DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103564 in view of Shimomura et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0375358 A1 and Miller, IV et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0188895.
Re: claims 1 and 7 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Hayashida teaches
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A display control apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to generate a virtual object to be placed in a first virtual space visually recognized by a user who is a sender of a message, the virtual object being related to the message; (“... the wearable type display device includes a head-mounted display (HMD) 123, and displays an image of the VR space to the user”; Hayashida, [0097], Fig. 1)
The HMD 123 displays an image of the VR space to the user (first virtual space visually recognized by a user).
(“The client device 120 receives VR space information which has been transmitted from the server apparatus 110. The client device 120 generates an image of the VR space when viewed from the user 140 (below referred to as “a visual field image”), based on the received VR space information and the acquired sensor data. The client device 120 transmits the generated visual field image... to the HMD 123.”; Hayashida, [0100])
The client device receives VR space information from the server and generates the VR space image when viewed from the user 140.
(“In step S905, the visual field image generation unit 704 generates a visual field image of the user 140 for an image of the VR space, which is included in the updated VR space information...”; Hayashida, [0176], Figs. 1 and 9)
A visual field image of the user 140 (virtual object) is generated for an image of the VR space (generate a virtual object to be placed in a first virtual space visually recognized by a user), which is included in the VR space information that is displayed on HMD 123 (first virtual space visually recognized by a user).
(“The VR space information generation portion 1002 generates VR space information which includes the generated image of the avatar.”; Hayashida, [0183], Fig. 10)
The generated VR space information includes the generated image of the avatar (generate a virtual object to be placed in a first virtual space).
(“The VR space information transmission portion 1003 transmits the VR space information generated by the VR space information generation portion 1002, to a client device except for the client device which is the transmission source and has transmitted the sensor data used for updating the VR space information.”; Hayashida, [0184])
The VR space information, which includes the avatar (virtual object) is transmitted to another client device. Hayashida is silent regarding a user who is a sender of a message, the virtual object being related to the message and a setter configured to set whether to permit a change in an appearance of the virtual object to be displayed in a second virtual space visually recognized by a user who is a recipient of the message, however, Shimomura teaches this limitation.
(“The class system illustrated in Fig. 1 includes a communication class server 10 and a plurality of student terminals 30.”; Shimomura, [0023])
Fig. 1 illustrates a class system that includes a class server 10 and plural student terminals 30.
(“Any computer having a VR function can be used as the student terminal 30. The student terminal 30 is connected to a head-mounted display (HMD) that is worn by the student to view the inside of the virtual space...”; Shimomura, [0024])
Each student terminal is connected to an HMD that is worn by the student, to view the virtual space.
(“The student terminal 30 receives information for viewing the class in the virtual space from the communication class server 10 and displays the information on the HMD.”; Shimomura, [0026])
The student terminal receives information for viewing the class in the virtual space and displays the information on the HMD.
(“A classroom display 11, a broadcast camera 12, a teacher terminal 13, a microphone 14, and a speaker 15 are connected to the communication class server 10... The communication class server 10 creates class content of the class conducted in the virtual space on the basis of the information received from the connected device and distributes the class content to the student terminal 30.”; Shimomura, [0027])
The teacher terminal 13 and the classroom display 11 are connected to the class server 10. The server creates class content (message) conducted in the virtual space based on information received from a connected device, such as the teacher terminal (user who is a sender of the message). The server then distributes the class content (message) to the student terminal 30 (second virtual space).
Hayashida and Shimomura are silent regarding an acquirer configured to acquire virtual space information for distinguishing whether the second virtual space is a virtual reality space, an augmented reality space, or a mixed reality space, however, Miller teaches
acquire virtual space information for distinguishing whether the second virtual space is a virtual reality space, an augmented reality space, or a mixed reality space; (“An avatar can be animated based on its human counterpart, where a human’s interaction is mapped to its avatar. A one-to-one mapping between a user and an avatar can be employed in an AR/VR/MR environment, such that the avatar’s action is a direct mapping to a user’s action... This one-to-one mapping may work in a VR environment because the participants of the VR environment (including the user’s virtual avatar) are seeing the same shared virtual content. However, in an AR/MR environment, each user’s physical environment and the way the other user’s avatar appears within it might be different, because the two (or more) users may be in very different environments. For example, Bob might be in a living room in a house, and Alice might be in a room in an office building... As another example, since avatars are virtual objects and can be resizable, Bob can shrink the size of Alice’s avatar and place it on a table in his living room, whereas Alice might be in a large office room and may choose to have Bob’s avatar stand in the corner and be life-sized.”; Miller, [0055])
The system determines that a one-to-one mapping between a user and an avatar may work in a VR environment, but does not work in a AR or MR environment. When the user is in an AR/MR environment (distinguishing whether the second virtual space is a virtual reality space, an augmented reality space, or a mixed reality space), the avatar (virtual object) is resizable. For example, in Bob’s AR/MR environment (second virtual space), the size of Alice’s avatar is reduced in size and placed on a table (Fig. 13B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system of Hayashida by adding the feature of acquire virtual space information for distinguishing whether the second virtual space is a virtual reality space, an augmented reality space, or a mixed reality space, in order to automatically scale the avatar in a manner that increases or maximizes direct eye contact based on the contextual information to facilitate avatar-human communication, as taught by Miller ([0054]).
Hayashida is silent regarding set, based on the virtual space information, whether to permit a change in an appearance of the virtual object to be displayed in a second virtual space visually recognized by a user who is a recipient of the message, such that the processing circuitry denies permission to change the appearance of the virtual object when the virtual space indicates that the second virtual space is being used, however, Shimomura and Miller teach
and set, based on the virtual space information, whether to permit a change in an appearance of the virtual object to be displayed in a second virtual space visually recognized by a user who is a recipient of the message, such that the processing circuitry denies permission to change the appearance of the virtual object when the virtual space indicates that the second virtual space is being used. (“The teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to change the orientation of the teaching material object displayed on the student terminal 30, to change the size of the teaching material object, or to deform the teaching material object... Further, the teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to give permission to operate the teaching material object to the student or to prohibit the operation of the teaching material object.”; Shimomura, [0032])
The teacher may operate, i.e., to change the orientation, size or to deform (change the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material object, at the teacher terminal (first virtual space). The teacher operates the teacher terminal to prohibit or to give permission to the student to operate, at the student terminal (second virtual space), the teaching material object (set, based on the virtual space information, whether to permit the change the appearance of the virtual object). If the teacher operates the teacher terminal to prohibit the student from operating the teaching material object, then the processing circuitry does not allow (denies permission) the student to operate (change the appearance of the virtual object) at the student terminal (when the virtual space indicates that the second virtual space is being used). Hayashida and Shimomura are silent regarding , however, Miller teaches the setting being based on the virtual space information
(“The avatar autoscaler 692, the intent mapping system 694, and the stimuli response system 696, and anatomy adjustment system 698 can be configured to determine the avatar’s characteristics based on contextual information. Some example characteristics of the avatar can include the size, appearance, position, orientation, movement, pose, expression, etc. The autoscaler 692 can be configured to automatically scale the avatar such that the user does not have to look at the avatar at an uncomfortable pose. For example, the avatar autoscaler 692 can increase or decrease the size of the avatar to bring the avatar to the user’s eye level such that the user does not need to look down at the avatar or look up at the avatar respectively.”; Miller, [0134])
When the virtual environment is an AR/MR environment (when the virtual space indicates that the second virtual space is being used), the avatar autoscaler increases or decreases the size of the avatar (changes the appearance of the virtual object) to bring the avatar to the user’s eye level. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system of Hayashida by adding the feature of set, based on the virtual space information, whether to permit a change in an appearance of the virtual object to be displayed in a second virtual space visually recognized by a user who is a recipient of the message, such that the processing circuitry denies permission to change the appearance of the virtual object when the virtual space indicates that the second virtual space is being used, in order to promote the understanding of students in a class conducted in an immersive virtual space, as taught by Shimomura ([0009]) and in order to automatically scale the avatar in a manner that increases or maximizes direct eye contact based on the contextual information to facilitate avatar-human communication, as taught by Miller ([0054]).
Re: claim 4, Hayashida, Shimomura and Miller teach
Claim 4. (Currently Amended) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the change in the appearance is permitted, the processing circuitry is configured to further: set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object. (“The teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to change the orientation of the teaching material object displayed on the student terminal 30, to change the size of the teaching material object, or to deform the teaching material object... Further, the teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to give permission to operate the teaching material object to the student or to prohibit the operation of the teaching material object.”; Shimomura, [0032])
The teacher may operate, i.e., change the orientation, size or to deform (change the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material object. The teacher operates the teacher terminal to prohibit or to give permission to the student to operate (set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material (virtual object). For example, when the teacher gives permission to the student to, for example, deform the teaching material object (virtual object), this changes a portion of the appearance of the virtual object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system of Hayashida by adding the feature of wherein when the change in the appearance is permitted, the processing circuitry is configured to further: set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object, in order to promote the understanding of students in a class conducted in an immersive virtual space, as taught by Shimomura ([0009]).
Re: claim 5, Hayashida, Shimomura and Miller teach
Claim 5. (Currently Amended) The display control apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein when the change in the appearance is permitted, the processing circuitry is configured to further: set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object. (“The teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to change the orientation of the teaching material object displayed on the student terminal 30, to change the size of the teaching material object, or to deform the teaching material object... Further, the teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to give permission to operate the teaching material object to the student or to prohibit the operation of the teaching material object.”; Shimomura, [0032])
The teacher may operate, i.e., to deform (change the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material object. The teacher operates the teacher terminal to prohibit or to give permission to the student to operate (set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material (virtual object). For example, deforming the teaching material object (virtual object) changes the appearance of a portion of the virtual object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system of Hayashida by adding the feature of when the change in the appearance is permitted, the processing circuitry is configured to further: set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object, in order to promote the understanding of students in a class conducted in an immersive virtual space, as taught by Shimomura ([0009]).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida, Shimomura and Miller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wyble et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0237913.
Re: claim 3, Hayashida, Shimomura and Miller teach
Claim 3. (Currently Amended) The display control apparatus according to claim 1 , , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire illumination information indicative of illuminance in a real space in which the recipient of the message is present , and wherein when the second virtual space is an augmented reality space or a mixed reality space and the processing circuitry permits the change in the appearance, the processing circuitry is configured to change, based on the illuminance information, at least one of brightness, saturation, and hue of a color of the virtual object in the second virtual space . (“The teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to change the orientation of the teaching material object displayed on the student terminal 30, to change the size of the teaching material object, or to deform the teaching material object... Further, the teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to give permission to operate the teaching material object to the student or to prohibit the operation of the teaching material object.”; Shimomura, [0032])
The teacher may operate, i.e., to change the orientation, size or to deform (change the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material object, at the teacher terminal (first virtual space). The teacher operates the teacher terminal to prohibit or to give permission to the student to operate, at the student terminal (second virtual space), the teaching material object. If the teacher operates the teacher terminal to permit the student to operate the teaching material object, then the processing circuitry does allows the student to operate (change the appearance of the virtual object) at the student terminal (when the virtual space indicates that the second virtual space is being used). Hayashida and Shimomura are silent regarding the second virtual space is a augmented reality space or a mixed reality space, however, Miller teaches this limitation.
(“An avatar can be animated based on its human counterpart, where a human’s interaction is mapped to its avatar. A one-to-one mapping between a user and an avatar can be employed in an AR/VR/MR environment, such that the avatar’s action is a direct mapping to a user’s action... This one-to-one mapping may work in a VR environment because the participants of the VR environment (including the user’s virtual avatar) are seeing the same shared virtual content. However, in an AR/MR environment, each user’s physical environment and the way the other user’s avatar appears within it might be different, because the two (or more) users may be in very different environments. For example, Bob might be in a living room in a house, and Alice might be in a room in an office building... As another example, since avatars are virtual objects and can be resizable, Bob can shrink the size of Alice’s avatar and place it on a table in his living room, whereas Alice might be in a large office room and may choose to have Bob’s avatar stand in the corner and be life-sized.”; Miller, [0055])
The system determines that a one-to-one mapping between a user and an avatar may work in a VR environment, but does not work in a AR or MR environment. When the user is in an AR/MR environment, the avatar (virtual object) is resizable. For example, in Bob’s AR/MR environment (second virtual space), the size of Alice’s avatar is reduced in size and placed on a table (Fig. 13B) (when the second virtual space is an augmented reality space or a mixed reality space and the processing circuitry permits the change in the appearance). Hayashida, Shimomura and Miller are silent regarding the processing circuitry is configured to acquire illumination information indicative of illuminance in a real space in which the recipient of the message is present,... the processing circuitry is configured to change based on the illuminance information, at least one of brightness, saturation, and hue of a color of the virtual object in the second virtual space, however, Wyble teaches this limitation.
(“The head-mounted display of FIG. 8 includes a forward-facing camera 810 that operates to assist in tracking the current orientation of the users head... the forward-facing camera is also used to measure the optical properties (e.g. the illuminance) of the current real-world scene... one or more separate illuminance sensors are used to measure optical properties of the scene. A control module 812 controls the display 802. The control module 812 may use information on the illuminance... of the scene to control the brightness of the virtual content displayed on the LCD. ”; Wyble, [0107], Fig. 8)
Fig. 8 illustrates a head-mounted display that measures the illuminance of the current real-world scene (acquire illumination information indicative of illuminance in a real space in which the recipient of the message is present). The control module uses the illuminance information (based on the illuminance information) of the scene to control (change) the brightness of the virtual content (change... at least one of brightness, saturation, and hue of a color of the virtual object) displayed on the LCD. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system of Hayashida by adding the feature of the processing circuitry is configured to acquire illumination information indicative of illuminance in a real space in which the recipient of the message is present, and wherein when the second virtual space is an augmented reality space or a mixed reality space and the processing circuitry permits the change in the appearance, the processing circuitry is configured to change, based on the illuminance information, at least one of brightness, saturation, and hue of a color of the virtual object in the second virtual space, in order to promote the understanding of students in a class conducted in an immersive virtual space, as taught by Shimomura ([0009]) and in order to automatically scale the avatar in a manner that increases or maximizes direct eye contact based on the contextual information to facilitate avatar-human communication, as taught by Miller ([0054]) and in order to modify or enhance content seen on an external display for compatibility with the virtual content to be displayed in the AR/MR display, as taught by Wyble ([0066]).
Re: claim 6, Hayashida, Shimomura, Miller and Wyble teach
Claim 6. (Currently Amended) The display control apparatus according to claim 3 wherein: when the change in the appearance is permitted, the processing circuitry set whether a change is permitted only in (“The teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to change the orientation of the teaching material object displayed on the student terminal 30, to change the size of the teaching material object, or to deform the teaching material object... Further, the teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to give permission to operate the teaching material object to the student or to prohibit the operation of the teaching material object.”; Shimomura, [0032])
The teacher may operate, i.e., to deform (change the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material object. The teacher operates the teacher terminal to prohibit or to give permission to the student to operate (set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material (virtual object). For example, deforming the teaching material object (virtual object) changes the appearance of a portion of the virtual object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system of Hayashida by adding the feature of when the change in the appearance is permitted, the processing circuitry is configured to further: set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object, in order to promote the understanding of students in a class conducted in an immersive virtual space, as taught by Shimomura ([0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection, filed 4/07/2026, with respect to Objection to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Specification of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection, filed 4/07/2026, with respect to Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C § 112(f) of claims 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C § 112(f) of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Previous Claim 2 (now applicable to amended Claim 1) defined that the permission is set based on virtual space information. The Examiner relied on Miller to disclose setting an avatar based on whether it is being used in a VR environment or an AR environment. However, the combination of Havashida, Shimomura and Miller does not explicitly indicate that the permission may be denied if the virtual space information indicates that a virtual reality space is being used. Therefore, Havashida, Shimomura and Miller fail to disclose or suggest all of "generate a virtual object to be placed in a first virtual space visually recognized by a user who is a sender of a message, the virtual object being related to the message; acquire virtual space information for distinguishing whether the second virtual space is a virtual reality space, an augmented reality space, or a mixed reality space; and set, based on the virtual space information, whether to permit a change in an appearance of the virtual object to be displayed in a second virtual space visually recognized by a user who is a recipient of the message, such that the processing circuitry denies permission to change the appearance of the virtual object when the virtual space information indicates that the second virtual space is being used," as recited in amended Claim 1. ”
Examiner disagrees. Shimomura teaches that the teacher may operate, i.e., to change the orientation, size or to deform (change the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material object, at the teacher terminal (first virtual space). The teacher operates the teacher terminal to prohibit or to give permission to the student to operate, at the student terminal (second virtual space), the teaching material object (set, based on the virtual space information, whether to permit the change the appearance of the virtual object). If the teacher operates the teacher terminal to prohibit the student from operating the teaching material object, then the processing circuitry does not allow (denies permission) the student to operate (change the appearance of the virtual object) at the student terminal (when the virtual space indicates that the second virtual space is being used). (Shimomura, [0032]). And, Miller teaches, when the virtual environment is an AR/MR environment (when the virtual space indicates that the second virtual space is being used), the avatar autoscaler increases or decreases the size of the avatar (changes the appearance of the virtual object) to bring the avatar to the user’s eye level. (Miller, [0134]).
Applicant's arguments filed 4/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“New Claim 7 recites features analogous to those of amended Claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1 and 9 (and all associated dependent claims) patentably distinguish over Havashida, Shimomura and Miller, either alone or in proper combination.”
Examiner disagrees. Claims 1 and 7 have been rejected. Please see the corresponding rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“With respect to the rejection of Claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. §103, Applicant respectfully submits that the present amendment overcomes this ground of rejection.... Applicant submits that each of Hayashida, Shimomura and Miller is silent with respect to amended Claims 3 to 6. Regarding amended Claim 3, Miller discloses in paragraph [0196] and Figs 12B and 14 that the wearable system 200 can adjust the height of Alice's avatar. However, Miller is silent with respect to the subject matter of amended claim 3, which recites: "when the second virtual space is an augmented reality space or a mixed reality space and the processing circuitry permits the change in the appearance, the processing circuitry is configured to change, based on the illuminance information, at least one of brightness, saturation, and hue of a color of the virtual object in the second virtual space." ”
Examiner disagrees. Miller an Wyble teach the above limitation. Miller teaches that the system determines that a one-to-one mapping between a user and an avatar may work in a VR environment, but does not work in a AR or MR environment. When the user is in an AR/MR environment, the avatar (virtual object) is resizable. For example, in Bob’s AR/MR environment (second virtual space), the size of Alice’s avatar is reduced in size and placed on a table (Fig. 13B) (when the second virtual space is an augmented reality space or a mixed reality space and the processing circuitry permits the change in the appearance). (Miller, [0055]). And, Wyble illustrates, in Fig. 8, a head-mounted display that measures the illuminance of the current real-world scene (acquire illumination information indicative of illuminance in a real space in which the recipient of the message is present). The control module uses the illuminance information (based on the illuminance information) of the scene to control (change) the brightness of the virtual content (change... at least one of brightness, saturation, and hue of a color of the virtual object) displayed on the LCD. (Wyble, [0107], Fig. 8)
Applicant's arguments filed 4/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Regarding amended Claims 4 to 6, Shimomura discloses in paragraph [0032] that the teacher 40 may operate the teacher terminal 13 to give permission to operate the teaching material object to the student or to prohibit the operation of the teaching material object. However, Shimomura is silent with respect to the subject matter of amended Claims 4 to 6, which each recite: "when the change in the appearance is permitted, the processing circuitry is configured to further set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object." Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that each of amended Claims 3-6 patentably distinguish over Hayashida, Shimomura and Miller, either alone or in proper combination, and therefore should be indicated as having allowable subject matter. Consequently, in light of the above discussion and in view of the present amendment, the outstanding grounds for rejection are believed to have been overcome. The present application is believed to be in condition for formal allowance.”
Examiner disagrees. Shimomura teaches these limitations. Shimomura teaches that the teacher may operate, i.e., change the orientation, size or to deform (change the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material object. The teacher operates the teacher terminal to prohibit or to give permission to the student to operate (set whether a change is permitted only in part of the appearance of the virtual object) the teaching material (virtual object). For example, when the teacher gives permission to the student to, for example, deform the teaching material object (virtual object), this changes a portion of the appearance of the virtual object. (Shimomura, [0032]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNA J RICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-7532. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5pm EST (alternate Fridays off).
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 on 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Donna J. Ricks/Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights