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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant states the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 14th, 2026 concedes that prior art Wilson fails to teach the portion of claim 1/8/15 stating “program instructions to render a virtual object representing the physical object according to the context using a generative model, wherein the virtual object is rendered visually distinct from the physical object being represented.". This is incorrect as evidenced by the Non-Final Office Action itself which states that Wilson teaches, among other portions of the claim, “and program instructions to render a virtual object representing the physical object according to the context, wherein the virtual object is rendered visually distinct from the physical object being represented.” As seen in the comparison between the passage copied from the arguments and the passage copied from the Non-Final Office Action Wilson is stated to teach nearly all of the passage, only excluding the “using a generative model” portion of the passage. Thus, Wilson does not rely on Li to teach the entire recited portion in the applicant’s arguments instead only relying on Li to teach the generative model portion.
Similarly, the Applicant states that prior art Li in claim 1/8/15 is alleged to teach “program instructions to render a virtual object representing the physical object according to the context using a generative model, wherein the virtual object is rendered visually distinct from the physical object being represented.” This is incorrect as seen in the Non-Final Office Action which directly states that prior art Li in claim 1/8/15 only teaches “program instructions to render a virtual object … according to the context using a generative model”. Thus, the Applicant’s argument that Li does not read on the entire listed passage is moot as it was never alleged that Li read on the entirety of said passage.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims 4, 11, and 18, have overcome the informality objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
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, 2 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (U.S Patent No. 20200334908 A1) in view of Li (U.S Patent No. 11640698 B2), Jo (Noncontact restoration of missing parts of stone Buddha statue based on three-dimensional virtual modeling and assembly simulation), and further in view of Pintani (CIDER: Collaborative Interior Design in Extended Reality).
Regarding claim 15, 8, 1,
Wilson teaches:
A computer system comprising :one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage devices;(Wilson ¶77: “With reference now to FIG. 8, computing device 800 includes … memory 812, one or more processors 814… ) program instructions to identify a context associated with a current state of a virtual environment; (Wilson ¶03: “facilitate the maintenance of a theme or design of the virtual environment”; Note: This application’s term context is associated with the citations term “theme”. Context under the broadest reasonable interpretation is read to be what defines/makes up the current state of the virtual environment, the “theme” describes a number of important concepts and qualities that make up the state of the virtual environment. If we are facilitating maintenance of a theme, as Wilson says, we necessarily must have already identified what the theme/context of the virtual environment is. What is meant by “theme” is detailed more in the ¶16 citation below.) program instructions to determine a physical object that is being rendered as a virtual display in the virtual environment based on the context; and program instructions to render a virtual object representing the physical object according to the context (Wilson Abstract: “composit[e] virtual representations of
detected physical objects into virtual environments”; Wilson ¶16: “geometric representations of
physical objects detected within the physical environment can be generated based on received sensor
data … and blended with the virtual environment utilizing a variety of techniques that facilitate realism
and consistency with the virtual environment's theme (e.g., lighting, color scheme, style)”; Context is
interpreted as that which makes up/defines the current state of a virtual environment. Here we see the
“theme”, mentioned earlier in ¶03, defines broad visual and aesthetic qualities of the virtual
environment such as lighting, color scheme, style, etc.… The visual and aesthetic qualities of the
environment are certainly a large part of what defines it, so when Wilson renders a physical object in the virtual environment according to theme it is also doing so according to context.), wherein the virtual object is rendered visually distinct from the physical object being represented, (Wilson ¶16: as cited
above, when rendering the virtual counterparts of physical objects their color, lighting, style, etc… can
be changed to fit the context of the environment making them visually distinct.)
While Wilson teaches the rendering of a visually distinct virtual object from a physical object in the user’s environment it does not teach that the object is rendered using a generative model. The use of a generative model to render a virtual object is taught by Li, which teaches program instructions to render a virtual object according to the context using a generative model (Li ¶91: … three-dimensional model of the physical space (referred to as a ‘PS3 model’) for rendering and displaying virtual assets 225 within the virtual environments. To generate a PS3 model, the mapping module 217 may use a combination of a generative adversarial network 229 (hereafter GAN 229) along with the data… Embodiments of GAN 229 may self-contextualize the unfilled spaces … with virtual assets 225 to generate the three-dimensional mapping of the PS3 model that is fully contextualized…”; Li ¶04: “a remaining portion of the active area with the filler assets using a generative adversarial network (GAN) based on relative distance between POI assets in the virtual space selected from the real, historical, or fictitious locations.” Note: Here we see Li teach the use of a GAN to generate virtual objects in a virtual environment. To do so it takes into consideration points of interest, nearby assets, location of the virtual environment, and other factors that make up the context to determine how that generated object should look.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilson with Li’s teachings wherein program instructions to render a virtual object representing the physical object according to a context use a generative model to do so.
There are many reasons that would motivate one to use a generative model for rendering an object in context, one of which is speed and efficiency. It would be known to one with ordinary knowledge in the art that generative models often outperform traditional rendering methods in speed as they do not need to compute everything from scratch and carry out rendering processes.
While Wilson details in ¶50, cited previously in the rejection of claim 2, that its virtual world can be a multiplayer collaborative environment it does not speak on rendering two different virtual visualizations where a first can contain identified defects and a second can have the physical object without the identified defects. This is taught by Jo which teaches wherein the rendering comprises: program instructions to create two different virtual visualizations of the physical object, wherein a first virtual visualization is a virtual replication of the physical object comprising identified defects (Jo Conclusions “1. In this study, digital recording of the original statue was performed using 3D scanning of the physically damaged stone Buddha statue and digital virtual restoration of the missing parts using a haptic modeling system. Moreover, the missing parts were restored using 3D printing technology after design mockup creation and assembly simulation. 2. The 3D model of the stone Buddha statue was created by converging the fixed high-precision scanning of the exterior and the handheld mid-precision scanning of the interior excavated hole. The 3D model showed a high resolution with an average point density of 0.2 mm. In particular, the 3D scanning result of the cone-shaped excavated hole revealed that two chisels, whose sizes were 10.5 and 15.4 mm on average, were used to carve the hole.” Note: Jo teaches that a first digital recording, or virtual visualization, of a damaged physical object is recorded to create a 3D model of the object with the damages present.) and a second virtual visualization, wherein the second virtual visualization is a virtual representation of the physical object without the defects, (Jo Conclusions “3. Using a 3D deterioration map of the stone Buddha statue, the area of the missing parts was measured to be 400.1 cm2 (5.5% of the total) of the total area (7,250 cm2). The restoration was performed only for 64.2% (257.1 cm2) of the total area of the missing parts, for which symmetry modeling was applicable or original forms could be estimated based on historical research. The restoration objects included four parts: the head, surrounding area of the Baekho, right ear, and right eye. 4. The virtual restoration of the missing parts of the stone Buddha statue was performed using a haptic modeling system: first, the location of the original fragments was determined; second, a reference model was selected and symmetry modeling was conducted; finally, the virtual restoration model was modified and improved, and estimation modeling through historical research and description of the outer shape was also used.”
PNG
media_image1.png
658
1320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
408
1316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note: Jo teaches that once the virtual representation of the object with all flaws present has been obtained, a second virtual representation without flaws/defects corrected can be rendered. Fig. 3 shows the original representation with all defects present, and Fig. 6 shows an in-progress restoration showing the object with multiple defects corrected. Thus, Jo teaches a first and second virtual representation of a physical object, one with certain defects present, and another without the defects.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilson with Jo where a system that creates virtual representations of physical objects that are visually distinct from the physical object and in a context of the virtual world can create two visualizations of the physical object with and without identified damage or flaws to the object.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, Wilson teaches that the appearance of a virtual object can be changed to fit the context of the virtual environment in order to maintain a theme/context. If the virtual environment’s theme would clash with a dirty, damaged, or otherwise flawed object a user may wish to view the object, even if its appearance is to be altered, without the flaws, or the user may wish to view the base object as is with the flaws. Wilson could offer the user more choices that allow for more thematic consistency by providing the user two visualizations of an object, one with and without defects.
While Wilson in view of Jo teaches a first and second virtual visualization, one with and without identified damage, it does not teach the first visualization can be displayed only to a first user, and that the second visualization can be shown only to a second or more users. Showing a first visualization to one user, and a second to another (or more) user(s) is taught by Pintani which teaches wherein the rendering comprises: program instructions to create two different virtual visualizations of the object, wherein the first virtual visualization is displayed only to a first user and the second virtual visualization is displayed to one or more second users. (Pitani 1 “In this paper, we propose CIDER, a solution designed for this specific scenario, based on layers and the smart management of their visualization for the different users. Users are co-located in the same environment and can add to it and edit different elements, working on local layers and only indirectly updating the shared layer through commits … Therefore, the main contributions of this paper are (1) a novel layer-based approach for concurrent manipulation of 3D virtual objects in a collaborative mixed-reality environment; (2) an implementation of the layer-based approach in a functional prototype with two different commit types; and (3) a user evaluation with 20 participants.” 3.4 “In the application, an object can acquire multiple states, one for each layer where it appears into. For example, an item can be green in the global layer, but blue in the local, or alternatively it can just exist as a green object in the global layer. When switching between layers, it is essential for the app to store objects’ states before showing new ones, especially if an item belongs to more than one scene. Regarding the last case and recalling the last example, it is important to save the green color of the object in the global layer when changing to the local one, so that when it is time to switch back to the global scene, the item will restore its green color. Vice-versa, when changing to the local layer, the application must re-assign the blue color to the object after saving the previous global green color and, consequently, save the local blue color when switching back to the global scene.” 2 “In this paper, we propose a multi-layer solution (CIDER) where each user can edit a private layer and the update of the shared design is managed with commit operations like in the git versioning system. The system is able to manage effectively the synchronization of the work and the user-controlled visualization of different layers providing a satisfactory user experience and a smooth exchange of design ideas.” Note: Pintani teaches that users in a shared mixed-reality environment can view the same set of virtual objects together. While in the environment a user can select an object, and edit it in a local or private layer. As seen in 3.4 two users may have the same object, they are viewing but one user in their local layer can change the color of the object from green to blue. The one or more other users viewing the global layer will all view the object as green, whereas the first participant will view the object as blue. Thus, Pintani teaches that the same virtual object can have two different virtual representations where one user views the first representation, and one or more other users in a global layer view the second representation of the virtual object.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilson with Pintani where a system that creates two virtual visualizations of the same physical object shows one to one user and a second visualization to another user or group of users creates the two visualizations with/without identified defects.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, if a user is sharing a virtual experience with virtual objects based on their physical environment with another there are a number of contexts where the user may wish to not show the exact contents of their environment. For example, in a professional business meeting being held in a virtual collaborative environment the host may not wish for a part of the house in disrepair to be shown as is to the others, this can be solved by allowing two different views of the same object for different people.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 16, 9 which depend on 1, 15, 8,
Wilson teaches:
The computer system of claim 8, further comprising: program instructions to identify modifications to be applied to the virtual display representing the physical object within the virtual environment based on the context of the virtual environment; and program instructions to execute the modifications … to the virtual display representing the physical object within the virtual environment based on the context of the virtual environment, (Wilson ¶16: “geometric representations of physical objects detected within the physical environment can be generated based on received sensor data … and blended with the virtual environment utilizing a variety of techniques that facilitate realism and consistency with the virtual environment's theme (e.g., lighting, color scheme, style)”; As stated in claim 8 we associate the theme which defines a number of important visual and aesthetic qualities of the environment to be a part of the environment’s context. Claim 9 describes identifying and executing modifications to a virtual object both of which are taught here as “blending” the virtual objects appearance into the environment’s context/theme means you are making/executing modifications to it, and to do so implicitly means you have identified what modifications to make.) wherein the virtual environment is a virtual world collaborative environment. (Wilson ¶50 “the physical object selecting component 246 can dynamically select a generated geometric representation for rendering and compositing into the virtual environment based on an input received from a remote device … associated with another user, any of which are sharing a collaborative virtual experience with reality blending device 210…”; Here we identify the collaborative virtual experience which takes place in a virtual environment with multiple users to be what our application describes as a virtual world collaborative environment)
Wilson does not teach doing so via a generative adversarial network (GAN).
Doing so is taught in Li which teaches:
…and program instructions to execute the modifications, through a three-dimensional generative adversarial network, … (Li ¶91: … three-dimensional model of the physical space (referred to as a ‘PS3 model’) for rendering and displaying virtual assets 225 within the virtual environments. To generate a PS3 model, the mapping module 217 may use a combination of a generative adversarial network 229 (hereafter GAN 229) along with the data… Embodiments of GAN 229 may self-contextualize the unfilled spaces … with virtual assets 225 to generate the three-dimensional mapping of the PS3 model that is fully contextualized…”; Li ¶04: “a remaining portion of the active area with the filler assets using a generative adversarial network (GAN) based on relative distance between POI assets in the virtual space selected from the real, historical, or fictitious locations.” Here we see Li teach the use of a GAN to generate virtual objects in a virtual environment. To do so it takes into consideration points of interest and other assets as well as the theme/context of the virtual environment, whether it be a fictional location, a real one, or a historical one, to determine how that generated object should look.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilson with Li’s teachings wherein program instructions to execute modifications to a virtual object representing the physical object according to a context use a GAN.
There are many reasons that would motivate one to use a GAN for executing visual modifications to an object to fit a certain context, one of which is speed and efficiency. It would be known to one with basic knowledge in the art that generative models often outperform traditional rendering methods in speed as they do not need to compute everything from scratch and carry out rendering processes.
Regarding claims 4, 18, 11 which depend on 1, 15, 8,
Wilson teaches:
“The computer system of claim 8, further comprising: responsive to identifying where the physical object from a physical environment is going to be displayed within the context of the virtual environment, program instructions to retrieve predetermined commands that instruct a virtual environment construction engine to modify the visual of the physical object in accordance with one or more requirements of one or more predetermined policies and the context of the virtual environment.” (Wilson ¶03:”… each portion of the geometric representation (each of which can independently be a geometric representation) corresponds to a physical object located within the physical environment. In this regard, a realistic computer-generated representation of a physical object can be perceived within the virtual environment when provided for display to the HMD. Physical objects, such as those that could be potentially hazardous to a user moving about a physical environment while fully-immersed in the virtual environment, can be effectively perceived by a user of the HMD. In some aspects, the computer- generated representation can be blended with the virtual environment utilizing a variety of techniques, to facilitate the maintenance of a theme or design of the virtual environment.” Here we see how Wilson uses “predetermined commands” to modify the visual of a virtual representation of physical objects according to “predetermined policies”. Wilson has the “predetermined policy” that the theme/context of the virtual environment should be maintained when rendering objects, unless the object is a hazard. If the physical object is a hazard, the “predetermined commands” will always be executed and the hazard will be displayed clearly for safety. If it is not, the instructions to render the object in theme/context with the environment will occur. Examples of these predetermined commands may be those that seek to modify “(lighting, color scheme, style)” according to ¶16 cited earlier.)
Regarding claims 5, 12, dependent on claims 1, 8
Wilson teaches:
The computer system of claim 8, further comprising: program instructions to identify metadata by analyzing data associated with a predetermined area in a physical space and the context of the virtual environment; program instructions to associate the metadata to the physical object in the predetermined area in the physical space; (Wilson ¶18: “the sensors generate sensor data that includes, for instance, depth map data and image data associated with the surrounding physical environment” ¶22 “the computing device can extract texture and/or color from received image data to texturize or color a generated geometric representation…” Here we see Wilson gathers and stores data associated with areas of physical space, then extracts further data from that such as texture or color from the raw image or depth map data. We consider this derived data which Wilson stores and associates with different representations of physical space to be what this application refers to as metadata) and program instructions to identify one or more adaptations to be made to a visual appearance of the virtual rendering of the physical objects in the virtual environment based on the metadata and the context of virtual environment (Wilson ¶22: “the computing device can extract texture and/or color from received image data to texturize or color a generated geometric representation … visual aspects (e.g., color information) of the stored virtual environment can be determined and employed to modify (e.g., colorize) the selected portion(s) of the geometric representation, so that when composited with the stored virtual environment, thematic consistency … can be maintained. By way of example, a stored virtual environment depicting a virtual sunset can present a variety of virtual objects or elements influenced with an orange hue … the computing device can determine the hue, and modify the color(s) of the selected portion(s) of the geometric representation, such that the selected portion(s) appear thematically consistent with the virtual environment (e.g., sunset) in which they are composited.” Here Wilson modifies the visual appearance of a physical object using its metadata (color derived from image data) to identify how to adapt the visual appearance based on context (hue from light source cast in the environment)).
Regarding claims 6, 13, dependent on 5, 12
Wilson teaches:
The computer system of claim 12, further comprising: program instructions to assign one or more unique identifiers or tags to the physical object to establish a link between the physical object and the associated metadata. (Wilson in the previously cited ¶18 and ¶22 details that metadata is gathered and kept on virtual representations of physical objects for later use. If such data is being tracked and stored it is implicit that there would be unique identifiers that link the physical objects to the associated data)
Regarding claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected as its content is a combination of rejected claims 12/13 or 5/6.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (U.S Patent No. 20200334908 A1) in view of Li (U.S Patent No. 11640698 B2), Mariotti (U.S Patent No. 20230334586 A1), and Jo (Noncontact restoration of missing parts of stone Buddha statue based on three-dimensional virtual modeling and assembly simulation), in view of Pintani (CIDER: Collaborative Interior Design in Extended Reality) and further in view Mariotti (U.S Patent No. 20230334586 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 17, 10, which depend on 2, 16, 9,
Wilson teaches:
The computer system of claim 9, wherein identifying the modifications further comprises … program instructions to apply a selection criterion to determine that the physical object should be shown in the virtual environment based on a metadata analysis and contextual considerations. (Wilson ¶18: “methods for dynamically rendering and compositing a fully-immersive virtual environment or "scene" with virtual objects generated based on detected physical objects in real-time … track a user's physical environment to facilitate on-the-fly virtual scene adaptation to keep the user safe from collisions, while maintaining thematic consistency with the virtual environment”; Wilson detects physical objects and tracks our environment in real time, which makes data on us and objects in our environment. We can then determine our relative distance from the different objects using their dimension and position information as well as our position information, creating metadata on each object’s distance from us. We then apply what this application calls a “selection criterion” to determine which if any objects should be shown, Wilson identifies two criterions for selection here. One is a “metadata analysis” that analyzes the difference between our position and objects positions and shows us the object to keep us safe from collisions. Another is a “contextual consideration”, referred to in Wilson as “maintaining thematic consistency” by rendering physical objects in context with the virtual environment.)
Wilson does not teach the identification of defects,
This is taught in Mariotti which teaches:
program instructions to identify defects in the physical object and a predetermined area of a physical space (Mariotti ¶58: “the assessment may identify a number of damaged objects … identify water damage to an interior wall … identify fire and/or smoke damage to one or more objects”; We associate this applications language of identifying defects to Mariotti’s identification of damage on objects and certain types of damage that span over broad area.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilson with Mariotti’s teachings wherein program instructions identify defects in physical objects/space and use that data to determine if it should be displayed.
There are many reasons that would motivate one to identify an object’s defects before displaying it, one of which may be safety. It may be identified that an object is glass and has defects of being chipped or cracked which may indicate there are shards of glass in the area. In this case the program could determine the object should be shown to the user to prevent an accident.
Regarding claims 7, 20, 14, dependent on 1, 15, 8
Wilson teaches:
The computer system of claim 8, wherein identifying the context of the virtual environment, further comprises: program instructions to analyze factors associated with the context of the virtual environment, wherein the factors comprise: a purpose the virtual environment, participants of the virtual environment, (Wilson ¶50 “the physical object selecting component 246 can dynamically select a generated geometric representation for rendering and compositing into the virtual environment based on an input received from a remote device … associated with another user, any of which are sharing a collaborative virtual experience with reality blending device 210…”; Here we see Wilson teach that “participants of the virtual environment” are analyzed factors associated with the environment’s context, the “users” as Wilson calls them are analyzed for controller use. This is because users have the ability to select physical objects by pointing and clicking with a controller device, showing participants are “analyze[d]factors associated with the context”. The purpose of the environment is also considered as context since the “collaborative experience” is facilitated by users being able to change a shared space and provide each other with more info about their physical environment) location associated with the virtual environment, (Wilson ¶49: “when reaching a … virtual location of the virtual game, the physical object selecting component 246 can select one or more generated geometric representations based on relative location, proximity, features, or any combination of the determinable visual characteristics described herein.” Here we see that the virtual location and its visual characteristics are factors in choosing representations of physical space to display, showing the location associated with the virtual environment is a context factor) specific requirements associated with the virtual environment, visual coherence, relevance of the physical object… (Wilson ¶03:”… the geometric representation … corresponds to a physical object located within the physical environment. In this regard, a realistic computer-generated representation of a physical object can be perceived within the virtual environment when provided for display to the HMD. Physical objects, such as those that could be potentially hazardous to a user moving about a physical environment while fully-immersed in the virtual environment, can be effectively perceived by a user of the HMD. In some aspects, the computer- generated representation can be blended with the virtual environment utilizing a variety of techniques, to facilitate the maintenance of a theme or design of the virtual environment.” Wilson teaches how “specific requirements associated with a virtual environment” are factors analyzed when identifying context. The specific requirement of the environment in this case is that it does not endanger the user and will properly display hazardous objects and areas in their environment. This is also an example of “relevance of the physical object” being a factor analyzed as context as objects relevant to the user safety will be handled differently. Wilson further teaches how visual coherence is a factor considered as well when it states that the “maintenance of a theme” should be facilitated. In ¶16 we learn the theme encompasses things such as “lighting, color scheme, [and] style”, maintaining the theme maintains visual coherency) … and a desired collaborative experience (Wilson ¶50 cited above details how the environment can be changed when users engage in a “collaborative virtual experience” showing it is a factor that makes up context since it defines what the environment is/does).
Wilson does not however teach the detection and consideration of defects,
This is instead taught in Mariotti which teaches,
relevance of the physical object and an identified defect (Mariotti ¶96: “models can also be used to identify whether an object is damaged, the type of damage (e.g., water damage, cracks, dents, warps, and other classifications of damage relevant to the object), a determination of the relevant repair operations or mitigation efforts needed.” Here Mariotti teaches how defects can be identified on objects, referred to here as damage.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilson with Mariotti’s teachings wherein the identification of context is done through analyzing various aspects of the environment such as an associated location, visual coherence, and physical objects also includes analyzing detected flaws that exist on those physical objects.
There are many reasons that would motivate one to also analyze relevant object defects alongside analyzing objects themselves, visual coherence, the environment’s purpose, etc … One reason may be the desire for more relevant information, if we have already determined we have interest in some objects and want to know more about them being able to know of their relevant defects would better help us define and understand the objects, which would provide more information for us to establish context.
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 ALAN GREGORY HAKALA whose telephone number is (571)272-7863. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 0800-1700 ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Poon can be reached at (571) 270-0728. 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.
/ALAN GREGORY HAKALA/Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights