DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to amendments and arguments filed on May 28th, 2026. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12-14, 16 and 19-20 are amended, claims 4-5, 7, 10-11, 15 and 17-18 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12-14, 16 and 19-20 are pending and have been examined; hence, this action is made FINAL.
Any previous objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
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 .
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 with the present application. Accordingly, the claims have been granted the benefit of the earlier filing date of KR-10-2022-0055845, filed on March 6th, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 12 and April 20th, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues “that Faulkner fails to disclose or render obvious the presently claimed combination of features recited in independent claims 1, 13 and 19. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) is improper,” (pages 10-12 of Remarks).
Applicant’s argument is moot, as new grounds of rejection are raised with respect to WIPO Publication 2018/117608 to Lee et al. and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0091723 to Faulkner et al. Further details are provided below.
In view of the amendments, new grounds of rejection are raised under 35 U.S.C. 101. The amended claims remove technical details that restrict the claims to practical applications or technical improvements, and instead describe acts which may be carried out by a human actor. Further details are provided below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following grammatical informalities: The claims recite " Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following grammatical informalities: The claim recite Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12-14, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a computer is invoked merely as a tool to execute an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because an abstract idea is merely applied on a generic computer without any element that would otherwise preclude performance of the abstract idea as a mental process.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “An electronic device comprising:communication circuitry; memory storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the communication circuitry and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:receive, from a head mounted device (HMD), gaze information indicating detection of gaze of a user on a first virtual object displayed on a display of the HMD of the user through the communication circuitry, the first virtual object corresponding to a voice recognition application;receive, from the HMD, gesture information from analysis of a gesture of the user, corresponding to a point in time at which the gaze of the user is detected;in case that the gesture information indicating an action of holding a second virtual object displayed on the display of the HMD, determine a user's intention to utter a voice command the second virtual object corresponding to a first application different from the voice recognition application, andexecute the voice recognition application stored in the memory upon determining that there is the intention to utter and control the voice recognition application to be in a state of being capable of receiving a voice command of the user;provide, using the voice recognition application, a hint in a form a natural language, the hint including at least one function supported by the first application,receive, using the voice recognition application, a voice command of the user in response to providing the hint,execute a function corresponding to the voice command using the first application.”
The limitations of “receive… information indicating detection of a gaze of a user…” and “receive… information from analysis of a gesture of the user…” describe acts of observation that may be performed by a human actor. The limitations of “…determine a user’s intention to utter a voice command…” “provide… a hint…” “receive… a voice command of the user…” and “execute a function corresponding to the voice command…” as drafted cover mental activities which can be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Taken individually, or as a whole, these limitations could be embodied by a person acting in a virtual reality environment under supervision of an instructor. The user could interact with a virtual object and the instructor could provide guidance or take some action requested by the user.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be performed mentally, and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, further comprising, “receive audio data corresponding to a user's voice input from the HMD through the communication circuitry, andrecognize the voice command corresponding to the voice input through the voice recognition application, andwherein the voice input does not include a wake-up word.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of communication. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein the gaze information indicates that a dwell time of the gaze of the user on the first virtual object is equal to or longer than a specified time.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of observation. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, further comprising, “determine that there is the intention to utter in case the gesture information indicates a first gesture for the second virtual object, the first gesture corresponding to the action of holding the second virtual object;transmit a request to ask about the intention to utter to the HMD; anddetermine the intention to utter according to a response received from the HMD in case the gesture information indicates a second gesture for the second virtual object.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of observation. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, “wherein the gesture information include analyzed information based on inputted information within a specified time from a point in time at which user's gaze of the user is detected.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of observation. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, further comprising, “provide a hint for the voice command based on context information related to the user through the voice recognition application, andwherein the context information includes the gesture of the user at least one of a usage history of the user for the voice recognition application.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of communication. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim depends from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1, further comprising, “construct and train an intention to utter determination model using analysis information including the gesture information and information on whether the voice recognition application is actually used.”
Taken individually, or as a whole with claim 1, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work of learning. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16, method claims 13-14 and 16 and system claims 1-3 are related as a method and system of using the same, with each system element’s function corresponding to the method step. Accordingly, claims 13-14 and 16 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied to claims 1-3.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, computer-readable medium claims 19 and 20 and method claims 1 and 2 are related as method and computer-readable medium for performing the same, with each computer-readable medium element’s function corresponding to the method step. Accordingly, claims 19 and 20 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied to claims 1 and 2.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 12-14, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0097776 to Faulkner et al. (hereinafter, "Faulkner 2021") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0091723 to Faulkner et al. (hereinafter, “Faulkner 2022”), and further in view of WIPO Publication 2018/117608 to Lee et al. (hereinafter, "Lee").
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 19, Faulkner 2021 teaches a system, method and computer-readable media virtual reality experiences comprising communication circuitry (paragraph [0054], "In some embodiments, the controller 110 is communicatively coupled with the display generation component 120 (e.g., an HMD, a display, a projector, a touch-screen, etc.) via one or more wired or wireless communication channels 144 (e.g., BLUETOOTH, IEEE 802.11x, IEEE 802.16x, IEEE 802.3x, etc.).");memory storing one or more computer programs (paragraph [0006], "In some embodiments, the computer system has a graphical user interface (GUI), one or more processors, memory and one or more modules, programs or sets of instructions stored in the memory for performing multiple functions."); andone or more processors communicatively coupled to the communication circuitry and the memory (paragraph [0006], "In some embodiments, the computer system has a graphical user interface (GUI), one or more processors, memory and one or more modules, programs or sets of instructions stored in the memory for performing multiple functions."),wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: receive, from a head mounted device (HMD), gaze information indicating detection of gaze of a user on a first virtual object displayed on a display of the HMD of the user through the communication circuitry, the first virtual object corresponding to a voice recognition application (paragraph [0172], "In FIG. 7T, the computer system detects an input that corresponds to a request to activate a voice-based virtual assistant. For example, the user provides a voice-based wake-up command “Assistant!” to the computer system. In some embodiments, the user optionally turns to look at a predefined location in the three-dimensional environment that corresponds to a home location of the voice-based virtual assistant, and/or provides an activation input (e.g., a tap input on the user's finger or a controller, a gaze input, etc.)."),receive, from the HMD, gesture information from analysis of a gesture of the user, corresponding to a point in time at which the gaze of the user is detected (paragraph [0172], “In some embodiments, the user optionally turns to look at a predefined location in the three-dimensional environment that corresponds to a home location of the voice-based virtual assistant, and/or provides an activation input (e.g., a tap input on the user's finger or a controller, a gaze input, etc.).”).
Faulkner 2021 does not explicitly teach “in case that the gesture information indicating an action of holding a second virtual object displayed on the display of the HMD, determine a user's intention to utter a voice command the second virtual object corresponding to a first application different from the voice recognition application,” and thus, Faulkner 2022 is introduced.
Faulkner 2022 teaches a method, system and computer-readable media for virtual reality experiences including in case that the gesture information indicating an action of holding a second virtual object displayed on the display of the HMD, determine a user's intention to utter a voice command the second virtual object corresponding to a first application different from the voice recognition application (paragraph [0138], "Detecting a gesture input directed to a position in the first computer-generated three-dimensional environment that corresponds to a location of a physical object or surface in the respective portion of the physical environment, in conjunction with detecting the query, provides additional control options without cluttering the UI with additional displayed controls (e.g., additional displayed controls for selecting the physical object or surface)."), andexecute the voice recognition application stored in the memory upon determining that there is the intention to utter and control the voice recognition application to be in a state of being capable of receiving a voice command of the user (paragraph [0141], "In some embodiments, the computer system displays a user interface object corresponding to the virtual assistant with a respective one of a plurality of appearances (e.g., different combinations of colors, shapes, spatial extent, orientation, internal structures, brightness, etc.) in the first view of the first computer-generated three-dimensional environment, where the plurality of appearances correspond to a plurality of different states (e.g., idle state (e.g., triggered after prolonged absence of a query), activated state (e.g., triggered upon detection of a start of a query), listening state (e.g., triggered after detection of the start of the query and maintained during receiving input of the query), processing state (e.g., triggered after completion of the receiving of the query and maintained during preparing an answer for the query), answering state (e.g., triggered when displaying the answer responding to the query), etc.) of the virtual assistant in relation to a process for generating the content corresponding to the query.").
Faulkner 2021 and Faulkner 2022 are considered analogous because they are each concerned with creating virtual reality experiences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Faulkner 2021 with the teachings of Faulkner 2022 for the purpose of improving user experience. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
The combination of Faulkner 2021 and Faulkner 2022 does not teach “provide, using the voice recognition application, a hint in a form a natural language, the hint including at least one function supported by the first application,” “receive, using the voice recognition application, a voice command of the user in response to providing the hint,” or “execute a function corresponding to the voice command using the first application,” and thus, Lee is introduced.
Lee teaches a method, system and computer-readable media for human-machine interactions that can provide, using the voice recognition application, a hint in a form a natural language, the hint including at least one function supported by the first application (page 13, "When the reliability of the predicted plurality of speech intents is determined to be less than a predetermined value, the processor 120 may display the plurality of speech intents and receive a user selection. As shown in the second drawing from the left of FIG. 10, the processor 120 may select a list UI that selects 'weather search', 'navigation', and 'city information' corresponding to a plurality of speech intents associated with the entity name 'Seoul.'"),receive, using the voice recognition application, a voice command of the user in response to providing the hint (page 13, "In the embodiment of FIG. 10, it will be described on the assumption that the user selects 'navigation' corresponding to the intention of speaking. Of course, as described with reference to FIG. 9, the processor 120 may determine the speech intent by using the additional speech. The processor 120 may provide a response screen corresponding to the selected speech intent."), andexecute a function corresponding to the voice command using the first application (page 13, "As shown in the third drawing from the left of FIG. 10, the processor 120 may execute a navigation application to search for a route from the current location of the user to Seoul. The processor 120 may know the exact speech intent by the user's selection.").
Faulkner 2021, Faulkner 2022 and Lee are considered analogous because they are each concerned with user interactions with virtual assistants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Faulkner 2021 and Faulkner 2022 with the teachings of Lee for the purpose of improving user experience. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 20, Faulkner 2021 teaches a system, method and computer-readable media that can receive audio data corresponding to a user's voice input from the HMD through the communication circuitry (paragraph [0259], "In some embodiments, the device processes the voice input to determine a user command for the voice assistant after the voice-based virtual assistant is activated, and provides the user command to the virtual assistant as input to trigger performance of a corresponding operation by the virtual assistant."), and
recognize the voice command corresponding to the voice input through the voice recognition application (paragraph [0259], "In some embodiments, the device processes the voice input to determine a user command for the voice assistant after the voice-based virtual assistant is activated, and provides the user command to the virtual assistant as input to trigger performance of a corresponding operation by the virtual assistant."), and
wherein the voice input does not include a wake-up word (paragraph [0253], "For example, as the user looks around a room, the central region of the user's visual field is clear and surrounded by a purple vignette, the objects within the central region of the user's visual field is the target of the voice command or provides the context of the voice command detected by the voice-based virtual assistant (e.g., 'turn this on', or 'change this photo').").
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Faulkner 2021 teaches a system, method and media wherein the gaze information indicates that a dwell time of the gaze of the user on the first virtual object is equal to or longer than a specified time (paragraph [0254], "In some embodiments, detecting the request to activate the voice-based virtual assistant includes detecting a gaze input that meets first criteria, wherein the first criteria include a criterion that is met when the gaze input is directed to a location corresponding to the visual representation of the voice-based virtual assistant in the three-dimensional scene (e.g., the virtual assistant is activated when the user gazes upon the visual representation of the virtual assistant). In some embodiments, the first criteria also include a criterion that is met when the gaze input meets preset gaze stability and duration thresholds.").
Regarding claim 8, Faulkner 2021 teaches a system wherein the gesture information include analyzed information based on inputted information within a specified time from a point in time at which gaze of the user is detected (paragraph [0166], "The computer performs an operation corresponding to a currently selected user interface object in response to a gesture input for activating the user interface object detected while the gaze input is on the currently selected user interface object.").
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Faulkner 2021 and Faulkner 2022 does not explicitly teach a system to “provide a hint for the voice command based on context information related to the user through the voice recognition application wherein the context information includes the gesture of the user at least one of a usage history of the user for the voice recognition application,” however, Lee teaches [providing] a hint for the voice command based on context information related to the user through the voice recognition application (page 7, "If the reliability of all of the plurality of candidate speech intents is less than a predetermined value, the processor 120 may display a UI including the plurality of candidate speech intents so that the user may directly select the speech intents. In addition, the processor 120 may perform an operation corresponding to the speech intent selected by the user."), and
wherein the context information includes the gesture of the user at least one of a usage history of the user for the voice recognition application (page 6, "In addition, the processor 120 may use big data and user-specific history data for speech recognition and reliability measurement.").
Faulkner 2021, Faulkner 2022 and Lee are considered analogous because they are each concerned with user interactions with virtual assistants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Faulkner 2021 and Faulkner 2022 with the teachings of Lee for the purpose of improving assistant response quality. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Faulkner 2021 and Faulkner 2022 does not explicitly teach a system “wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to construct and train an intention to utter determination model using analysis information including gesture information and information on whether the voice recognition application is actually used,” however, Lee teaches [constructing] and [training] an intention to utter determination model using analysis information [and] information on whether the voice recognition application is actually used (page 7, "The data learner 121 may learn criteria for speech recognition, language understanding, and user's speech intent determination… The data learner 121 acquires data to be used for learning, and applies the acquired data to a data recognition model to be described later to learn criteria for determining speech recognition and user speech intent… The data recognizer 122 recognizes a situation from predetermined data by using the learned data recognition model. can do. The data recognizer 122 may obtain predetermined data according to a predetermined criterion by learning, and use the data recognition model by using the acquired data as an input value. For example, the data recognizer122 may recognize the input user voice by using the learned acoustic model and the language model. The data recognizer122 may determine the user's intention to speak based on the recognized user voice. The data recognition unit 122 may update the data recognition model by using the data acquired as the voice recognition and speech intention result values for each user as input values again.").
Faulkner 2021, Faulkner 2022 and Lee are considered analogous because they are each concerned with user interactions with virtual assistants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the training method of Lee with the gesture information of Faulkner 2021 and Faulkner 2022 for the purpose of improving assistant response quality. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner 2021, Faulkner 2022 and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of U.S. Patent 10,684,703 to Hindi et al. (hereinafter, "Hindi").
Regarding claim 6, Faulkner 2022 teaches a system wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: determine that there is the intention to utter in case the gesture information indicates a first gesture for the second virtual object (paragraph [0138], "Detecting a gesture input directed to a position in the first computer-generated three-dimensional environment that corresponds to a location of a physical object or surface in the respective portion of the physical environment, in conjunction with detecting the query, provides additional control options without cluttering the UI with additional displayed controls (e.g., additional displayed controls for selecting the physical object or surface)."), the first gesture corresponding to the action of holding the second virtual object (paragraph [0109], "In some embodiments, the selection input includes a gesture input (e.g., touching a location, pointing at a location, tapping or pinching while the gaze is directed to a location, etc.). In some embodiments, the selected display location is the user's hand. For example, in response to detecting the user raising his/her palm toward his/her eyes in conjunction with detecting the user's query, the computer system focuses the representation 7108 of the one or more projections of light onto the representation of the user's palm, and ultimately displays the visual content at a position that corresponds to the location of the user's palm.").
The combination of Faulkner 2021, Faulkner 2022 and Lee does not explicitly teach “transmit a request to ask about the intention to utter to the HMD,” or “determine the intention to utter according to a response received from the HMD in case the gesture information indicates a second gesture for the second virtual object,” and thus, Hindi is introduced.
Hindi teaches [transmitting] a request to ask about the intention to utter to the HMD (column 40, line 57, "As described above, in order to complete a structured query, task flow processing module 736 needs to initiate additional dialogue with the user in order to obtain additional information, and/or disambiguate potentially ambiguous utterances. When such interactions are necessary, task flow processing module 736 invokes dialogue flow processing module 734 to engage in a dialogue with the user. In some examples, dialogue flow processing module 734 determines how (and/or when) to ask the user for the additional information and receives and processes the user responses. The questions are provided to and answers are received from the users through I/O processing module 728."); and
[determining] the intention to utter according to a response received from the HMD in case the gesture information indicates a second gesture for the second virtual object (column 41, line 1, "In some examples, dialogue flow processing module 734 presents dialogue output to the user via audio and/or visual output, and receives input from the user via spoken or physical (e.g., clicking) responses.").
Faulkner 2021, Faulkner 2022, Lee and Hindi are considered analogous because they are each concerned with user interactions with virtual assistants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Faulkner 2021, Faulkner 2022 and Lee with the teachings of Hindi for the purpose of improving assistant response quality. Given that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0055477 to Mohajer et al. teaches speech-enabled interaction with a virtual environment.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0103980 to Katz et al. teaches gesture-based user controls, including machine learning techniques to anticipate user inputs.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0187787 to White et al. teaches gaze-based interaction with a virtual assistant.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0162020 to Lehman et al. teaches gaze-based launching of applications.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0187357 to Xia et al. teaches gesture-based UI interactions.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0354533 to Swaminathan teaches gaze-based image interactions.
U.S. Patent 11,922,935 to Shi et al. teaches event-triggered predictive voice interactions.
U.S. Patent 11,614,794 to Mixter et al. teaches facial-expression-based interactions with a virtual assistant.
U.S. Patent 11,393,491 to Han et al. teaches voice command delegation with artificial intelligence devices.
U.S. Patent 10,860,096 to Kelly et al. teaches gaze-based device control.
U.S. Patent 10,061,352 to Trail teaches augmented reality systems that predict user commands.
U.S. Patent 8,482,527 to Kim teaches user interfaces implemented on head-mounted displays.
Korean Publication 10-2015-0066882 to Lee et al. teaches history-based learning dialogue processing.
Korean Publication 10-2019-0011031 to Young et al. teaches voice-based user interactions with context-based hints.
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 SEAN T SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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, PIERRE-LOUIS DESIR can be reached at (571) 272-7799. 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.
/SEAN THOMAS SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights