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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoomani et al. (US Patent No. 10279272 “Hoomani”) in view of Zimring et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210220733 “Zimring”).
Regarding claim 1 Hoomani teaches A system (Fig. 1) for modifying a virtual environment to be interacted with by a user, the system comprising:
one or more processors (Col 4 lines 29-34 “ These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus”); and
one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors (Col 4 lines 37-44 “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks”) to at least:
determine a first virtual location for presentation of a virtual event in a virtual environment during a game play (Fig. 2A shows first virtual location is “on the mountain” for presentation of a virtual event.
Col 7 lines 61-63 “the event manager 112 to detect a secondary meaning to the hand-slaps such that the event 204 from the events 115 may be triggered. The event 204 is smoke coming off one of the mountains 203”
Col 9 lines 18-21 “Generally, the events may include, but are not limited to, effects altering or enhancing existing objects in the virtual environment, adding new objects or effects to the virtual environment, and providing interactive games);
determine a second virtual location corresponding to a trigger for causing the presentation of the virtual event, the trigger and the virtual event having a first temporal relation (Col 6 Lines 31-32 “For example, the trigger might be a rain dance performed by two friends at a predefined location in the desert”.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the event occurs after the occurrence of trigger, so there is a temporal relation between event and trigger
Col 7 lines 59-62 “As shown, the avatars 201 and 202 are slapping both hands together. In one embodiment, such a gesture may be enough to allow the event manager 112 to detect a secondary meaning to the hand-slaps such that the event 204 from the events 115 may be triggered”);
determine a profile preference associated with the virtual event (Fig. 4 step 430 and 440 gets user preferences (Col 6 lines 9-15 “As shown, the storage 108 contains a plurality of profiles 113 which stores user profiles including a plurality of user-defined and programmatically collected characteristics about the users of the virtual environment 111. The characteristics, or profile data, of the users may include, but is not limited to, biographical data, preferences, hobbies, affiliations, friendship and family ties, activities, and the like.
Col 10 lines 18-20 “At step 430, the event manager 112, having monitored some level of communications between the users, loads user data from the profiles 113. ”);
However Hoomani is silent about wherein the profile preference indicates an impact tolerance representing a user capacity to handle distressing or uncomfortable events;
Zimring teaches profile preference indicates an impact tolerance representing a user capacity to handle distressing or uncomfortable events (“[0236] FIG. 24A is an example implementation of a repository for user playability profiles 2402. In some implementations, the playabilities profiles (e.g., representing gameplay statistics for N users) are stored as user information 458 in memory 146 (FIG. 4)”.
);
PNG
media_image2.png
386
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
Zimring and Hoomani are analogous art as both of them are related to event processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Hoomani by having profile preference that indicates an impact tolerance representing a user capacity to handle distressing or uncomfortable events as taught by Zimring.
The motivation for the above is to give user a best experience of gaming environment based on user’s profile (Zimring “[0234]….. Benefits of allocating resources on a user-specific basis include better experiences for all users due to more highly optimized processing efficiency, which leads to the ability to support more users, and lowers the cost of serving content to each user”).
Hoomani modified by Zimring teaches determine a modification of first temporal relation between trigger and virtual event to a second temporal relation based on the profile preference (Zimring “[0009]…..determining a gameplay experience tolerance level for the user of the first client device in accordance with the in-game performance data; and adjusting, based on the gameplay experience tolerance level, a gaming session resource, the gaming session resource including a frame rate, resolution, latency level, or streaming source. [0185] Upon determining the trigger state, the game server processes (1308) a gameplay output in accordance with (i) the trigger state, and (ii) the user command included in or described by the input event, as described with reference to FIG. 6, step 612 above. Specifically, for each input event the server receives, the server matches respective user commands described in the input events with respective trigger states, in order to more accurately process each command in the context of the game state that triggered the user to initiate the command, thereby adhering to, satisfying, and/or fulfilling the user's intent behind each command.
[0202]…… At t=0 ms, the server generates frame 1610-1, which shows two ice hockey players A and B being controlled by two users and their respective controllers (e.g., 102A and 102B). Player A has the puck, and Player B is in the goal. At this time, the server receives a “move” command from the controller that is controlling Player A. In this particular example, the “move” command also includes a trajectory (to the player's left). Upon receiving the “move” command, the server (e.g., latency adjustment module 430) determines that the “move” command is a command type associated with an expected latency of 40 ms (e.g., by consulting tables 1412 and 1414, or table 1416). Since the predefined frame rate is 1 frame per 20 ms, and the server must fulfill an expected latency of 40 ms”);
determine, prior to presentation of the first virtual location during the gameplay, a value indicating an in-game discomfort impact of the modification based on the profile preference (Zimring “[0244] FIG. 24B is an example implementation of a table of resource settings 466. In some implementations, the resource settings 466 are stored in memory 146 (FIG. 4). According to the example resource settings 466, a first tolerance level (“1”) is associated with a particular resource profile (“A”). Examples of resource profiles are described above with reference to FIG. 22 (resource profiles 2206). By assigning or allocating a profile of resources (e.g., server processor bandwidth) to a user having a particular gameplay experience tolerance level, the server system 114 provides a desired gameplay experience to the user (e.g., within the user's tolerance) with only the minimal resources necessary to provide that level of gameplay experience. [0246]…..In some implementations, the in-game performance data is stored in a profile 2402 for the user. [0247] Based on the in-game performance data (e.g., gameplay skill, controller interaction), the game type, and/or a user preference, the resource tuning module 458 determines (2506) a gameplay experience tolerance level for the user”);
generate a modified virtual environment for presenting the virtual event in accordance with the second temporal relation based on the value indicating the in-game discomfort impact remaining within the impact tolerance. (Hoomani Col 11 lines 13-19 “For example, the triggerable object 503 may be a treasure chest in the jungle. Element 504 may include an optional condition based on a player's position in the real world, or the avatar's location in the virtual world. For example, the real world position may be the Disney Store in New York, N.Y. The virtual position may be the virtual Disney Store in the virtual environment”
Zimring “[0244] FIG. 24B is an example implementation of a table of resource settings 466. In some implementations, the resource settings 466 are stored in memory 146 (FIG. 4). According to the example resource settings 466, a first tolerance level (“1”) is associated with a particular resource profile (“A”). Examples of resource profiles are described above with reference to FIG. 22 (resource profiles 2206). By assigning or allocating a profile of resources (e.g., server processor bandwidth) to a user having a particular gameplay experience tolerance level, the server system 114 provides a desired gameplay experience to the user (e.g., within the user's tolerance) with only the minimal resources necessary to provide that level of gameplay experience.”).
Claim 13 is directed to a method claim and its steps are similar in scope and functions performed by the elements of system claim 1 and therefore claim 13 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim (Col 3 lines 30-33 “Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions performed by the elements of system claim 1 and therefore claim 14 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2 Hoomani modified by Zimring teaches, analyse the virtual environment to identify elements associated with the trigger (Hoomani Col 10 lines 7-12 ” At step 420, the event manager 112 determines whether a predefined text string or gesture has been identified by monitoring the communications. For example, one user may have defined a trigger 114 for a specific text string or an animated gesture such as an intricate handshake”).
Regarding claim 3 Hoomani modified by Zimring teaches determine the impact tolerance for the virtual event (Zimring teaches preference determining unit is configured to determine a user's impact tolerance for events (“[0009]….. determining a gameplay experience tolerance level for the user of the first client device in accordance with the in-game performance data; and adjusting, based on the gameplay experience tolerance level, a gaming session resource, the gaming session resource including a frame rate, resolution, latency level, or streaming source”);
Zimring and Hoomani are analogous art as both of them are related to event processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have further modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by determining a user's impact tolerance for events as additionally taught by Zimring.
The motivation for the above is to give user a best experience of gaming environment (Zimring “[0234]….. Benefits of allocating resources on a user-specific basis include better experiences for all users due to more highly optimized processing efficiency, which leads to the ability to support more users, and lowers the cost of serving content to each user”)).
Regarding claim 4 Hoomani modified by Zimring teaches determine preferences in dependence upon a user profile, biometric analysis, a mood, a time of day of interaction with the virtual environment, or whether there are other users sharing a physical environment or virtual environment (Hoomani Col 6 lines 9-15 “As shown, the storage 108 contains a plurality of profiles 113 which stores user profiles including a plurality of user-defined and programmatically collected characteristics about the users of the virtual environment 111. The characteristics, or profile data, of the users may include, but is not limited to, biographical data, preferences, hobbies, affiliations, friendship and family ties, activities, and the like”).
Regarding claim 5 Hoomani modified by Zimring teaches modify one or more properties of the virtual event to reduce an impact of the event upon (Zimring teaches modify one or more properties of event to reduce the impact of the virtual event (“[0153]…… By making these correlations, the gaming platform reduces the impact of uncontrollable and/or undetectable latency by processing each input event in a way that is consistent with the user's intent. As such, the various implementations described herein are an improvement over gaming platforms that do not attempt to determine, or incorrectly determine, accurate trigger states that correspond with user inputs”);
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have further modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by modifying one or more properties of event to reduce the impact of the event upon user as additionally taught by Zimring.
The motivation for the above is to give user a best experience of gaming environment (Zimring “[0234]….. Benefits of allocating resources on a user-specific basis include better experiences for all users due to more highly optimized processing efficiency, which leads to the ability to support more users, and lowers the cost of serving content to each user”)).
Regarding claim 7 Hoomani modified by Zimring teaches modify a spatial relationship between the trigger and the virtual event (Zimring” [0148]…….For example, if the input event and trigger state result in a gameplay output including movement of a particular virtual player, the response frame is a frame that depicts the particular virtual player in a modified spatial location with respect to other objects in the frame, consistent with the direction specified by the user input”).
Regarding claim 8 Hoomani modified by Zimring teaches modify the spatial relationship in dependence upon a field of view within the virtual environment (Hoomani Fig. 2A and 2B shows field of view of the user Col 8 lines 53-57 “FIG. 2B illustrates a graphical user interface to initiate events through events triggered by hidden interactions, according to one embodiment disclosed herein. In one embodiment, a first triggered event may itself be a triggering event which triggers a second triggered event”).
Regarding claim 10 Hoomani modified by Zimring teaches wherein the virtual events comprise any one or more of visual elements, audio elements, or haptic feedback elements (Col 6 lines 31-33 “ For example, the trigger might be a rain dance performed by two friends at a predefined location in the desert; and the event may be to provide an oasis upon detecting that trigger”).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoomani modified by Zimring and further in view of Collard et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20120178529 “Collard”).
Regarding claim 6 Hoomani modified by Zimring is silent about increase a distance between the first virtual location and the second virtual location.
Collard teaches increase a distance between a location associated trigger and a location associated with a corresponding event (“[0123] adjusting environmental elements of a game (passive scares) to increase or decrease their intensity (i.e. the extent to which they contribute to the scariness or tension of the game) responsive to the evaluation of the user's involuntary physical response; [0124] adjusting parameters of the active scare events to change their intensity, for example by changing the volume or a triggering distance to an event responsive to the evaluation of the user's involuntary physical response”);
Collard and Hoomani modified by Zimring are analogous art as both of them are related to event processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by increasing a distance between the first virtual location and the second virtual location similar to increasing a distance between a location associated with trigger and a location associated with a corresponding event as taught by Collard.
The motivation for the above is to contribute best scariness or tension of the game (Collard “[0123] adjusting environmental elements of a game (passive scares) to increase or decrease their intensity (i.e. the extent to which they contribute to the scariness or tension of the game”).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoomani modified by Zimring and further in view of Guan et al. (US Patent No. 9940897 “Guan”).
Regarding claim 9 Hoomani modified by Zimring is silent about modify a temporal or spatial relation in dependence upon visual or audio occlusions within the virtual environment.
Guan teaches modify temporal or spatial relation in dependence upon visual or audio occlusions within the virtual environment (Col 13 lines 28-40 “ In another example embodiment, the experience system 280 is configured to display additional virtual world content 4 when a trigger condition is met. In this example, the experience system 280 includes an event tracking and triggering system.”.
Col 14 lines 49-60 “In the example shown in FIG. 2B, functionality described above is implemented in the experience client 260. That is, the experience client 260 includes the lighting matching system, the occlusion system, and the game engine. In the embodiment depicted in FIGS. 2B and 2D, the experience system 280 includes a game engine such as the UNITY engine. The game engine is used to map the virtual world, and render the virtual content in the virtual world. Add-ons or plug-ins to the game engine can also be included and are used to determine occlusion, match lighting between the virtual world content 4 and the real world content 3, and track the state of the virtual content so that virtual content can be triggered based on the state of the system”);
Guan and Hoomani modified by Zimring are analogous art as both of them are related to event processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by modifying temporal or spatial relation in dependence upon visual or audio occlusions within the virtual environment as taught by Guan.
The motivation for the above is to provide clear view of the event.
Claim(s) 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoomani modified by Zimring and further in view of Dudovitch et al. (US Patent No. 12020386 “Dudovitch”).
Regarding claim 11 Hoomani modified by Zimring is silent about generate the modified virtual environment prior to a user entering the virtual environment.
Dudovitch teaches generate the modified virtual environment prior to a user entering the virtual environment (Col 24 lines 21-24 “For example, if the user is in a kitchen hardware store, the user interface 700 can recommend a virtual experience that was previously generated based on real-world objects of a kitchen. If the user is in a furniture store, the user interface 700 can recommend a virtual experience that was previously generated based on real-world objects of a living room”);
Dudovitch and Hoomani modified by Zimring are analogous art as both of them are related to data processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by generating the modified virtual environment prior to a user entering the virtual environment as taught by Dudovitch.
The motivation for the above is that user doesn’t need to wait long to start game play.
Regarding claim 12 Hoomani modified by Zimring is silent about a head-mountable display device configured to display one or more images of the modified virtual environment.
Dudovitch teaches a head-mountable display device configured to display one or more images of the modified virtual environment (Col 3 lines 57-58 “In some examples, the client device 102 can include AR glasses or an AR headset in which virtual content is displayed ”);
Dudovitch and Hoomani modified by Zimring are analogous art as both of them are related to data processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by having a head-mountable display device configured to display one or more images of the modified virtual environment as taught by Dudovitch.
The motivation for the above is to enhance the applicability of Hoomani by supporting different displays.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoomani modified by Zimring and further in view of Presant et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210117214 “Presant”).
Regarding claim 16 Hoomani modified by Zimring is silent about wherein the value indicating the impact of the modification is further determined based on a time of day of interaction with the virtual environment.
Presant teaches value indicating the impact of the modification is further determined based on a time of day of interaction with virtual environment (“[0074]….. understand what content a user may want to see at what time of a day, understand the changes in a scene and how that may impact the user's desired content”);
Presant and Hoomani modified by Zimring are analogous art as both of them are related to data processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by having value indicating the impact of the modification is further determined based on a time of day of interaction with virtual environment as taught by Presant.
The motivation for the above is to provide proper virtual element suitable for user.
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoomani modified by Zimring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Powderly et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20180189568 “Powderly”).
Regarding claim 17 Hoomani modified by Zimring is silent about wherein the virtual event comprises a visual element and the value indicating the impact of the modification is further determined based on changing an appearance of the visual element.
Powderly teaches virtual event comprises a visual element and the value indicating the impact of the modification is further determined based on changing an appearance of the visual element (“[0125] The wearable system may determine that this situation meets the criteria for a triggering event in which the display of visual or audible virtual content. [0139] The wearable system can also detect a triggering event and mute the audio/visual content in an entertainment context. For example, the wearable system can monitor the user's physiological data while a user is playing a game. If the physiological data indicates that the user is experiencing an agitated emotional state (such as being extremely angry due to a loss in a game or extremely scared during a game), the wearable system may detect the presence of a triggering event and thus can cause the HMD to automatically mute the virtual content”);
Powderly and Hoomani modified by Zimring are analogous art as both of them are related to event processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by having virtual event that comprises a visual element and the value indicating the impact of the modification is further determined based on changing an appearance of the visual element as taught by Powderly.
The motivation for the above is to provide proper virtual element suitable for user.
Regarding claim 18 Hoomani modified by Zimring is silent about wherein the virtual event comprises an audio element and the value indicating the impact of the modification is further determined based on altering a property of the audio element.
Powderly teaches virtual event comprises an audio element and the value indicating the impact of the modification is further determined based on altering a property of the audio element (“[0121]…. As used herein, muting virtual content can generally include deemphasizing, attenuating, or reducing the quantity or impact of the visual or audible content presented to the user by the wearable device. [0139] The wearable system can also detect a triggering event and mute the audio/visual content in an entertainment context. For example, the wearable system can monitor the user's physiological data while a user is playing a game. If the physiological data indicates that the user is experiencing an agitated emotional state (such as being extremely angry due to a loss in a game or extremely scared during a game), the wearable system may detect the presence of a triggering event and thus can cause the HMD to automatically mute the virtual content”);
Powderly and Hoomani modified by Zimring are analogous art as both of them are related to event processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by having virtual event that comprises an audio element and the value indicating the impact of the modification is further determined based on altering a property of the audio element as taught by Powderly.
The motivation for the above is to provide proper virtual element suitable for user.
Claim(s) 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoomani modified by Zimring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dezaki et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20140031112 “Dezaki”).
Regarding claim 19 Hoomani modified by Zimring is silent about wherein the presentation of the virtual event corresponds to the presentation of a non-playable character;
Dezaki teaches presentation of virtual event corresponds to presentation of a non-playable character (“[0064]…… The character motion control section 53 controls the motions of the characters in such a manner that at a time point when the player character C1 passes a predetermined point within the game stage, this becomes a trigger, and a particular enemy character C2 is caused to appear within the game stage and to attempt to attack the player character C1”);
Dezaki and Hoomani modified by Zimring are analogous art as both of them are from the field of virtual game.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Hoomani modified by Zimring by having presentation of virtual event that corresponds to presentation of a non-playable character as taught by Dezaki.
The motivation for the above is to provide different virtual element for enjoyment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed on 07/28/2026, with respect to rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed on 07/28/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1, 13-14 under 35 USC 1103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues see remarks pages 7-8 “The cited art fails to disclose at least the features of claim 1 of "determine a profile preference associated with the virtual event, wherein the profile preference indicates an impact tolerance representing a user capacity to handle distressing or uncomfortable events…..Hoomani describes tracking communications (e.g., text chat or avatar gestures) to identify "secondary meanings" shared among friends in a virtual space………Zimring does not cure these deficiencies of Hoomani. Zimring relates to cloud-gaming and describes user-specific network condition tuning. Zimring describes that network resources can be allocated on a user-specific basis based on gameplay statistics and user preferences (either inferred by the game server or specified by the user). ……Furthermore, Zimring, even in combination with Hoomani, does not teach or suggest to "determine a profile preference associated with the virtual event, wherein the profile preference indicates an impact tolerance representing a user capacity to handle distressing or uncomfortable events" and to "generate a modified virtual environment for presenting the virtual event in accordance with the second temporal relation based on the value indicating the in-game discomfort impact remaining within the impact tolerance" as recited in claim 1”.
Examiner wants to note that Zimring teaches argued limitation. Zimring Fig. 24A shows user profile has tolerance level and Fig. 24B shows resource listing for each tolerance level.
With respect to applicant’s argument regarding “gameplay experience tolerance level" that is mapped to a resource profile or gameplay experience (e.g., frame rate, resolution, or latency)”, examiner wants to note that Fig. 24B of Zimring shows resource profile for each tolerance level. Each resource profile has information of frame rate and latency that give temporal information( for ex. frame rate provides how first/slow the frames are supplied/displayed and latency provides the timing delay). Based on tolerance level a gaming session is adjusted.
See Zimring “[0009]….. determining a gameplay experience tolerance level for the user of the first client device in accordance with the in-game performance data; and adjusting, based on the gameplay experience tolerance level, a gaming session resource, the gaming session resource including a frame rate, resolution, latency level, or streaming source”. Frame rate, resolution and latency level are not example of hardware resources.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 13 and 14 and dependent claims, examiner refers applicant to the response given above for the independent claim1 as there is no additional argument.
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 SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights