object is designated, a rotation of the spherical image such that the position of the principal illumination is moved to a position to satisfy the positional relationship. However, Saito teaches that the specular reflectance term is expressed as S = s(r·v)k, where v is the camera direction (p. 780, last paragraph-p. 781, 1st paragraph). Thus, the camera direction is designated, and thus a composition of an image with which to observe the object is designated. Saito teaches that Equation (9) for S includes n (surface normal) and Lx and Ly (light source direction). Lx and Ly are the function of the rotation angle of the light source in this equation (p. 781). Thus, Equation (9) is the positional relationship that needs to be satisfied. Thus, the rotation angle of the light source needs to be controlled such that a position of the principal illumination is moved to a position to satisfy the positional relationship. Saito teaches that the object could be rotated instead of rotating the light source (p. 778, last paragraph). Saito teaches that the object is an object sphere (p. 786, 2nd paragraph). Thus, Saito teaches the processor is configured to control, if a composition of an image with which to observe the object is designated, a rotation of the spherical image such that the position of the principal illumination is moved to a position to satisfy the positional relationship.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato, Ouzts, and Collins so that the processor is configured to control, if a composition of an image with which to observe the object is designated, a rotation of the spherical image such that the position of the principal illumination is moved to a position to satisfy the positional relationship because Saito suggests that the equation for specular reflectance includes the function of the rotation angle of the light source, and thus, the object sphere needs to be rotated to satisfy the positional relationship of the equation for specular reflectance (p. 781; p. 779, last paragraph; p. 786, 2nd paragraph).
21. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20060018539A1), Ouzts (US 20150310635A1), and Collins (US 20140218364A1) in view of Xia (see citation below).
22. As per Claim 6, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins do not teach wherein the processor is configured to acquire the position of principal illumination through analysis of a distribution of luminance in the spherical image using a position of the object as a reference. However, Xia teaches the semi-cylindrical illuminance largely depends on how much of the light would fall on the surface of the cylinder meter facing observers, which is closely related to illuminating positions (p. 337, last paragraph-p. 338, 1st paragraph). Thus, Xia teaches the processor is configured to acquire the position of principal illumination through analysis of a distribution of luminance in the image using a position of the object (cylinder) as a reference. Figure 4(c) shows that the cylinder (object) is within the spherical image (p. 335). Thus, Xia teaches the processor is configured to acquire the position of principal illumination through analysis of a distribution of luminance in the spherical image using a position of the object (cylinder) as a reference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato, Ouzts, and Collins so that the processor is configured to acquire the position of principal illumination through analysis of a distribution of luminance in the spherical image using a position of the object as a reference because Xia suggests that how much of the light would fall on the object within the spherical image is closely related to illuminating positions (p. 337, last paragraph-p. 338, 1st paragraph; Figure 4(c), p. 335).
23. As per Claim 7, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins do not teach wherein the processor is configured to acquire the position of principal illumination through analysis of a distribution of illuminance in the spherical image using a position of the object as a reference. However, Xia teaches the semi-cylindrical illuminance largely depends on how much of the light would fall on the surface of the cylinder meter facing observers, which is closely related to illuminating positions (p. 337, last paragraph-p. 338, 1st paragraph). Thus, Xia teaches the processor is configured to acquire the position of principal illumination through analysis of a distribution of illuminance in the image using a position of the object (cylinder) as a reference. Figure 4(c) shows that the cylinder (object) is within the spherical image (p. 335). Thus, Xia teaches the processor is configured to acquire the position of principal illumination through analysis of a distribution of illuminance in the spherical image using a position of the object (cylinder) as a reference. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 6.
24. Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20060018539A1), Ouzts (US 20150310635A1), and Collins (US 20140218364A1) in view of Bakshi (US009609230B1).
25. As per Claim 9, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 8.
However, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins do not teach wherein the processor is configured to display, on the display, an operable element that accepts an increase or decrease in an intensity of the light component to be observed in the image of the object. However, Bakshi teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, on the display, an operable element that accepts an increase or decrease in an intensity of the light component to be observed in the image of the object (user input can select user interface elements to change the size of the light source, instead of changing the size of the light source, the above-described actions can increase or decrease the brightness of the light source (selecting a ”+” button can increase the brightness of the light source), col. 10, lines 34-46; light source presented on the display 106, combined with light from application interfaces presented on the display 106, can radiate into an environment of the display 106 (onto any physical objects that surround the user), and can affect the brightness of subsequent images captured by the camera, col. 7, lines 53-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato, Ouzts, and Collins so that the processor is configured to display, on the display, an operable element that accepts an increase or decrease in an intensity of the light component to be observed in the image of the object because Bakshi suggests that this way, the user can easily increase or decrease the intensity of the light component as desired (col. 10, lines 34-46; col. 7, lines 53-59).
26. As per Claim 10, Sato, Ouzts, and Collins do not teach wherein the processor is configured to cause, if an adjustment to the intensity is accepted through the operable element, the display to display an image according to the accepted intensity. However, Bakshi teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause, if an adjustment to the intensity is accepted through the operable element, the display to display an image according to the accepted intensity (col. 10, lines 34-46; col. 7, lines 53-59). This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 9.
27. As per Claim 11, Sato does not teach wherein the processor is configured to cause a direction of change in an orientation of the image on the display to be aligned with a direction of operation of the operable element. However, Ouzts teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause a direction of change in an orientation of the image on the display to be aligned with a direction of operation of the operable element (enhancing the specular highlights, composite image may ultimately be an interactive image of sorts, the interactive image configured to be manipulated in a display device to display varying light angles of the object 310 based on the multiple images and in accordance with a direction of a tilt of the display device, [0029]). This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
Prior Art of Record
1. Ma, Wan-Chun; Rapid Acquisition of Specular and Diffuse Normal Maps from Polarized Spherical Gradient Illumination; June 2007; Eurographics Symposium on Rendering (2007); p. 1-12; https://www.cs.wm.edu/~ppeers/publications/Ma2007RAS/Ma_EGSR2007_highres.pdf
2. Saito, Hideo; Recovery of shape and surface reflectance of specular object from relative rotation of light source; September 2003; Image and Vision Computing; Volume 21 (2003); p. 777-787; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026288560300091X
3. Xia, L; Theory and simulation of calculating local illuminance density based on high dynamic range panoramic maps; June 2022; Lighting Research & Technology; Volume 54; p. 329-343; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14771535211030494
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 JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights