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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT/JP2022/024969. Priority to PCT/JP2022/024969 with a priority date of June 22, 2022 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Response to Amendments
This action is in response to the amendment filed on June 03, 2026.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-11 remain rejected in the application.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over US Patent Application Publication US 20210023718 A1, (YONEYAMA) (hereinafter “Yoneyama”) in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication JP 2012033119 A, (KUREYAMA FUMIKO) (hereinafter “Kureyama”), and further in view of US Patent Application Publication US 20200225830 A1, (TANG et al.) (hereinafter “Tang”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoneyama teaches a processing device, comprising: (Yoneyama “[0026] …The three-dimensional data generation device 1 is constituted by a known computing device comprising a processor such as a CPU (central processing unit) or FPGA (field-programmable gate array)…”)
a screen, a measurement point cloud display unit for displaying in 3D a point cloud including a target measured by a 3D camera on the screen, an area model display unit for displaying in 3D…on the screen, (Yoneyama “[0027-0028] …and the three-dimensional point cloud data may be, for example, point cloud data generated by a TOF (time of flight) camera or a laser scanner…and the three-dimensional sensor may be, for example, a stereo camera, a TOF camera, a laser scanner, or the like. The origin O1 of the virtual space 20, the origin O2 of the virtual workpiece 21, the original O3 of the virtual vision sensor 22, and the origin O4 of the virtual robot 23 are set in the virtual space 20, and the three-dimensional data is configured to be coordinate-transformed between the respective orthogonal coordinate systems centered on the origins O1 to O4.”; “[0035] FIG. 1, the three-dimensional data generation device 1 may further comprise an imaging range setting section 13 and an imaging range display section 14. The imaging range setting section 13 displays a set image plane of the imaging range 26 of the virtual vision sensor 22 on a monitor, whereby the imaging range 26 can be set by a teacher…”)
However, Yoneyama is silent about …an area model…a positioning unit for changing a position and posture of the area model displayed by the area model display unit to position the area model…such that the point cloud of the target is at least partially surrounded by the area model, and a setting unit for setting an area in the screen surrounded by the area model positioned by the positioning unit as a model of the target.
Kureyama teaches …an area model… (Kureyama “[0026] In selecting model candidates in step 1050, as shown in FIG. 7, the marker arrangement (derived from actual measurement) output in step S1040 is compared with the marker arrangement of the model registered in advance (registered together with the CG model). Then, a CG model in which the marker is arranged within a predetermined allowable range of the marker position deviation, for example, within 5 cm, is extracted and set as a model candidate.”)
a positioning unit for changing a position and posture of the area model displayed by the area model display unit to position the area model…such that the point cloud of the target is at least partially surrounded by the area model, and (Kureyama Figs. 8 & 9, “[0008] To model the indoor environment acquired with a point cloud, first recognize the location of the object, then select the model that matches the point cloud at that location, and change the model to the correct position and orientation...”; “[0010] A marker position output unit that extracts a region with strength and stores it as a marker region with the coordinate value, and a neighborhood that searches for a marker near the marker and stores the coordinate value of the searched marker as a marker location…”)
a setting unit for setting an area in the screen surrounded by the area model positioned by the positioning unit as a model of the target (Kureyama “[0010] A marker search unit, a marker arrangement calculated from the point group, and a model candidate extraction unit that extracts a three-dimensional CG model having a marker with a similar arrangement by collating the marker arrangement of the input three-dimensional CG model group with a marker; By matching the marker of the 3D CG model with the extracted marker to the marker arrangement calculated from the point cloud, the 3D CG model position and orientation A model initial position calculation unit that is temporarily determined, a model verification unit that performs processing for verifying a three-dimensional CG model installed at the initial position of the calculation model with point cloud data, and a three-dimensional CG model with the least verification error…”)
However, Yoneyama and Kureyama are silent about …including at least one operation point…by performing at least one of translating, rotating, enlarging and reducing the area model in response to a drag operation on the at least one operation point.
Tang teaches …including at least one operation point…by performing at least one of translating, rotating, enlarging and reducing the area model in response to a drag operation on the at least one operation point (Tang Fig. 3, “[0030] …the large virtual object 48 may be selected by the user to become a virtual interaction object 58 and thus be reduced in size for the convenience of the user . It will be appreciated that generation and display of virtual interaction object 58 may also happen automatically depending on the settings of the system 10 as more of the control points 52 are outside of the user's field of view 50 and / or the predetermined threshold distance 54.”; “[0028] The plurality of virtual interaction objects 58 may include at least one of a pinchable object 62 , handles 70 associated with the virtual object 48 , at least one virtual button 64 , a bounding box 72 , a control widget 66 , and a 9 context menu 68 , as shown in FIGS . 5A to 5F respectively.”) The Examiner would like to note that Tang shows a user grabbing an area model in Fig. 5B, where the handles 70 allow the user to move the area model. Tang also shows a user changing the position and posture of an area model in Fig. 5E, where the control widget 66 allows a user to change the posture and position of the area model through control points 52.
Yoneyama, Kureyama, and Tang are analogous art as all of them are related to object interaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoneyama by …an area model…a positioning unit for changing a position and posture of the area model displayed by the area model display unit to position the area model…such that the point cloud of the target is at least partially surrounded by the area model, and a setting unit for setting an area in the screen surrounded by the area model positioned by the positioning unit as a model of the target as taught by Kureyama and by …including at least one operation point…by performing at least one of translating, rotating, enlarging and reducing the area model in response to a drag operation on the at least one operation point as taught by Tang and use that within Yoneyama’s workpiece arrangement system.
The motivation for the above is for accurate object detection.
Claim 9 is directed to a processing method, comprising the steps of: (Yoneyama “[0026] …The three-dimensional data generation device 1 is constituted by a known computing device comprising a processor such as a CPU (central processing unit) or FPGA (field-programmable gate array)…”) and its steps are substantially similar to the scope and functions performed by the device claim 1 and therefore claim 9 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Yoneyama and Tang are silent about wherein the area model is a rectangular parallelepiped, a sphere, or a capsule.
Kureyama teaches wherein the area model is a rectangular parallelepiped, a sphere, or a capsule (Kureyama Figs. 8 and 9, “[0019] The model candidate extraction unit 220 performs a matching process between the marker arrangement 103 extracted from the point group and the marker arrangements of all the three-dimensional models 110 with markers…”)
Yoneyama, Kureyama, and Tang are analogous art as all of them are related to object interaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoneyama by wherein the area model is a rectangular parallelepiped, a sphere, or a capsule as taught by Kureyama and use that within Yoneyama’s workpiece arrangement system.
The motivation for the above is for accurate object detection.
Regarding claim 3, Yoneyama and Kureyama are silent about wherein the area model has at least one of an operation point for changing a size of the area model and an operation point for changing a position and posture of the area model.
Tang teaches wherein the area model has at least one of an operation point for changing a size of the area model and an operation point for changing a position and posture of the area model (Tang Fig. 3, “[0030] …the large virtual object 48 may be selected by the user to become a virtual interaction object 58 and thus be reduced in size for the convenience of the user . It will be appreciated that generation and display of virtual interaction object 58 may also happen automatically depending on the settings of the system 10 as more of the control points 52 are outside of the user's field of view 50 and / or the predetermined threshold distance 54.”; “[0028] The plurality of virtual interaction objects 58 may include at least one of a pinchable object 62 , handles 70 associated with the virtual object 48 , at least one virtual button 64 , a bounding box 72 , a control widget 66 , and a 9 context menu 68 , as shown in FIGS . 5A to 5F respectively.”) The Examiner would like to note that Tang shows a user grabbing an area model in Fig. 5B, where the handles 70 allow the user to move the area model. Tang also shows a user changing the position and posture of an area model in Fig. 5E, where the control widget 66 allows a user to change the posture and position of the area model through control points 52.
Yoneyama, Kureyama, and Tang are analogous art as all of them are related to object interaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoneyama modified by Kureyama by wherein the area model has at least one of an operation point for changing a size of the area model and an operation point for changing a position and posture of the area model as taught by Tang and use that within Yoneyama’s workpiece arrangement system.
The motivation for the above is for accurate object display.
Regarding claim 4, Yoneyama is silent about comprising an input unit for inputting a position, posture, and size of the area model.
Kureyama teaches comprising an input unit for inputting a position, posture, of the area model (Kureyama “[0032] First, collation processing is performed from model number m = 1. It is necessary to set the initial position / posture of the CG model m as a pre-process of the collation process. Therefore, in step S1071, as shown in FIG. 8, the position / posture of the CG model is set so that the marker arrangement of the model (registered together with the CG model) matches the marker arrangement of the point group (derived from actual measurement).change…By giving the initial value of the position and orientation in advance, the collation process between the point group and the CG model can be facilitated and the accuracy can be improved…since the alignment is simply performed in advance by using the marker arrangement, an approximate initial position can be automatically set.”; “[0010] A marker search unit, a marker arrangement calculated from the point group, and a model candidate extraction unit that extracts a three-dimensional CG model having a marker with a similar arrangement by collating the marker arrangement of the input three-dimensional CG model group with a marker; By matching the marker of the 3D CG model with the extracted marker to the marker arrangement calculated from the point cloud…”)
However, Kureyama is silent about size.
Tang teaches size (Tang Fig. 3, “[0030] …the large virtual object 48 may be selected by the user to become a virtual interaction object 58 and thus be reduced in size for the convenience of the user . It will be appreciated that generation and display of virtual interaction object 58 may also happen automatically depending on the settings of the system 10 as more of the control points 52 are outside of the user's field of view 50 and / or the predetermined threshold distance 54.”)
Yoneyama, Kureyama, and Tang are analogous art as all of them are related to object interaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoneyama by comprising an input unit for inputting a position, posture, of the area model as taught by Kureyama and size as taught by Tang and use that within Yoneyama’s workpiece arrangement system.
The motivation for the above is for accurate object display.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Yoneyama and Tang are silent about an additional area model in 3D on the screen, and the positioning unit changes a position and posture of the additional area model displayed by the area model display unit to position the additional area model such that the point cloud of the target is at least partially surrounded by the area model and the additional area model.
Kureyama teaches an additional area model in 3D on the screen, and (Kureyama Figs. 8 and 9, “[0019] The model candidate extraction unit 220 performs a matching process between the marker arrangement 103 extracted from the point group and the marker arrangements of all the three-dimensional models 110 with markers…”)
the positioning unit changes a position and posture of the additional area model displayed by the area model display unit to position the additional area model such that the point cloud of the target is at least partially surrounded by the area model and the additional area model (Kureyama Fig. 9, “[0019] The model candidate extraction unit 220 performs a matching process between the marker arrangement 103 extracted from the point group and the marker arrangements of all the three-dimensional models 110 with markers…”; “[0008] To model the indoor environment acquired with a point cloud, first recognize the location of the object, then select the model that matches the point cloud at that location, and change the model to the correct position and orientation...”; “[0010] A marker position output unit that extracts a region with strength and stores it as a marker region with the coordinate value, and a neighborhood that searches for a marker near the marker and stores the coordinate value of the searched marker as a marker location…”)
Yoneyama, Kureyama, and Tang are analogous art as all of them are related to object interaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoneyama by an additional area model in 3D on the screen, and the positioning unit changes a position and posture of the additional area model displayed by the area model display unit to position the additional area model such that the point cloud of the target is at least partially surrounded by the area model and the additional area model as taught by Kureyama and use that within Yoneyama’s workpiece arrangement system.
The motivation for the above is for accurate object detection.
Regarding claim 8, Yoneyama teaches a processing system, comprising: the processing device according to claim 1, and the 3D camera (Yoneyama “[0026] …The three-dimensional data generation device 1 is constituted by a known computing device comprising a processor such as a CPU (central processing unit) or FPGA (field-programmable gate array)…”; “[0027-0028] …and the three-dimensional point cloud data may be, for example, point cloud data generated by a TOF (time of flight) camera or a laser scanner…”)
Claims 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Yoneyama, Kureyama, and Tang as applied to claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication US 20210129342 A1, (ANDO) (hereinafter “Ando”).
Regarding claim 5, Yoneyama, Kureyama, and Tang are silent about comprising a color change unit for changing a color of at least one of the point cloud of the target and the area model.
Ando teaches comprising a color change unit for changing a color of at least one of the point cloud of the target and the area model (Ando “[0018] FIG. 5 illustrates two-dimensional camera images for describing a situation in which a complementary color setting unit changes the color of the non-workpiece region in the two-dimensional camera image illustrated in FIG. 4 to white…”; “[0040] As in the case of FIG. 4, the color of the workpiece region P11 is near-black gray and the non-workpiece region P12 has a mesh pattern in the two-dimensional camera image P1 illustrated in FIG. 5…”; “[0041] FIG. 6 illustrates two-dimensional camera images for describing a situation in which the complementary color setting unit changes the color of a non-workpiece region to black. In a two-dimensional camera image P3 illustrated in FIG. 6, the color of the workpiece 500 is white, the color of a workpiece region P31 is white, and a non-workpiece region P32 has a mesh pattern.”)
Yoneyama, Kureyama, Tang, and Ando are analogous art as all of them are related to object interaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoneyama modified by Kureyama modified by Tang by comprising a color change unit for changing a color of at least one of the point cloud of the target and the area model as taught by Ando and use that within Yoneyama’s workpiece arrangement system.
The motivation for the above is for accurate object display.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Yoneyama and Tang are silent about an additional area model in 3D on the screen, and the positioning unit changes a position and posture of the additional area model displayed by the area model display unit to position the additional area model such that point clouds unnecessary for at least partially surrounding the point cloud of the target by the area model are masked by the additional area model.
Kureyama teaches an additional area model in 3D on the screen, and (Kureyama Figs. 8 and 9, “[0019] The model candidate extraction unit 220 performs a matching process between the marker arrangement 103 extracted from the point group and the marker arrangements of all the three-dimensional models 110 with markers…”)
the positioning unit changes a position and posture of the additional area model displayed by the area model display unit to position the additional area model (Kureyama Fig. 9, “[0019] The model candidate extraction unit 220 performs a matching process between the marker arrangement 103 extracted from the point group and the marker arrangements of all the three-dimensional models 110 with markers…”; “[0008] To model the indoor environment acquired with a point cloud, first recognize the location of the object, then select the model that matches the point cloud at that location, and change the model to the correct position and orientation...”; “[0010] A marker position output unit that extracts a region with strength and stores it as a marker region with the coordinate value, and a neighborhood that searches for a marker near the marker and stores the coordinate value of the searched marker as a marker location…”)
However, Yoneyama, Kureyama, and Tang are silent about such that point clouds unnecessary for at least partially surrounding the point cloud of the target by the area model are masked by the additional area model.
Ando teaches such that point clouds unnecessary for at least partially surrounding the point cloud of the target by the area model are masked by the additional area model (Ando “[0018] FIG. 5 illustrates two-dimensional camera images for describing a situation in which a complementary color setting unit changes the color of the non-workpiece region in the two-dimensional camera image illustrated in FIG. 4 to white…”; “[0040] As in the case of FIG. 4, the color of the workpiece region P11 is near-black gray and the non-workpiece region P12 has a mesh pattern in the two-dimensional camera image P1 illustrated in FIG. 5…”; “[0041] FIG. 6 illustrates two-dimensional camera images for describing a situation in which the complementary color setting unit changes the color of a non-workpiece region to black. In a two-dimensional camera image P3 illustrated in FIG. 6, the color of the workpiece 500 is white, the color of a workpiece region P31 is white, and a non-workpiece region P32 has a mesh pattern.”)
Yoneyama, Kureyama, Tang, and Ando are analogous art as all of them are related to object interaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoneyama by an additional area model in 3D on the screen, and the positioning unit changes a position and posture of the additional area model displayed by the area model display unit to position the additional area model as taught by Kureyama and such that point clouds unnecessary for at least partially surrounding the point cloud of the target by the area model are masked by the additional area model as taught by Ando and use that within Yoneyama’s workpiece arrangement system.
The motivation for the above is for accurate object display.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: The applied art for claims 1-2, 7-9, and 11 rejected under 103 as being obvious over Yoneyama in view of Kureyama, fail to provide a processing device and processing method having the combination of features recited in the claims of Applicant’s application.
Examiner replies: The previous independent claims (1 and 9) addressed in the non-final office action of 05/21/2026 did not have the newly added limitations and therefore, Tang has been provided to teach the amended claims of 06/03/2026. Tang teaches …including at least one operation point…by performing at least one of translating, rotating, enlarging and reducing the area model in response to a drag operation on the at least one operation point (Tang Fig. 3, “[0030] …the large virtual object 48 may be selected by the user to become a virtual interaction object 58 and thus be reduced in size for the convenience of the user . It will be appreciated that generation and display of virtual interaction object 58 may also happen automatically depending on the settings of the system 10 as more of the control points 52 are outside of the user's field of view 50 and / or the predetermined threshold distance 54.”; “[0028] The plurality of virtual interaction objects 58 may include at least one of a pinchable object 62 , handles 70 associated with the virtual object 48 , at least one virtual button 64 , a bounding box 72 , a control widget 66 , and a 9 context menu 68 , as shown in FIGS . 5A to 5F respectively.”). The Examiner would like to note that Tang shows a user grabbing an area model in Fig. 5B, where the handles 70 allow the user to move the area model. Tang also shows a user changing the position and posture of an area model in Fig. 5E, where the control widget 66 allows a user to change the posture and position of the area model through control points 52. Therefore, all claims remain rejected.
Applicant argues: Kureyama does not disclose an operation in which a user drags a region model, as disclosed and recited in the Applicant’s application.
Examiner replies: The previous independent claims (1 and 9) addressed in the non-final office action of 05/21/2026 did not have the newly added limitations. Specifically, the previous claims 1 and 9 did not disclose “an operation in which a user drags a region model”. Tang has been provided to teach the amended claims of 06/03/2026. Tang teaches …including at least one operation point…by performing at least one of translating, rotating, enlarging and reducing the area model in response to a drag operation on the at least one operation point (Tang Fig. 3, “[0030] …the large virtual object 48 may be selected by the user to become a virtual interaction object 58 and thus be reduced in size for the convenience of the user . It will be appreciated that generation and display of virtual interaction object 58 may also happen automatically depending on the settings of the system 10 as more of the control points 52 are outside of the user's field of view 50 and / or the predetermined threshold distance 54.”; “[0028] The plurality of virtual interaction objects 58 may include at least one of a pinchable object 62 , handles 70 associated with the virtual object 48 , at least one virtual button 64 , a bounding box 72 , a control widget 66 , and a 9 context menu 68 , as shown in FIGS . 5A to 5F respectively.”). The Examiner would like to note that Tang shows a user grabbing an area model in Fig. 5B, where the handles 70 allow the user to move the area model. Tang also shows a user changing the position and posture of an area model in Fig. 5E, where the control widget 66 allows a user to change the posture and position of the area model through control points 52. Therefore, all claims remain rejected.
Applicant argues: Neither Tang and Ando teach the recited features of independent claim 1, even if Yoneyama and Kureyama were modified by the teachings of Tang or Ando, as suggested in the Office Action and for which Applicant does not concede there is motivation to do, any result of the suggested combination would not provide a processing device having each of the features of the positioning unit and setting unit recited in Applicant’s amended, independent claim 1.
Examiner replies: Yoneyama combined with Kureyama and Tang teach the amended independent claims 1 and 9. The Applicant has not provided a reasonable argument to why or how the suggested combination would not provide a processing device having the features of the independent claim 1. Applicant’s argument amounts to an argument that the prior art devices are not combinable, in that combining the references as described would render the prior art devices unsatisfactory. However, as stated in MPEP § 2145(III), combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and in many cases will be able to fit teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle (See MPEP § 2141.03). That is, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the teachings of Yoneyama, Kureyama, and Tang. Given this creativity, the ability to fit teachings of multiple patents together like the pieces of a puzzle, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the teachings in such a way that it would not render the prior art devices inoperable for their intended purpose, as there are more ways than those proposed by Applicant to combine the references. Therefore, all claims remain rejected.
Regarding the remaining arguments: Applicant argues with respect to the amended claim language, which is fully addressed in the prior art rejections above.
Conclusion: The rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected above. Inasmuch as new citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection, such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication US 20210027491 A1, (Satou) discloses position and posture identification of an object using point clouds
US Patent Application Publication US 20190206135 A1, (JIANG) discloses identification of objects at a worksite
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 AMELIA VELAZQUEZ VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-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, Said A. Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/A.V.V/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Date: 06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights