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 Amendment / Arguments
Applicant added features to the independent claims, related to accessing “attention preference data” associated with the first user. The “attention preference data” of the first user, as claimed, specifies an “attention preference mode” for the first user. As such, the visual presentation of the first avatar (the avatar associated with the first user) is then based on said mode. The applied references teach this newly added feature.
First, for claim interpretation purposes, the examiner notes that “attention preference mode” or really any “mode” or “modes” in the context used in Applicant’s claimed, is absent from Applicant’s specification as filed. See specification as filed, para. 31, for description on “attention preference”. Regardless, the reference of Zavesky teaches the newly added claim features. See paras. 7, 15, 37, 41-47. The “configuration settings” of Zavesky teach Applicant’s claimed “attention preference data” specifying a mode, which guide or govern how the first user is presented in shared communication sessions.
Applicant’s arguments focus on the reference Andre not teaching the newly added features and does not address Zavesky, except by one conclusory sentence without any substance or discussion of the Zavesky reference (see Remarks, page 8, one sentence in the middle of the page stating that “it is not apparent that Zavesky remedies the deficiencies of Andre”). However, Zavesky does, in fact, respectfully teach the newly added claim features.
The rejections under 103 are maintained. Please see remainder of this office action for more details.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 13-16 and 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,580 in view of Zavesky (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0134298 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are broader than or encompassed by claims of the issued patent, as per the table below, in view of Zavesky.
Also, claim1 of the instant application is a system embodiment, whereas claim 17 of the issued patent is computer readable medium. The interchangeability of inventive concepts as a system having a processor performing operations, or operations stored in memory to be performed by a processor (the same/similar operations in either case), is an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill.
U.S. 18/953,150
U.S. Patent No. 12,175,580 B2
1. A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor of the system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
tracking a first virtual location of a first avatar representing a first user in a virtual reality environment;
evaluating, based on the first virtual location, a level of attention determined to be exhibited by a second user to the first avatar;
determining that the level of attention satisfies a criterion indicative of an attention situation;
based on the determining that the level of attention satisfies the criterion, taking an action to notify the first user of the attention situation;
receiving a user input associated with the first user that selects a remediation action that remediates an aspect of the level of attention;
accessing, from a user profile data store,
attention preference data associated with the first user, the attention preference data specifying an attention preference mode selected by the first user; and
determining, based on the attention preference mode, whether a presentation of the first avatar is to be blocked or altered with respect to the second user.
17. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
tracking a virtual location of an avatar representing a first user in a virtual reality environment;
evaluating, based on the virtual location of the avatar, a level of attention, determined to be exhibited by a second user, to the avatar over a same period of time,
wherein a respective field of view of the first user and the second user is timestamped and logged over time;
wherein the evaluating comprises comparing a field of view of the second user over time with the virtual location of the avatar over the same period of time and detecting common timestamps and comparing a virtual location of the second user with an audio range of the first user determined based on the virtual location of the avatar when the field of view of the second user is not directed to the avatar or in a field of view of the first user;
determining that the level of attention satisfies a level of attention criterion indicative of a detected attention situation; and
based on the determining, taking an action to notify the first user of the detected attention situation.
18. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise
receiving user input associated with the first user that selects a remediation action to remediate an aspect of the level of attention determined to be exhibited by the second user.
(Zavesky, para. 28, 69 access from a server or storage/memory)
(Zavesky, e.g. para. 7, accessing “configuration setting” data associated with the first user, which can specify a mode that can modify actions and/or visual representations of the first user in a communication session, See also claim 5 and paras. 15, 37, 41-47)
(Zavesky, paras. 7, 15, 37, 41-47),
Clam 2 (and claim 14)
wherein the evaluating of the level of attention includes
tracking a field of view of the second user for a first associated amount of time and tracking
a second virtual location of a second avatar of the second user relative to the first virtual location of the first avatar for a second associated amount of time.
Claim 19
wherein the virtual location is a first virtual location,
wherein the avatar is a first avatar, and wherein the evaluating of the level of attention, determined to be exhibited by the second user, to the first avatar comprises tracking at least one of:
the field of view of the second user, the field of view of the second user for an associated amount of time,
a second virtual location of a second avatar of the second user relative to the first virtual location of the first avatar, or the second virtual location of the second avatar of the second user relative to the first virtual location of the first avatar for an associated amount of time.
Claims 3, 15
Claim 18 (user selects a remediation action, user must have been sent one to be able to select)
Claims 4, 16
Claim 20
Claim 13 (method embodiment of claim 1)
Claim 18
Claim 19 (CRM embodiment of claim 1)
Claim 18
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0099640 A1) (cited in parent) in view of Zavesky (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0134298 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Andre teaches: a system (para. 36, and Fig. 1: 100, device), comprising: a processor (para. 36 and Fig. 1: 106, processing unit); and a memory (Fig. 1: 108 memory unit) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor of the system, facilitate performance of operations (para. 39, programs or code stored in memory for execution), the operations comprising:
tracking a first virtual location of a first avatar representing a first user in a virtual reality environment (para. 48, which teaches that it is known to: “store location coordinates of users, periodically, for example every second, together with associated time stamps and identifiers of users” whereby the users can correspond to the “respective avatars of the users” that are being tracked. See also para. 32, for more teaching re: avatars and virtual environments and tracking in the online environment. The tracking of one of these users’ avatars, teaches “first user” and “first avatar” location tracking);
evaluating, based on the first virtual location, a level of attention determined to be exhibited by a second user to the first avatar (see paras. 32-34, Andre teaches monitoring user behavior to seek out whether “objectionable actions” have occurred. Per para. 34, “In some online environments, objectionable non-linguistic actions may occur, for example non-verbal bullying. For example one user may repeatedly target another user, such as by repeatedly shooting them, in a gaming environment. Also, one user may stalk another user in some environments.”. Determining whether a second user to the first avatar is engaged in objectionable actions (all users can be/area tracked, per para.48), such as stalking or any other actions against the first user teaches this feature. See also Fig. 7);
determining that the level of attention satisfies a criterion indicative of an attention situation (e.g. paras. 23-34, which teaches criteria and rules to determine a score (para. 23-24), such to whether there has been a “breach” of a rule (para. 24), to trigger if an objectionable action has occurred, See also Figs. 6A-6B, for table illus. of rules/criteria/breach conditions).
Regarding the remaining features of claim 1, consider the following.
In analogous art, Zavesky teaches:
based on the determining that the level of attention satisfies the criterion, taking an action to notify the first user of the attention situation (see e.g. para. 23, in the case where the level of attention satisfies a criterion (i.e. per Andre, there has been a “breach” of a rule or an objectionable action has occurred, or per Zavesky, that an action has occurred that has been deemed “negative action” or otherwise offensive (see para. 13), the system “may alternatively or additionally notify a receiver (or sender) of a potential remediation and ask for consent/authorization to override or to select a non-default remediation option for the action, e.g., altering the visual representation of the action to appear differently, rather than simply blocking the action from the video content”. Here, the “receiver” of Zavesky would be the “first user” of the claims);
receiving a user input associated with the first user that selects a remediation action that remediates an aspect of the level of attention (Zavesky, para. 23, here the first user/receiver can select a remediation option),
accessing, from a user profile data store (para. 28, 69 access from a server or storage/memory), attention preference data associated with the first user, the attention preference data specifying an attention preference mode selected by the first user (e.g. para. 7, accessing “configuration setting” data associated with the first user, the configuration setting data (or attention preference data) can specify a mode that can modify actions and/or visual representations of the first user in a communication session, See also claim 5 and paras. 15, 37, 41-47) (note: claim interpretation purposes, Applicant’s specification as filed actually describes no “modes”, as “mode” in the context of the claim language is absent from Applicant’s specification as filed. See specification, para. 31); and
determining, based on the attention preference mode, whether a presentation of the first avatar is to be blocked or altered with respect to the second user (para. 7, 15, 37, 41-47),
Modifying the applied references, such to include the teachings of Zavesky, in response to an identification of negative/offensive action in an online community and user preferences/settings, which Andre is also directly related to, such to allow a user to have interaction to address the negative/unwanted/offensive behavior directed to them, as well as control their own presentation of their own actions/behavior/images, is all of taught, suggested and motivated by the prior art, mapped above, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system of claim 1, wherein the evaluating of the level of attention includes tracking a field of view of the second user for a first associated amount of time and tracking a second virtual location of a second avatar of the second user relative to the first virtual location of the first avatar for a second associated amount of time, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Andre teaches different types of unwanted behavior from a user/avatar to another user/avatar, such as stalking or other unwanted actions, some of which can be repeated targeting (see para. 34 and 48). Andre also teaches maintaining action logs include time stamps, relating to “actions relevant to the user of the user device 100 on which the respective first actions log 204 is located, the second actions log 210 stores all action information for the online environment” (para. 49, as one non-limiting example). Likewise, Zavesky teaches enabling users with cameras to record/show field of view in a direction a user is looking (para. 31). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such to include tracking a FOV of a second user, per Zavesky, for a time, and a second virtual location relative to the that of the first avatar, for another time, as per Andre (logging activity, this would be useful for stalking and repeated unwanted behavior tracking, where Zavesky also looks for patterns (paras. 13-14)), is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Added motivation to monitor and ensure proper online behavior.
Regarding claim 3:
Zavesky teaches: the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: sending a remediation option to the first user, wherein the receiving of the user input is based on the sending of the remediation option (para.23).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of Zavesky to have obtained the above, motivated to control interactions effectively in online environments.
Regarding claim 4:
Andre teaches: the system of claim 1, wherein the remediation action includes altering a presentation of the first avatar in a presentation rendered to the second user (para. 111, blocking all visibility and communication between the first and second user teaches this feature).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to control interactions effectively in online environments.
Regarding claim 5:
Andre teaches: the system of claim 1, wherein the remediation action includes narrowing an audio range of the first avatar of the first user (para 111, muting the second user narrows an audio range of the first avatar of the first user, who now has no audio range with the second user; alternatively, blocking all communication between the first and second users is another teaching of narrowing an audio range of the first avatar of the first user, to be zero to the second avatar).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to control interactions effectively in online environments.
Regarding claim 6:
Andre and/or Zavesky teach: the system of claim 1, wherein the level of attention is indicative of a pattern of unwanted attention towards the first avatar (Andre, para. 34, stalking is a pattern of unwanted attention) (likewise, Zavesky also looks for patterns of unwanted behavior. See para. 23).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to monitor and control interactions effectively in online environments.
Regarding claim 8:
Andre teaches: the system of claim 1, wherein the criterion is based on a virtual distance of a second avatar of the second user to the first avatar (para. 34, 67, stalking is based on a virtual distance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to monitor and control interactions effectively in online environments.
Regarding claim 9:
Andre and Zavesky teach: the system of claim 1, wherein the criterion is based on a field of view of the second user (Andre, para. 34, 67, stalking is considered offensive. Zavesky, para. 31, teaches that devices of users in the monitored environment can have cameras to indicate a field of view in a direction that a user is looking). Modifying the applied references, such to use the teachings of Zavesky (field of view indicates what a user is looking at), to the second user, to determine whether said second user is stalking first user, per Andre, is all of taught, suggested and motivated by the prior art, mapped above, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2143(A). Further motivation would be to protect users from unwanted behavior and maintain a safe/respectful environment.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 9, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10:
Andre and Zavesky teach: the system of claim 1, wherein the criterion is based on a viewing time of viewing the first avatar by the second user (Zavesky, para. 10, 14, 20, time windows of activity can be a parameter for determining action. Andre, likewise, also uses time periods as a factor. See Andre para. 27, 67, 85. In the case of stalking, Andre specifically teaches a threshold time. Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such to include viewing time of first avatar by second user, such to discern or identify negative behavior (such as stalking), is all of taught, suggested and motivated by the prior art, mapped above, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system of claim 1, wherein the criterion is based on a first number of other avatars within a field of view of the second user other than the first avatar, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Examples of offensive or negative action per Andre include stalking and repeated targeting, such as shooting in some gaming environments (para. 34, 48). Determination of either, and particularly repeated targeting, is dependent on how many other avatars are in a field of view of the second avatar (the second avatar being the one that may or may not be engaging in offensive/negative conduct). If there are 10 other avatars in the field of view, versus only the first user/first avatar, these are two entirely different analyses using the same criteria (number of avatars in field of view; in the case where there are several other avatars in the FOV of the second user, the second user can mitigate any suggestion of negative activity by indicating it wasn’t the first avatar as a target). This is one embodiment taught/suggested by Andre, and would have been obvious and predictable over the teachings of Andre.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system of claim 11, wherein the criterion is based on a second number of the other avatars within a defined proximate distance of the first avatar, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Andre teaches that communication between users/avatars is dependent on virtual distance between users, i.e. a proximate distance. Modifying the applied references, such to include a number of other avatars within a proximate distance of the first avatar (i.e. how many can actually communicate with the first avatar), as per Andre, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13: see claim 1
The method of claim 13 corresponds to the functions performed by the system of claim 1 (claim 13 is slightly broader); the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 14: see claim 2.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 15: see claim 3.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 16: see claim 4.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 17: see claim 5.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 19: see also claim 1.
Andre teaches: a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations (claim 24), the operations comprising.
The operations correspond to a broader version of the operations of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 20: see claims 4 and 5.
Claim 20 is a combination of claims 4 and 5. Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to have included the combination, is taught and suggested and mapped in claims 4 and 5, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 20, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre in view of Zavesky and further in view of Bradski (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0094981 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: presenting advertisement content, in association with the first avatar, in a presentation rendered to the second user, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Bradski, related to augmented and virtual reality interactive multi-user environments (e.g. para. 17), teaches that it is known to have advertisements or advertising content be rendered with a user’s avatar (para. 1620). In an environment of multiple users/avatars, having advertising content rendered with an avatar will be presented (“in a presentation rendered”) to the second user, as claimed. All three references are multi-user and avatar environments. For Bradski, see e.g. paras. 182-86, which teaches the ability of users to interact, simultaneously, with the same, shared, digital world.
*Claim interpretation: “a presentation” is being interpreted as presenting to a second user (i.e. so the second user can see the advertisement), not as a formal presentation (like a PowerPoint slide presentation that happens to have an advertisement on one of the slides). This is a broad, reasonable interpretation that is consistent with Applicant’s specification as filed, which describes presentation as the examiner is interpreting it. See specification, Fig. 9, the advertisement logo is simply rendered/presented with the user avatar for others to see; see also spec, para. 44.
Modifying the applied references, in view of Bradski, such to have included the above, is all of taught, suggested by the prior art and mapped above, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill, with additional motivation to provide more personalized advertising content (Bradski, para. 1620).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18: see claim 7.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
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 Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights