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 Amendment
The amendment filed 04/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims overcome all the objections and rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/27/2026. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings overcome some of the objections regarding
Reference character 400 mentioned in [37] but not present in Fig. 1.
Reference character S400 in Fig. 12 not present in the specification.
as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/27/2026. However, the Applicant’s amendments to the drawings do not overcome the objection of
Figs. 3-10 being unclear.
as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
[Applicant’s arguments filed 04/27/2026 regarding the prior art not reading on the amended Claims are fully considered and persuasive. However, the amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection, now taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann.
Applicant argues the references, alone or in combination, explain how to combine high-precision interior from a drawing with a high-precision exterior from a scan to create a single, seamless digital twin. The primary point of novelty of the claimed invention is the specific method used to force these two different types of data to match perfectly in scale and shape.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and persuasive. However, the amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection, now taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann.
Applicant argues While Porter uses LIDAR data generally, it does not teach or suggest
this specific angle maximizing logic. Applicant's method ensures the outdoor environment is
structurally solid and perfectly aligned with the building's blueprint scale. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would not find it obvious to apply this specific geometric optimization to solve the
unique problem of scaling a neighborhood scan to a house's floor plan.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and persuasive. However, the amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection, now taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann.
Applicant argues there is no motivation in the references to apply this specific geometric
optimization to the conversion of LIDAR depth data for the purpose of matching it to a blueprint's
scale. A person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would not find it obvious to combine Choi's
blueprint modeling with this specific triangular refinement unless they were attempting to solve
the specific problem of scaling-induced distortion when merging interior and exterior models - a
problem not discussed in the prior art.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and persuasive. However, the amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection, now taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann.
Applicant argues Claim 1 recites converting the LIDAR depth data specifically to the scale of the
3D building model, as claimed. In the cited art, the environment and the building are usually made
from the same source. By converting these two different sources to a single unified scale, the
claimed invention allows a user to move from an interior room based on a drawing to an outdoor
yard based on a scan without any distortion or size mismatch. This creates a realistic experience
that the combination of Choi, Jung, and Porter simply cannot provide. Because the cited references
do not teach or suggest the specific triangle-maximized voxel scaling used to bridge the gap
between blueprints and LIDAR scans, claim 1 and its’ dependents are non-obvious and should be allowed.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and persuasive. However, the amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection, now taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann.
Applicant argues the combination of Choi and Jung allegedly disclose the
feature of "the creating of the virtual reality space creates a virtual solar model in the created virtual
reality space," and Lee discloses the feature of "the creating ... places a 3D element model, which
is previously stored according to the type of the identified component, according to an identified
scale, thereby generating a 3D building model" in the claim. While Lee talks about calculating the sun's position, it does not explain how to do this in an environment where the inside and outside come from different sources. To make the virtual reality experience feel real, the shadows cast by outdoor objects (like trees or other buildings) must line up perfectly with the windows of the house. The claimed
invention ensures this by using triangle-based space division to resize the outdoor scan so it
matches the house's blueprints exactly. Without this precise scaling, the shadows would be "off"
- they wouldn't hit the windows at the right angle or size. The cited references of Choi and Lee do
not address the technical challenge of making a blueprint model and a LIDAR scan talk to each
other at the same scale. Choi focuses on the building itself. Lee focuses on the sun's angle for a
generic object. Neither reference suggests the specific voxel and triangle logic needed to reconcile
these two data sources. Because Lee does not teach how to bridge the gap between LIDAR data
and blueprint data, a person skilled in this field would have no reason to combine these
technologies to reach the precise simulation described in claim 4.
Examiner replies Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection, the limitations of Claim 1 are now taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 3-10 remain unclear due to line quality, see 37 CFR 1.84 (l).
PNG
media_image1.png
150
1356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Figs. 3-10, the images are grainy and text is unclear in the respective images.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “to covert the depth information” should read “to convert the depth information”.
In Claim 2, “the receiving the 2D design drawing receives the 2D design drawing including” could read “the receiving the 2D design drawing includes”.
In Claim 10, “to covert the depth information” should read “to convert the depth information”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et. al (KR 10-2442141 B1), hereinafter referenced as Choi in view of Jung (US 2001/0037190 A1), hereinafter referenced as Jung in further view of Chmelar et al. (“The Depth Map Construction from a 3D Point Cloud” , 2016), hereinafter referenced as Chmelar and in further view of Fuhrmann et al. (“Fusion of Depth Maps with Multiple Scales”, 2011), hereinafter referenced as Fuhrmann, and in further view of Salman et al. (“Surface Reconstruction from Multi-View Stereo of Large-Scale Outdoor Scenes”, 2010), hereinafter referenced as Salman.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a method for providing a virtual reality space based on a digital twin (Choi, [0021], describes a method for a virtual environment hosting a digital twin space) comprising:
receiving a 2D design drawing for at least one building, by a service providing device (Choi, [0048], describes the operations in Fig. 3 performed by a device, where these operations by the device, provide a service; Choi, [Fig. 3], step S1030 shows the received drawings which make up a blueprint <reading as design drawing> create a corresponding 3D space model);
creating a 3D building model based on the received (Choi, [0048], describes the operations in Fig. 3 performed by a device, where these operations by the device, provide a service; Choi, [Fig. 3], step S1020 shows receiving a floor plan, cross-section, and elevation corresponding to a building; Choi, [0055], describes an acquired building design drawing based on the acquired floor plan, cross-section, and elevation drawing);
and creating a virtual reality space by processing the created 3D building model, by the service providing device, wherein the creating the virtual reality space includes generating an outdoor environment model in a scale of the 3D building model (Choi, [0048], describes the operations in Fig. 3 performed by a device, where these operations by the device, provide a service; Choi, [Fig. 3], shows in step S1010 the device creating a virtual space containing 3D building models) by:
Choi does not teach
2D design drawing
wherein the creating the virtual reality space includes generating an outdoor environment model in a scale of the 3D building model by receiving point cloud data acquired by a lidar at a preset location;
creating a depth map using depth information of the received point cloud data;
and configuring a plurality of voxels based on the depth map and dividing space by connecting points in the depth map with triangles such that a minimum value of interior angles of the triangles is maximized to covert the depth information to the scale of the 3D building model.
However, Jung teaches
2D design drawing (Jung, [0115], “two-dimensional design drawing”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by Choi by using a 2D design drawing as taught by Jung. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make these modifications because a 2D design drawing, such as a blueprint, is a precise specification on how to construct a building.
The combination of Choi and Jung do not teach
wherein the creating the virtual reality space includes generating an outdoor environment model in a scale of the 3D building model by receiving point cloud data acquired by a lidar at a preset location;
creating a depth map using depth information of the received point cloud data;
and configuring a plurality of voxels based on the depth map and dividing space by connecting points in the depth map with triangles such that a minimum value of interior angles of the triangles is maximized to covert the depth information to the scale of the 3D building model.
However, Chmelar teaches
wherein the creating the virtual reality space includes generating an outdoor environment model in a scale of the 3D building model by receiving point cloud data acquired by a lidar at a preset location (Chmelar: [Introduction], discloses obtaining a point cloud <point cloud data> acquired by LIDAR at a selected <preset> location <the selected location of scan>, see below);
PNG
media_image2.png
336
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
450
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
creating a depth map using depth information of the received point cloud data (Chmelar: [3 Depth map construction], discloses creating a depth map using the depth information of the obtained point cloud data, see below);
PNG
media_image4.png
594
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by Choi and Jung by converting a point cloud to a depth map as taught by Chmelar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification because to reduce memory usage and speedup computations using the data, such as 3d reconstruction.
The combination of Choi, Jung, and Chmelar do not teach
and configuring a plurality of voxels based on the depth map
and dividing space by connecting points in the depth map with triangles such that a minimum value of interior angles of the triangles is maximized to covert the depth information to the scale of the 3D building model.
However, Fuhrmann teaches
and configuring a plurality of voxels based on the depth map (Furhman: [5 Constructing the hSDF], discloses configuring voxels based on a depth map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by Choi, Jung, and Chmelar by using Delaunay tetrahedralization as taught by Fuhrmann. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to create a 3-dimensional space using 2-dimension information.
The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Furhmann further teach using Delaunay tetrahedralization and triangle optimization (Furhmann: [7.1 and 7.2]) but do not explicitly disclose
and dividing space by connecting points in the depth map with triangles such that a minimum value of interior angles of the triangles is maximized to covert the depth information to the scale of the 3D building model
However, Salman discloses
and dividing space by connecting points in the depth map with triangles such that a minimum value of interior angles of the triangles is maximized to covert the depth information to the scale of the 3D (Salman: [III The Reconstruction Algorithm], discloses using Delaunay triangulation <dividing space by connecting points with triangles such that a minimum value of interior angles of the triangles is maximized> for a uniform scale across depth information for a 3-dimensional reconstruction)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann by using Delaunay triangulation to optimize triangles as taught by Salman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to precisely scale the depth map to a size where it can be integrating seamlessly with other information. By scaling the obtained depth maps to the same size, the outdoor environment and indoor environment would be generated, therefore creating the virtual reality space.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites limitations similar to Claim 1 but as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman disclose the method of Claim 1. The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman further disclose
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which (Choi, [0085], describes the method being implemented as software recorded in a storage medium),
when executed by a computing device including a memory, a transceiver, and a processor, cause the processor to perform a method (Choi, [0085], describes a storage medium being a memory for example; Fig. 1: shows the device comprises a memory; [0047], describes the communication interface transmits and receives information on a network, this reads on a transceiver; Fig. 1: shows the device comprises the communication interface; Choi, [0083], describes the processor of the embodiment present in the references calling at least one command from the storage medium, memory, and executing it; Fig. 1: shows the device comprises a processor) for providing a virtual reality space based on a digital twin, the method comprising: …
PNG
media_image5.png
890
652
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman discloses the method of Claim 1. The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman further discloses wherein
the receiving the 2D design drawing receives the 2D design drawing including a plan view, a sectional view, an elevation view, or a layout drawing for an architecture book or an interior design book of the at least one building (Choi, [0033], describes receiving a blueprint <reads on 2D design drawing> can include a floor plan <reads on plan view>, cross-section <reads on sectional view>, and elevation <reads on elevation view>).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman discloses the method of Claim 2. The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman further discloses wherein
the creating of the 3D building model identifies a type and scale of components forming the at least one building based on the 2D design drawing (Choi, [0023], describes the interior and exterior of a building are modeled with a modeling module in three dimensions based on a building blueprint, where a building blueprint reads on 2D design drawing), and places a 3D element model, which is previously stored according to the identified type and scale of the identified components, thereby generating the 3D building model (Choi, [0059], describes a 3D model loaded from a drawing information database corresponding to an object identifier in the drawing information; Choi, [0063], describes the object identifier to specify types and determine scales; Choi, [0033], describes the drawing information database can store a 3D model in which the shape corresponding to each object is implemented in 3D <and therefore generating the 3D model>).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman in further view of Lee et. al (KR 10-2873979), hereinafter referenced as Lee.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman disclose the method of Claim 1. The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman further disclose wherein
the creating of the virtual reality space creates a virtual solar model in the created virtual reality space (Choi, [Abs], describes devising a light source in a virtual environment having light/shade changes over time),
The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman do not disclose
estimates solar azimuth and solar altitude by time based on a latitude and longitude corresponding to an actual location of the 3D building model, and generates real-time sunshine and shadows in the virtual reality space according to the estimated solar azimuth and solar altitude.
However, Lee discloses
estimates solar azimuth and solar altitude by time based on a latitude and longitude corresponding to an actual location of the 3D building model (Lee, [0112], describes receiving coordinates of a real location where a virtual object is to be positioned; Lee, [0009], describes calculating a solar azimuth and a solar altitude based on the solar declination which is derived from coordinates; see Lee Fig. 4),
PNG
media_image6.png
658
802
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and generates real-time sunshine and shadows in the virtual reality space according to the estimated solar azimuth and solar altitude (Lee, [0062-0063], describes determining lighting and shadows to provide natural virtual content using the processor to reflect lighting and shadow types based on information including solar altitude and azimuth; see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image7.png
568
792
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman by using the method of solar azimuth and solar altitude calculation from coordinates for generating sunshine and shadows based on a real location taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make these motivations to give users in the virtual environment a realistic experience similar to reality.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman in further view of Si-hyung (KR 10-2193193 B1), hereinafter referenced as Si-hyung.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman disclose the method of Claim 1. The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman do not disclose the limitations of Claim 6, however, Si-hyung discloses
after the creating of the virtual reality space, providing a service to user equipment by placing an avatar corresponding to a user within the virtual reality space (Si-hyung, [Claim 1], describes a confirmation unit that places a 3D avatar corresponding to a user through height and weight inputs in a 3D simulated space after the avatar is created, therefore providing a service to user equipment; Si-hyung, [Fig. 2], shows that the avatar is created, step S300, after the space is created, S100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, and Salman by placing an avatar corresponding to the user in the virtual reality space as taught by Si-Hyung. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to add this feature so the user can see what they would look like within the virtual space to provide a realistic experience similar to reality.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung disclose the method of Claim 6. The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann, Salman and Si-Hyung further disclose wherein
the providing the service controls an action of the avatar in the virtual reality space according to an input signal that is input from the user equipment, and implements contents corresponding to the action of the avatar in the virtual reality space (Si-hyung, [0019], describes moving the avatar according to the user’s selection order so that the user’s movement within the kitchen space can be confirmed, where user’s selection order reads on an input signal from the user equipment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method as taught by the combination of the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-Hyung by allowing the user to control the avatar within the virtual reality space as further taught by Si-Hyung. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to add this feature to provide a realistic experience similar to reality.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-Hyung in further view of the YouTube video, “How to change your avatar size in VRCHAT oculus quest 2” (See attached reference, “How to change your avatar size in VRCHAT oculus quest 2.pdf”), hereinafter referenced as the avatar size tutorial.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung, and in further view of the YouTube video, “How to change your avatar size in VRCHAT oculus quest 2” (See attached reference, “How to change your avatar size in VRCHAT oculus quest 2.pdf”), hereinafter referenced as the avatar size tutorial.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung disclose the method of Claim 7. The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung do not disclose the limitations of Claim 8, however, avatar size tutorial discloses wherein
the providing the service provides a front view based on eyes of the avatar within the virtual reality space (avatar size tutorial, [Image 1], shows a first-person point of view of a game within a virtual reality space), receives a height information of the avatar from the user equipment (avatar size tutorial, [Image 2, Image 4], shows user inputting height information), and adjusts a viewpoint based on the received height information (avatar size tutorial, [Image 3, Image 5], shows user viewpoint adjusted based off of the inputted height information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the virtual reality space as taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung by adjusting a user’s viewpoint based on height input as taught by the avatar size tutorial. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to make these modifications because provide a realistic experience similar to reality based on a user’s height input.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung, in further view of Mcgahan (US 2024/02063060 A1), hereinafter referenced as Mcgahan.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung disclose the method of Claim 7. The combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, and Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung further disclose wherein
the providing the service provides a user interface (UI) to change a (Si-hyung, [0053], describes a user terminal with an equipment type selection screen that allows a user to change the size and product options of selected virtual furniture and equipment),
when the avatar is placed inside the 3D building model (Si-hyung, [0051], describes when the user is inside the building, the model of the kitchen space is generated; Si-hyung, [0052], describes how the modeled kitchen space includes virtual furniture and equipment)
and one of the components of the 3D building model is selected from the user equipment (Si-hyung, [0053], describes a user terminal with a selection section that allows virtual furniture equipment to be selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by the combination of Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung by changing a selected component as further taught by Si-hyung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to impart user customization so users can visualize their ideal home while traversing the digital twin model home.
the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung do not disclose
the providing the service provides a user interface (UI) to change a location or design of a selected component and changes the location or design of the selected component according to an input from the user equipment through the user interface
However, Mcgahan discloses:
the providing the service provides a user interface (UI) to change a location or design of the selected component and changes the location or design of the selected component according to an input from the user equipment through the user interface (Mcgahan, [0021], describes a modeling system with a user interface responsive to user selection of a virtual object; Mcgahan, [0028], describes the user being able to change the design of the selected virtual component according to user input; Mcgahan, [0036], describes the user being able to change the location of a selected virtual component according to user input; Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image8.png
702
872
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method taught by the combination of Choi, Jung, Chmelar, Fuhrmann, Salman, and Si-hyung by providing a user interface (UI) to change a location or design of the selected component and changes the location or design of the selected component according to an input from the user equipment through the user interface as taught by Mcgahan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to make these modifications because editing the virtual model is quicker and cheaper than modifying a real building and it would help users visualize the possible modifications they could make to the building before investing the time and money into the project.
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 ISABELLA OCHSNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9322. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached at (571) 272-7515. 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.
/I.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights