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
This is a final rejection in response to claims filed on 07/16/2026. Claims 2-4 are cancelled upon entry of these amendments. Claims 6-19 remain cancelled. Claims 1, 5 and 20 are currently amended, and remain pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-185030, filed on 11/18/2022.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
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 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-5: An information processing system comprising circuitry configured to:
Claim 20: A non-transitory recording medium carrying computer readable codes which, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to carry out a method
All of the claims fall under at least potentially eligible subject matter category, at least “machine, or manufacture,” therefore the claims are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim reciting a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1 and 20 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1: An information processing system comprising
circuitry configured to:
receive position information, direction information, and speech data of a plurality of users in a physical space from one or more sensors, the direction information indicating a face direction of each user;
identify, based on the position information, a predetermined display device, among a plurality of display devices disposed in the physical space, the predetermined display device having a predetermined positional relationship with the plurality of users;
determine, based on the direction information, that the predetermined display device is a display device to be used by a first and second user among the plurality of users;
determine that the first user and the second user are grouped as being in a conversation state;
display a first work area of the first user on the predetermined display device;
detect the first work area based on the face direction of the second user;
add the speech data of the second user to the first work area when the first user and the second user are grouped and the face direction of the second user is directed to the first work area; and
allow only the grouped first user and the second user to add speech data to the first work area, thereby preventing a user other than the first user and the second user among the plurality of users from adding speech data to the first work area.
Claim 20: A non-transitory recording medium carrying computer readable codes which, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to carry out a method in a physical space in which a plurality of display devices are disposed, the method comprising:
acquiring position information, direction information, and speech data of a plurality of users in the physical space from one or more sensors, the direction information indicating a face direction of each user;
identifying, based on the position information, a predetermined display device, among the plurality of display devices disposed in the physical space, the predetermined display device having a predetermined positional relationship with the plurality of users;
determining, based on the direction information, that the predetermined display device is a display device to be used by a first user and a second user among the plurality of users;
determining that the first user and the second user are grouped as being in a conversation state;
displaying a first work area of the first user on the predetermined display device;
detecting the first work area based on the face direction of the second user;
adding the speech data of the second user to the first work area when the first user and the second user are grouped and the face direction of the second user is directed to the first work area; and
allowing only the grouped first user and the second user to add speech data to the first work area, thereby preventing a user other than the first user and the second user among the plurality of users from adding speech data to the first work area.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1 and 20 recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” which is used in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) to describe concepts related to “ fundamental economic principles or practices; commercial or legal interactions; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” In the case of the present claims as amended, the claims fall squarely within the subcategory “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between individuals,” which includes social activities, teachings, and following rules or instructions. In the case of the present claims, the collection of position, direction, and speech data of users in a physical direction, identification of a device based on a predetermined positional relationship between users,” are recited at such a high level of generality that they can be interpreted as mere instructions to an individual to manage their personal behavior. As discussed below, it is shown why these steps can be performed mentally by a human, and are therefore within the scope of instructions to manage personal behavior.
Furthermore, the amended steps of “determining that users are grouped as being in a conversation, displaying a first work area, detecting the first work area based on the face direction of the second user, adding speech data of the second user to the first work area when the users are grouped and faced towards the work area, and only allowing the grouped users to add speech data, thereby preventing a user other than the first user or second user from adding speech data to the work area” are no more rules or instructions to manage the interactions between people, in this case wherein the rules are recited at a level of generality such that they merely claim the rule itself, as opposed to a technical feature to enable enforcement of the rule. Therefore, the claims at least recite “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” as they merely describe a method of carrying out a social activity, including rules or instructions for how to transcribe and display the speech data on predetermined outputs. Even though these steps are carried out on devices, it is important to note that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” Therefore, since the activity itself is that of facilitating social activities, regardless of the interactions with output devices, it is at least reciting a “certain method of organizing human activity.”
To further elucidate the point that the claims are no more than mere instructions to an individual to manage their personal behavior, it is shown that the data processing steps are claimed in a manner such that they can be performed as a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states, “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea...Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions...” When considering the limitations in bold, the steps of the claims are recited at such a high level of generality such that they can practically be performed in the human mind. For example, receiving position, direction information, and speech data of a plurality of users is merely collecting data, identifying a predetermined output device out of a plurality of devices, the predetermined output device having a predetermined positional relationship with the plurality of users, determining, based on direction information that the predetermined output is to be used, and causing the predetermined output a message to one or more of the plurality of users. When considering that the claims do not particularly limit how the determining using position information or direction information is performed, it is clear that the steps are recited with enough breadth such that they can encompass mere judgments by a human. For example, receiving position and direction information can merely be an observation of users in a physical space, followed by manually selecting an output based on the position, and finally determining an output device based on direction in which to output a message.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) states, “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind including... "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.”
Furthermore, even though the claims instruct the steps to be performed on product claims, “Examiners should keep in mind that both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes.” Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states, “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” Therefore, though the claims are described as being performed on a computer, since the claimed functions can practically be performed in the human mind, it is still reciting an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims also at least recite an abstract idea under “mental processes,” and are to be further analyzed under Step 2a Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1 and 20 recite the following additional elements:
-Information Processing System comprising circuitry configured to: in claim 1
- a predetermined display device in claims 1 and 20
- a plurality of display devices disposed in the physical space in claims 1 and 20
- one or more sensors in claims 1 and 20
- A non-transitory recording medium carrying computer readable codes which, when executed by a computer system, in claims 1 and 20
The additional elements listed above, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea of “detect a position, face direction, and speech data of users, and use the position and direction to determine a predetermined display, determining that users are grouped as being in a conversation, displaying a first work area, detecting the first work area based on the face direction of the second user, adding speech data of the second user to the first work area when the users are grouped and faced towards the work area, and only allowing the grouped users to add speech data, thereby preventing a user other than the first user or second user from adding speech data to the work area” is being performed on generic computing components such as an information processing system comprising circuitry, non-transitory recording medium, display devices, sensors, and computer system. Furthermore, these components are used to perform functions in their ordinary capacity, for example, an display device being used to display a message. Another example is the use of “sensors,” to detect position, orientation, and speech, without specifically limiting how the sensors determine and collect the data, or how the data is specifically translated from the specific technical devices into a usable improvement in technology. The claims merely claim the idea and outcomes of collecting the data, and selecting/enforcing output rules based on the human interaction, without claiming it at a level of specificity such that it is a meaningful technical improvement or solution. Furthermore, there is no improvement to the technology or technological field purported in the specification or recited within the scope of the actual claim language. (See MPEP 2106.05(a) for Improvements to Technology or Technical Field).
Even when considering the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination, the claims still are equivalent to “apply it,” because they are merely performing a mental process on a generic computer or on a computer environment such as “circuitry,” or “A non-transitory recording medium carrying computer readable codes which, when executed by a computer system.”
Therefore, the claims 1 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1 and 20 recite the following additional elements:
-Information Processing System comprising circuitry configured to: in claim 1
- a predetermined display device in claims 1 and 20
- a plurality of display devices disposed in the physical space in claims 1 and 20
- one or more sensors in claims 1 and 20
- A non-transitory recording medium carrying computer readable codes which, when executed by a computer system, in claims 1 and 20
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an information processing system comprising circuitry, display devices, sensors, non-transitory recording medium, and computer system to perform “detect a position, face direction, and speech data of users, and use the position and direction to determine a predetermined display, determining that users are grouped as being in a conversation, displaying a first work area, detecting the first work area based on the face direction of the second user, adding speech data of the second user to the first work area when the users are grouped and faced towards the work area, and only allowing the grouped users to add speech data, thereby preventing a user other than the first user or second user from adding speech data to the work area” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the claim such that it adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 20 are not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-5 are also given the full two part analysis both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on herein:
Claim 5 recite more of the same abstract idea because they are merely adding more steps of displaying the data by displaying a name of the first user on the work area. Since the human mind can practically receive speech data from users and display speech data in that work area (by writing it down on a piece of paper) the claims are still mental processes. Furthermore, displaying a work area, whether it is a display of a user’s name, is merely using the additional element of “the predetermined display device” in its ordinary capacity to perform an economic or other task (using an display device to output information). Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that it recites significantly more than the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Distinguished Over the Prior Art
Claims 1, 5, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In view of the amendments to the claims, particularly, the following amended limitations are taught or suggested in the prior art of record, nor would they have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the updated prior art yielded in a search:
-determine that the first user and the second user are grouped as being in a conversation state;
- display a first work area of the first user on the predetermined display device;
- detect the first work area based on the face direction of the second user;
- add the speech data of the second user to the first work area when the first user and the second user are grouped and the face direction of the second user is directed to the first work area; and
- allow only the grouped first user and the second user to add speech data to the first work area, thereby preventing a user other than the first user and the second user among the plurality of users from adding speech data to the first work area.
The claims above recite a specific sequence of rules or interactions, specific to the position, direction, and speech data of users, which limit how the interactions between the individuals and the screen can take place. Firstly, since the system is limited to be disposed in a physical space, it requires sensors which can capture position, direction, and speech data, along with a plurality of potential display devices which would be related to the positional information of users. However, it is specifically the amended steps above, which add the speech data to the particular display device (such as transcribing conversation live) to the predetermined work area, and allow only the first and second user to add speech data, and preventing other users from adding speech data to the work area. The examiner notes that the “physical space” limitation, is interpreted to rule out video game environments, virtual reality, and other virtual environments, which commonly use positional and orientation information to set up displaying dialogue and interaction data. Therefore, since the interactions must occur in a “physical space,” virtual environment prior art, while it may render certain claims obvious, is within a different field, because virtual environments do not require the use of physical sensors in a real environment to determine the position, direction, and speech data, as such information is immediately available within the virtual environment.
While Carlos teaches a room with an interactive display wall which determines based on a positional relationship to the display devices, which device to output data, Carlos doesn’t specifically use the sensors to determine whether users are conversing with each other, nor does Carlos have the structure required to sense speech data and transcribe the speech data onto the wall.
Furthermore, Jorasch is able to determine and group users who are involved in conversation, and cause an output based on such determination, however, Jorasch admittedly fails to teach adding speech data to a specific work area upon satisfying the condition of being in a grouped conversation state and having the physical face direction detected by sensors.
Upon further search and consideration in view of these particular teachings, the next best prior art of record is Raffa et al. (US 20180288380 A1) which discloses a context aware projection of mapping content to a surface, allowing users to interact with the projected content. Raffa teaches the projection onto display surfaces in a smart space which reacts to different conditions such as [0017], “viewing angle, user or group orientation… For example, in a space that has projection capabilities, the system may project on surfaces that have the best projection attributes (e.g., provide high resolution and high contrast display with minimal bleed, accurate colors, etc.), are close to the group, and have suitable orientation for viewing.” Furthermore, Raffa teaches the ability to determined grouped users based on orientation, which would at least satisfy or suggest,
- “determine that the first user and the second user are grouped as being in a conversation state; as taught in “[0018] The context aware projection system may also detect groups and clusters of people who form in an area in the physical space that are actively engaged in either a conversation, activity, or task. Identification of the activity being performed by each group may be automated based on contextual characteristics and behavior exhibited by the group. Users' relative orientation with respect to each other, and with respect to the room surfaces, is also taken into consideration by this system.” “[0025] The surface mapping logic 511 uses this data to find the best solution to the assignment, taking into consideration many surfaces, detected groups and distance/orientation, topics of conversation, and user preferences. Once an optimal solution has been detected, and the surfaces activated (with proper feedback to the users, for instance visual or audio), the context aware projection system monitors events including for feedback, changes in the environment, and changes in the user groups.”
- display a first work area of the first user on the predetermined display device; (Raffa [0025] The surface mapping logic 511 uses this data to find the best solution to the assignment, taking into consideration many surfaces, detected groups and distance/orientation, topics of conversation, and user preferences. Once an optimal solution has been detected, and the surfaces activated (with proper feedback to the users, for instance visual or audio), the context aware projection system monitors events including for feedback, changes in the environment, and changes in the user groups. [0028] For instance, followers or students may be more likely to ask questions of the leader and they can then be identified through that sort of interaction. Once the role of the leader has been identified, a touch surface that is optimal for that person, for instance in close proximity with the leader, may be selected for touch.”
- detect the first work area based on the face direction of the second user;”(Raffa [0016] Also, for example, FIG. 4 illustrates a room with two different groups 403 and 407 viewing projected displays 401 and 405, respectively. In this example, projected display 401 is showing a video or movie and projected display 405 is a showing business meeting content. For example, the movie may be best viewed on a wall without glare and business meeting content projected at 405 may best be displayed on a longer wall surface, based on the volume of information to be displayed. In an example, the displays are mapped to surfaces based on where the users have congregated in the room. )
However, even in a hypothetical conversation, neither Carlos, Jorasch, nor Raffa teach:
- add the speech data of the second user to the first work area when the first user and the second user are grouped and the face direction of the second user is directed to the first work area; and
- allow only the grouped first user and the second user to add speech data to the first work area, thereby preventing a user other than the first user and the second user among the plurality of users from adding speech data to the first work area.
In a concept search for the specific limitations above, the prior art of record fails to suggest or render obvious these limitations, therefore, claim 1, also representative of claim 20, are distinguished over the prior art. By virtue of their dependency on claim 1, claim 5 also distinguishes over the prior art. Please see the prior art of record not relied upon in the conclusion section for more information on prior art yielded in a search.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because in view of the amended limitations, the claims do not only recite “mental processes,” but also recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” under 35 U.S.C. 101. The applicant’s argument that “such specific electronic data processing and dynamic display control cannot practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. a human merely observing a person’s face direction cannot electronically display a work area and add speech data to a display device)” is not persuasive because the mental process is within the processing steps of selecting the display device and work area, which can be performed in the human mind. While the actual output steps themselves cannot be performed in the human mind, as explained in the rejection above, merely performing the abstract idea and outputting the results of the processing on a display device is merely equivalent to apply it. Furthermore, displaying speech data on a output device constitutes managing personal behavior interactions, or relationships between people because MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) clarifies that it is not dispositive as to how the interaction occurs (whether through a computer), but whether the activity itself falls within the subgrouping. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the “claimed circuitry dynamically displays the work area and adds the speech data, the predetermined display device requires technological components and cannot be broadly construed as a generic non-technical object such as a piece of paper” is not persuasive because the data analysis itself is claimed in an abstract manner, and merely outputting the results on a generic display is equivalent to “apply it.”
Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that the amendments incorporate a “manner of performing the steps” such as “establish an automated data access control that dynamically allows or prevents the addition of speech data,” however, given the actual claim language of the scope, it is no more than rules or instructions to manage personal behavior, implemented on a computing device. It does not qualify as a particular improvement to technology, because it names the outcome of the function, and not technologically-based manner in carrying out the outcome.” It is not specifically defined how circuitry is supposed to enforce the “claimed dual-condition control (which) requires that the speech data is added to the first work area only when the first user and the second user are grouped AND the face direction of the second user is directed to the first work area. This strict requirement defines exactly how the circuitry conditionally adds data and operates in the physical environment.” The examiner notes that while it is not important to add the specific code or algorithms to arrive at the claimed invention, it must be described in a manner that is more than merely instructing the steps (as abstract steps) to be performed on a computer.
Therefore, the applicant’s assertion that “The exclusion of unrelated users is not appended as insignificant extra-solution activity; rather, the specific face direction-based display control and group-based access control are integral to the claimed operation in the physical space, providing significant technical advantages such as improving system security (e.g., preventing data contamination) and enhancing UI operability” is not persuasive because the access controls are merely claimed in a “rule or instructions” based manner, which still falls within “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” The claims must be narrowed to a level of specificity such that they are limited to computer-based implementation steps, and not just claiming the idea or outcome of access control. Furthermore, the claim itself does not reflect the alleged improvement of “improving system security (e.g., preventing data contamination) and enhancing UI operability,” because in view of the specification it would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, that any of the provided steps provide a technical improvement to any of these fields. Therefore, claims 1 and 20 and its dependent claim 5, remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn in view of amended claims 1, 5, and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Yang et al. (US 20240144949 A1) discloses providing user experiences on VR systems, wherein one of the features aligns with the display of speech data only when the users are grouped and facing each other. (Yang [0063] The multi-channel ASR system may then use a multi-channel ASR model to process the integrated features. The multi-channel ASR system may implicitly determine which speech signal is received from the user direction and which person the user is talking to, and only transcribe these speech signals.) However, the present claims distinguish over Yang, because Yang doesn’t involve interactions with a third common screen, Yang only involves the orientation of users with each other. (Yang [0129] FIG. 14 illustrates an example method 1400 for suppressing crosstalk. The method may begin at step 1410, where one or more computing systems may receive, at a client system 130 associated with a first user, a plurality of speech signals captured by a plurality of microphones of the client system 130, wherein the client system 130 is a head-mounted device, wherein the plurality of microphones are configured to capture speech signals from multiple directions based on beamforming, wherein one or more first microphones of the plurality of microphones are aligned along a cartesian plane, wherein one or more second microphones of the plurality of microphones are aligned along an apical axis, wherein the plurality of speech signals comprise one or more cross-talking speech signals, wherein the first user is in a conversation with one or more second users, wherein the one or more cross-talking speech signals correspond to one or more utterances from one or more third users, and wherein the one or more third users are not in the conversation. At step 1420, the one or more computing systems may generate, based on applying spatial filtering steered to a plurality of directions to the plurality of speech signals, directional data for the plurality of speech signals, wherein the directional data comprises output from the spatial filtering for the plurality of directions. At step 1430, the one or more computing systems may extract, for each of the plurality of directions, one or more acoustic features for one or more of the plurality of speech signals associated with the respective direction. At step 1440, the one or more computing systems may integrate the extracted acoustic features for each of the plurality of directions. At step 1450, the one or more computing systems may identify, based on an analysis of the integrated features by a multi-channel automatic-speech-recognition (ASR) model, one or more speech signals corresponding to one or more utterances from the first user. At step 1460, the one or more computing systems may identify, based on the directional data by one or more machine-learning models, one or more target speech signals and the one or more cross-talking speech signals from the plurality of speech signals, wherein the one or more target speech signals correspond to one or more utterances from the one or more second users. At step 1470, the one or more computing systems may generate one or more transcriptions for the one or more target speech signals, wherein the one or more target speech signals are based on a first language, and wherein the one or more transcriptions are based on a second language that is different from the first language, the one or more transcriptions being a translation of the target speech signals from the first language to the second language. At step 1480, the one or more computing systems may present, at the client system, one or more of the transcriptions to the first user, wherein the one or more transcriptions comprise one or more of an image file of a text transcription of the one or more target speech signals or an audio file of a text-to-speech conversion of the text transcription)
- Wiechers et al. (NPL, Wiechers, Nolte, Ksoll et al, 2013, User Tracking for Collaboration on Interactive Wall-Sized Displays, S. Boll, S. Maaà & R. Malaka (Hrsg.): Mensch & Computer 2013 ) discloses a wall sized interactive interface that tracks users position and orientation while being aware of other users’ collaborative work, requiring the system to be able to distinguish and identify which user is performing the interaction. However, this system does not disclose any use of speech data to display on the workplace.
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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights