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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection are made in view of Hao (US 20240126808A1).
Applicant argues that Kim (US012333803B2) is silent on weight factor, let alone a combined metric. Kim’s ranking is not disclosed as based on exposure information. Instead, ranking and exposure information serve two distinct roles within the priority data. The Office Action points to one item in Kim (the ranking/priority data) to teach two elements of the claim. Kim’s exposure information is distinct from the ranking and absent from anything that could be considered a combined metric. Looking at Kim’s disclosure, it is clear there is no teaching of a relevancy value, let alone relevancy values for each digitized object. The exposure information of Kim is information about whether certain content is permissible to show (p. 8-9).
In reply, the Examiner points out that in Kim, the exposure information (e.g., user’s age, information input by the user) are relevancy values, because for example, if the user’s age is 21 years or older, then augmented reality content related to alcohol and/or gambling may be displayed because it is relevant to people who are 21 years or older (col. 14, lines 13-48). The priority data is a weight factor, and it takes both the exposure information (relevancy values) and the priority data (weight factor) into account when determining what to display, and thus determining what to display is a combined metric based on the determined relevancy values and the respective determined weight factors. For example, if the user is interested (weight factor) in alcohol and/or gambling, and the user is 21 years or older (relevancy values), then taking both the user’s level of interest (weight factor) and the exposure information (relevancy values) into account, this is a combined metric that determines that objects related to alcohol and/or gambling should be displayed (col. 14, lines 13-48). New grounds of rejection are made in view of Hao to more clearly teach calculating a combined metric for each digitized object based on weighting the determined relevancy values associated with each respective digitized object by the respective determined weight factors.
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, 3, 7, 9-12, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US012333803B2) in view of Hao (US 20240126808A1).
As per Claim 1, Kim teaches a method of selectively displaying overlays in an augmented reality environment (based on the acquired first priority data, select a first object of interest that belongs to the highest ranked category among at least one object included in the first image acquired using the camera, and display a first augmented reality content comprising information associated with the selected first object of interest, col. 30, lines 4-10), the method comprising: monitoring, using control circuitry and a head-mounted display (100) comprising an image sensor (111) and an overlay display, a scene within a field of view of the image sensor to identify a plurality of digitized objects by performing image analysis on the captured images of the scene (augmented reality device 100 may be configured as a head mounted display device, col. 8, lines 28-31; augmented reality device 100 may include a vision processing module 110, col. 4, lines 42-43; vision processing module 110 may include a detection module 111 configured to recognize a real object, detection module 111 may be configured as a module that recognizes a real object via an image acquired by a camera of the augmented reality device 100, detection module 111 may include a camera and a sensor, col. 5, lines 1-8). Kim teaches the priority data includes priority information corresponding to each piece of content classification information 519. The first priority data is obtained by ranking the first content classification information according to the user’s level of interest. The priority data may include exposure information on the display, which is identified based on the user’s age and information input to the augmented reality device 100 by the user. If the user’s age is 19 years or younger, an augmented reality content related to alcohol and/or gambling may not be displayed even if priorities are high. If the user of the augmented reality device 100 blocks exposure of an advertisement, an augmented reality content related to the advertisement may not be displayed even if a priority is high. The processor 210 may identify a displayed augmented reality content, based on the user’s age and exposure-related configuration information input by the user to an application of the augmented reality device 100. The processor 210 selects a first object of interest from among at least one object included in the first image acquired using the camera 220, based on the acquired first priority data. The processor 210 displays an augmented reality content for the selected first object of interest (col. 14, lines 13-48). Kim teaches an augmented reality device comprising: a display; a camera; a sensor; the processor is configured to: detect a gaze direction of a user of the augmented reality device by using the sensor, obtain a first image by capturing at least one object positioned in the gaze direction of the user by using the camera, recognize a first object included in the captured first image, identify category of the first object, identify a first priority data of the identified category, wherein the first priority data comprises rank of each category and each of the rank is updated based on a frequency at which an object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, a time in which the object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, and a period at which the object included in the identified category is gazed by user, based on the acquired first priority data, select a first object of interest that belongs to the highest ranked category among at least one object included in the first image acquired using the camera, and display, on the display, a first augmented reality content comprising information associated with the selected first object of interest (col. 29, line 48-col. 30, line 10). Thus, the exposure information (e.g., user’s age, information input by the user) are relevancy values, because for example, if the user’s age is 21 years or older, then augmented reality content related to alcohol and/or gambling may be displayed because it is relevant to people who are 21 years or older (col. 14, lines 13-48). The priority data is a weight factor. Since Kim teaches taking both the exposure information (relevancy values) and the priority data (weight factor) into account when determining what to display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it calculates a combined metric for each digitized object based on the determined relevancy values and the determined weight factors associated with each respective digitized object; generates a metric ranking of the digitized objects based on the calculated combined metric for each digitized object. For example, if it is determined that the user is the most interested (weight factor) in alcohol and/or gambling and that is the highest rank, and the user is 21 years or older (relevancy values), then taking both the user’s level of interest (weight factor) and the exposure information (relevancy values) into account, this is a combined metric based on the determined relevancy values and the determined weight factors that determines that objects related to alcohol and/or gambling are the highest rank that should be displayed (col. 14, lines 13-48). Thus, Kim teaches identifying, using the control circuitry, a plurality of candidate overlays, each candidate overlay associated with one of the plurality of digitized objects; determining, using the control circuitry, a plurality of relevancy values for each digitized object and a weight factor for each relevancy value; calculating, using the control circuitry, a combined metric for each digitized object based on the determined relevancy values and the determined weight factors associated with each respective digitized object; generating, using the control circuitry, a metric ranking of the plurality of digitized objects based on the calculated combined metric for each digitized object; selecting, using the control circuitry, one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays for display on the overlay display based on a rank of the respective digitized object within the metric ranking; and providing for display, on the overlay display, the selected candidate overlays (col. 14, lines 13-48; col. 29, line 48-col. 30, line 10).
However, Kim does not teach calculating the combined metric for each digitized object based on weighting the determined relevancy values associated with each respective digitized object by the respective determined weight factors. However, Hao teaches augmented reality [0100]. Hao teaches the confidence score and the object relationship score of the objects are determined, then priorities of the objects are determined based on the scene intent weight corresponding to the scene category and the confidence scores and the object relationship scores of the object, and the objects are sorted and displayed based on the priorities [0327]. The scene intent weight, the confidence score, and the object relationship score are three different values (Abstract). Thus, Hao teaches calculating the combined metric for each digitized object based on weighting the determined relevancy values (confidence scores, object relationship scores) associated with each respective digitized object by the respective determined weight factors (scene intent weight); generating a metric ranking of the plurality of digitized objects (objects are sorted based on the priorities) based on the calculated combined metric for each digitized object [0327] (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include calculating the combined metric for each digitized object based on weighting the determined relevancy values associated with each respective digitized object by the respective determined weight factors because Hao suggests that this improves the accuracy of displaying objects to the user that the user wants to see [0327] (Abstract).
As per Claim 3, Kim teaches wherein determining the plurality of relevancy values for each digitized object comprises determining, using the control circuitry, at least one of a likelihood of attention value, a likelihood of viewing value, or a likelihood of interest value for each digitized object (col. 14, lines 13-48; col. 29, line 48-col. 30, line 10).
As per Claim 7, Kim teaches detect a gaze direction of a user of the augmented reality device by using the sensor, obtain a first image by capturing at least one object positioned in the gaze direction of the user by using the camera, recognize a first object included in the captured first image, identify category of the first object, identify a first priority data of the identified category, wherein the first priority data comprises rank of each category and each of the rank is updated based on a frequency at which an object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, a time in which the object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, and a period at which the object included in the identified category is gazed by user, based on the acquired first priority data, select a first object of interest that belongs to the highest ranked category among at least one object included in the first image acquired using the camera, and display, on the display, a first augmented reality content comprising information associated with the selected first object of interest (col. 29, line 55-col. 30, line 10). Thus, it detects a gaze direction of a user, then compares that to the object to see if the user’s gaze is not on the object, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this is considered to be a viewing vector function. Thus, Kim teaches wherein determining the likelihood of viewing value for each digitized object comprises determining, using the control circuitry and a viewing vector function, a viewing vector function value for each digitized object (col. 29, line 55-col. 30, line 10).
As per Claim 9, Kim teaches detect a gaze direction of a user of the augmented reality device by using the sensor, obtain a first image by capturing at least one object positioned in the gaze direction of the user by using the camera, recognize a first object included in the captured first image, identify category of the first object, identify a first priority data of the identified category, wherein the first priority data comprises rank of each category and each of the rank is updated based on a frequency at which an object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, a time in which the object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, and a period at which the object included in the identified category is gazed by user, based on the acquired first priority data, select a first object of interest that belongs to the highest ranked category among at least one object included in the first image acquired using the camera, and display, on the display, a first augmented reality content comprising information associated with the selected first object of interest (col. 29, line 55-col. 30, line 10). Thus, the less frequently the object is gazed by the user and the less time the object is gazed by the user, the more it decays and the lower the ranking is. Thus, Kim teaches further comprising determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, a viewing decay value for use in the viewing vector function (col. 29, line 55-col. 30, line 10).
As per Claim 10, Kim teaches the first priority data comprises rank of each category and each of the rank is updated based on a frequency at which an object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, a time in which the object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, and a period at which the object included in the identified category is gazed by user, based on the acquired first priority data, select a first object of interest that belongs to the highest ranked category among at least one object included in the first image acquired using the camera, and display, on the display, a first augmented reality content comprising information associated with the selected first object of interest (col. 29, line 64-col. 30, line 10). Thus, the less frequently the object is gazed by the user and the less time the object is gazed by the user, the more the interest decays and the lower the ranking. Thus, Kim teaches wherein determining the likelihood of interest value for each digitized object comprises determining, using the control circuitry and an interest decay function, an interest decay function value for each digitized object (col. 29, line 64-col. 30, line 10).
As per Claim 11, Kim teaches the first priority data comprises rank of each category and each of the rank is updated based on a frequency at which an object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, a time in which the object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, and a period at which the object included in the identified category is gazed by user, based on the acquired first priority data, select a first object of interest that belongs to the highest ranked category among at least one object included in the first image acquired using the camera, and display, on the display, a first augmented reality content comprising information associated with the selected first object of interest (col. 29, line 64-col. 30, line 10). Thus, the frequency at which the object is gazed by the user and the time in which the object is gazed by the user was determined prior, and indicates the prior interests of the user. Thus, the less frequently the object was gazed by the user and the less time the object was gazed by the user, the more the interest in the object decayed and the lower the ranking. Thus, Kim teaches further comprising determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, a decay value for use in the interest decay function, the decay value based on prior determined interests of a wearer of the head-mounted display (col. 29, line 64-col. 3, line 10).
As per Claim 12, Kim teaches the first priority data comprises rank of each category and each of the rank is updated based on a frequency at which an object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, a time in which the object included in the identified category is gazed by the user, and a period at which the object included in the identified category is gazed by user, based on the acquired first priority data, select a first object of interest that belongs to the highest ranked category among at least one object included in the first image acquired using the camera, and display, on the display, a first augmented reality content comprising information associated with the selected first object of interest (col. 29, line 64-col. 30, line 10). Thus, the frequency at which the object is gazed by the user and the time in which the object is gazed by the user indicates the implicit interest of the user in the object. Thus, Kim teaches further comprising determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, a decay value for use in the interest decay function, the decay value based on implicit interests of a wearer of the head-mounted display (col. 29, line 64-col. 3, line 10).
As per Claims 17 and 19, these claims are similar in scope to Claims 1 and 3 respectively, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US012333803B2) and Hao (US 20240126808A1) in view of Mascarin (US 20240046580A1).
As per Claim 2, Kim and Hao are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1. Kim teaches selecting, using the control circuitry, the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays for display on the overlay display based on the rank of the respective digitized object within the metric ranking, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1.
However, Kim and Hao do not teach determining, using the control circuitry, a display size of each candidate overlay; determining, using the control circuitry, available space on the overlay display for displaying the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays; and selecting, using the control circuitry, the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays for display on the overlay display based on the display size of the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays, and the determined available space. However, Mascarin teaches further comprising: determining, using the control circuitry, a display size of each candidate overlay; determining, using the control circuitry, available space on the overlay display for displaying the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays; and selecting, using the control circuitry, the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays for display on the overlay display based on the display size of the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays, and the determined available space (any of the interaction requests or the overall size of the augmented reality object, may be used to analyze, detect and automate through the augmented reality device 110 when the advertisement display mode will convert to the embedded mode, embedded advertisements within the operational range of the corresponding to the augmented reality representation of the object 610, determine the available space 1004 within the site, select one or more advertisements corresponding to the object to display on the augmented reality interface of the augmented reality device 110, [0195]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Hao to include determining, using the control circuitry, a display size of each candidate overlay; determining, using the control circuitry, available space on the overlay display for displaying the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays; and selecting, using the control circuitry, the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays for display on the overlay display based on the display size of the one or more of the plurality of candidate overlays, and the determined available space because Mascarin suggests that this ensures that the overlay fits in the available space so that it does not obscure anything on the display [0195].
As per Claim 18, Claim 18 is similar in scope to Claim 2, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US012333803B2) and Hao (US 20240126808A1) in view of Gupta (US012477160B1).
As per Claim 4, Kim and Hao are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 3.
However, Kim and Hao do not teach wherein determining the likelihood of attention value for each digitized object comprises determining, using the control circuitry, an object salience value for each digitized object. However, Gupta teaches wherein determining the likelihood of attention value for each digitized object comprises determining, using the control circuitry, an object salience value for each digitized object (salient (most noticeable and/or important) region attracts more of a vier’s attention than a non-salient region, col. 2, lines 20-22; detecting the salient and/or non-salient regions allows for identifying areas that do not overlap with the important or informative regions of the frame, such as the actor faces, focused objects, etc., col. 3, lines 10-15; per pixel salience score map for a frame to identify region(s) of the image that is most important, col. 5, lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Hao so that determining the likelihood of attention value for each digitized object comprises determining, using the control circuitry, an object salience value for each digitized object because Gupta suggests that this ensures that the overlay does not overlap with the important of informative objects (col. 3, lines 10-15).
22. As per Claim 5, Kim and Hao do not teach further comprising calculating for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, the object salience value from a plurality of pixel salience values for pixels included as part of each digitized object. However, Gupta teaches further comprising calculating for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, the object salience value from a plurality of pixel salience values for pixels included as part of each digitized object (col. 2, lines 20-22; col. 3, lines 10-15; col. 5, lines 15-17). This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 4.
23. As per Claim 20, Claim 20 is similar in scope to Claim 4, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
24. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US012333803B2), Hao (US 20240126808A1), and Gupta (US012477160B1) in view of Ruan (US 20140321754A1).
Kim, Hao, and Gupta are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 4.
However, Kim, Hao, and Gupta do not teach further comprising determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, a probability density function associated with pixels included as part of each digitized object. However, Ruan teaches further comprising determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, a probability density function associated with pixels included as part of each digitized object (in “Segmenting salient objects from images and videos”, it is assumed that a distribution Z of pixels in a window has a probability density function of a constant in a kernel and a border of the window, [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim, Hao, and Gupta to include determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, a probability density function associated with pixels included as part of each digitized object as suggested by Ruan. It is well-known in the art that a probability density function calculates data likelihood more precisely.
25. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US012333803B2) and Hao (US 20240126808A1) in view of De Salvo (US 20220246060A1).
Kim and Hao are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 7.
However, Kim and Hao do not expressly teach further comprising determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, the viewing vector function value based on a comparison between a first gaze vector, which is based on an actual gaze of a wearer of the head-mounted display, and a second gaze vector, which is based on a hypothetical gaze of the wearer when gazing at the digitized object within the monitored scene. However, De Salvo teaches further comprising determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, the viewing vector function value based on a comparison between a first gaze vector, which is based on an actual gaze of a wearer of the head-mounted display, and a second gaze vector, which is based on a hypothetical gaze of the wearer when gazing at the digitized object within the monitored scene (comparing the users actual gaze with the gaze area 3 corresponding to the object 2, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Hao to include determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, the viewing vector function value based on a comparison between a first gaze vector, which is based on an actual gaze of a wearer of the head-mounted display, and a second gaze vector, which is based on a hypothetical gaze of the wearer when gazing at the digitized object within the monitored scene because De Salvo suggests that this is needed to determine whether the user is looking at the object [0041].
26. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US012333803B2) and Hao (US 20240126808A1) in view of Zavesky (US 20230410159A1).
Kim and Hao are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 10.
However, Kim and Hao do not expressly teach further comprising determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, a decay value for use in the interest decay function, the decay value based on explicit interests of a wearer of the head-mounted display. However, Zavesky teaches determining the relevance of the metaverse object based on a determined interest of the user. Identify a likely interest of the user based on the user’s explicit expressions or based on the user’s profile data [0066]. Thus, the less relevant the object is to the explicit interests of the user, the more the determined relevance and interest in the object decays. Thus, Zavesky teaches further comprising determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, a decay value for use in the interest decay function, the decay value based on explicit interests of a wearer of the head-mounted display ([0066], AR glasses, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Hao to include determining for each digitized object, using the control circuitry, a decay value for use in the interest decay function, the decay value based on explicit interests of a wearer of the head-mounted display because Zavesky suggests that this way, if there is a topic that the user desires to see, the user can easily control it to display objects that are related to the topic that the user desires to see [0066].
27. Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US012333803B2) and Hao (US 20240126808A1) in view of Fein (US 20140098137A1).
28. As per Claim 14, Kim and Hao are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Kim and Hao do not expressly teach further comprising calculating, using the control circuitry, a display metric from a display decay function for each of the displayed candidate overlays. However, Fein teaches after the user turns his head in order to look at another portion of the restaurant, the augmentation 51c has been removed from the user’s view of the restaurant in response to factors (e.g., passage of time, the orientation and movements of user’s eyes, etc.) [0093]. Thus, if the user is looking at a different object and a certain amount of time has passed, then it determines that the display of augmentation 51c has decayed. Thus, Fein teaches further comprising calculating, using the control circuitry, a display metric from a display decay function for each of the displayed candidate overlays [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Hao to include calculating, using the control circuitry, a display metric from a display decay function for each of the displayed candidate overlays because Fein suggests that this way, overlays that the user is not likely interested in seeing anymore are removed so that they no longer obscure other objects [0093].
29. As per Claim 15, Kim and Hao do not expressly teach determining the display decay function based on the determined relevancy values associated with each respective displayed candidate overlay and on a time decay function. However, Fein teaches AR device may re-display the augmentation 51g based on detected behaviors of the user that indicates that the user is interested in seeing again the augmentation 51g [0101]. After the user turns his head in order to look at another portion of the restaurant, the augmentation 51c has been removed from the user’s view of the restaurant in response to factors (e.g., passage of time, the orientation and movements of user’s eyes, etc.) [0093]. Thus, if the user not looking at the object anymore, then the user’s interest and the relevancy of the overlay associated with the object decays, and the longer the overlay is displayed, the more the display of the overlay decays (time decay function). Thus, Fein teaches determining the display decay function based on the determined relevancy values associated with each respective displayed candidate overlay [0101] and on a time decay function [0093]. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 14.
30. As per Claim 16, Kim and Hao do not teach further comprising removing one or more of the displayed candidate overlays from the overlay display in response to the display metric falling below a predetermined decay threshold. However, Fein teaches after the user turns his head in order to look at another portion of the restaurant, the augmentation 51c has been removed from the user’s view of the restaurant in response to factors (e.g., passage of time, the orientation and movements of user’s eyes, etc.) [0093]. Thus, when the augmentation 51c has been displayed for longer than a certain amount of time, the display metric falls below a predetermined decay threshold, and the augmentation 51c is removed from the overlay display. Thus, Fein teaches further comprising removing one or more of the displayed candidate overlays from the overlay display in response to the display metric falling below a predetermined decay threshold [0093]. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 14.
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 JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights