Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, 15, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskiniemi (US 20140118196 Al), hereinafter referred to as "Koskiniemi", in view of Cerreno (US 20160079672 Al), hereinafter referred to as "Cerreno".
Regarding claim 1, Koskiniemi teaches a housing (fig. 1C, element 104; para. [0054]) for
an antenna system having a plurality of antenna elements (fig. 1C, element 102; para. [0057])
defining an antenna aperture (fig. 1C), the housing comprising: a chassis portion (fig. 1C, element 106; para. [0054]) having a first portion coupled to the antenna system and a second portion disposed around the first portion (fig. 1C as annotated below), wherein the second portion defines a moat (fig. 1C as annotated below); and a radome portion (fig. 1C, elements 104 and 113) having a planar body extending from a first end to a second end (fig. 1C; para. [0054]-[0056]), wherein the first and second ends are directly coupled (para. [0054]-[0056]) to the chassis portion such that the radome portion and chassis portion define an inner chassis chamber (fig. 1C, element 105; para. [0054]), the radome portion having a planar top surface (para. [0057]) and a planar bottom surface (fig. 1C, element 106; para. [0054]) defining a constant thickness there between (fig. 1C; para. [0057]), wherein the radome portion is configured to have equal spacing between the planar top surface and a top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements defining the antenna aperture (fig. 1C; para. [0057]), and wherein the housing is tilted such that the planar top surface of the radome is at a non-zero angle relative to a horizontal plane (fig. 6, element 100; para. [0078]). Koskiniemi does not explicitly teach a plurality of antenna elements disposed on a carrier surface, wherein the planar bottom surface is directly coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system, and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements defining the antenna aperture is coplanar.
Cerreno teaches a plurality of antenna elements (figs. 1 and 3, elements 114; para. [0036]) disposed on a carrier surface (fig. 1, element 104; para. [0040]), wherein the planar bottom surface (fig. 1, bottom surface of element 102; para. [0038]) is directly (fig. 1; para. [0036]) coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system (figs. 1 and 3; para. [0041]), and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements (figs. 1 and 3, elements 114; para. [0036]) defining the antenna aperture is coplanar (fig. 1; para. [0008], [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Koskiniemi to include a plurality of antenna elements disposed on a carrier surface, wherein the planar bottom surface is directly coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system, and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements defining the antenna aperture is coplanar, as described in Cerreno.
Koskiniemi teaches various shapes and number of radiators for the antenna (para. [0057]). Modifying the device to include a plurality of antenna elements disposed on a carrier surface, wherein the planar bottom surface is coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system allows for aligning the radome with the antenna elements, which improves weather proofing and the impedance bandwidth of the antenna elements (Cerreno, para. [0038]). Modifying the antenna to comprise a planar array allows for increased gain while minimizing the size of the device (Cerreno, para. [0071]).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Koskiniemi teaches the radome portion includes a first layer (fig. 1C, element 113; para. [0054]) and a second layer (fig. 1C, element 104; para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Koskiniemi teaches the first layer is a protective layer (para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Koskiniemi teaches the first layer includes a hydrophobic outer surface (para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Koskiniemi teaches the second layer is a spacing layer (para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Koskiniemi teaches the radome portion couples with the chassis portion at a bezel surface (fig. 1C, element 106 outer edge) on the chassis portion (fig. 1C; para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 12, Koskiniemi teaches the radome portion is sealed to the chassis portion at a bezel surface (fig. 1C, element 106 outer edge) on the chassis portion (fig. 1C; para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 15, Koskiniemi teaches a housing (fig. 1C, element 104; para. [0054]) for an antenna system having a plurality of antenna elements (fig. 1C, element 102; para. [0057]) defining an antenna aperture (fig. 1C), the housing comprising: a chassis portion (fig. 1C, element 106; para. [0054]) having an internal support portion (fig. 1C, elements 116; para. [0058]) for internal components for the plurality of antenna elements including a bonding portion (fig. 1C as annotated above) for bonding an internal carrier (fig. 1C, element 116) to the chassis portion and a moat portion (fig. 1C as annotated above) formed around the internal support portion (as shown in fig. 1C); and a radome portion (fig. 1C, element 104) having a planar body extending from a first end to a second end (fig. 1C; para. [0054]-[0056]), wherein the first and second ends are directly coupled (para. [0054]-[0056]) to the chassis portion such that the radome portion and chassis portion define an inner chassis chamber (fig. 1C, element 105; para. [0054]), wherein the radome portion includes a planar top surface (para. [0057]) and a planar bottom surface (fig. 1C, element 106; para. [0054]) defining a constant thickness there between (fig. 1C; para. [0057]), and wherein the radome portion is configured to have equal spacing between the planar top surface and a top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements defining the antenna aperture (fig. 1C; para. [0057]), and wherein the housing is tilted such that the planar top surface of the radome is at a non-zero angle relative to a horizontal plane (fig. 6, element 100; para. [0078]). Koskiniemi does not explicitly teach a plurality of antenna elements disposed on a carrier surface, wherein the planar bottom surface is directly coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system, and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements defining the antenna aperture is coplanar.
Cerreno teaches a plurality of antenna elements (figs. 1 and 3, elements 114; para. [0036]) disposed on a carrier surface (fig. 1, element 104; para. [0040]), wherein the planar bottom surface (fig. 1, bottom surface of element 102; para. [0038]) is directly (fig. 1; para. [0036]) coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system (figs. 1 and 3; para. [0041]), and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements (figs. 1 and 3, elements 114; para. [0036]) defining the antenna aperture is coplanar (fig. 1; para. [0008], [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Koskiniemi to include a plurality of antenna elements disposed on a carrier surface, wherein the planar bottom surface is directly coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system, and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements defining the antenna aperture is coplanar, as described in Cerreno.
Koskiniemi teaches various shapes and number of radiators for the antenna (para. [0057]). Modifying the device to include a plurality of antenna elements disposed on a carrier surface, wherein the planar bottom surface is coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system allows for aligning the radome with the antenna elements, which improves weather proofing and the impedance bandwidth of the antenna elements (Cerreno, para. [0038]). Modifying the antenna to comprise a planar array allows for increased gain while minimizing the size of the device (Cerreno, para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 29, Koskiniemi discloses an antenna apparatus (fig. 1C, element 104; para. [0054]) for an antenna system having a plurality of antenna elements (fig. 1C, element 102; para. [0057]) defining an antenna aperture (fig. 1C), the antenna apparatus comprising: a housing including a chassis portion (fig. 1C, element 106; para. [0054]) and a radome portion (fig. 1C, element 104), wherein the chassis portion includes a first portion (fig. 1C as annotated above) coupled to the antenna system and a second portion around the first portion that defines a moat (fig. 1C as annotated above), wherein the radome portion includes a planar body extending from a first end to a second end (fig. 1C; para. [0054]-[0056]), wherein the first and second ends are directly coupled (para. [0054-[0056]) to the chassis portion such that the radome portion and chassis portion define an inner chassis chamber (fig. 1C, element 105; para. [0054]), wherein the radome portion includes a planar top surface (para. [0057]) and a planar bottom surface (fig. 1C, element 106; para. [0054]) defining a constant thickness there between (fig. 1C; para. [0057]), wherein the radome portion is configured to have equal spacing between the planar top surface and a top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements defining the antenna aperture (fig. 1C; para. [0057]); and a mounting system fortiltably mounting the housing relative to a horizontal plane (fig. 6, element 602; para. [0078]), and wherein the housing is tilted such that the planar top surface of the radome is at a non-zero angle relative to the horizontal plane (fig. 6, element 100; para. [0078]). Koskiniemi does not explicitly teach a plurality of antenna elements disposed on a carrier surface, wherein the planar bottom surface is directly coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system, and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements defining the antenna aperture is coplanar.
Cerreno teaches a plurality of antenna elements (figs. 1 and 3, elements 114; para. [0036]) disposed on a carrier surface (fig. 1, element 104; para. [0040]), wherein the planar bottom surface (fig. 1, bottom surface of element 102; para. [0038]) is directly (fig. 1; para. [0036]) coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system (figs. 1 and 3; para. [0041]), and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements (figs. 1 and 3, elements 114; para. [0036]) defining the antenna aperture is coplanar (fig. 1; para. [0008], [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Koskiniemi to include a plurality of antenna elements disposed on a carrier surface, wherein the planar bottom surface is directly coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system, and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of antenna elements defining the antenna aperture is coplanar, as described in Cerreno.
Koskiniemi teaches various shapes and number of radiators for the antenna (para. [0057]). Modifying the device to include a plurality of antenna elements disposed on a carrier surface, wherein the planar bottom surface is coupled to the carrier surface of the antenna system allows for aligning the radome with the antenna elements, which improves weather proofing and the impedance bandwidth of the antenna elements (Cerreno, para. [0038]). Modifying the antenna to comprise a planar array allows for increased gain while minimizing the size of the device (Cerreno, para. [0071]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskiniemi in view of Cerreno, and further in view of Teel et al. (WO 0062371 A2), hereinafter referred to as "Teel".
Regarding claim 4, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 3 does not teach the first layer is made from a fiberglass-reinforced epoxy laminate material. Teel teaches the first layer (fig. 1, element 101; p. 9, lines 18-19) is made from a fiberglass-reinforced epoxy laminate material (p. 11, lines 27-29 and p. 12, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the first layer is made from a fiberglass-reinforced epoxy laminate material, as described in Teel. Doing so allows for the desired mechanical properties of the radome, such as the mechanical strength and corrosion resistance.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskiniemi in view of Cerreno, and further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 4851855 A), hereinafter referred to as Tsukamoto".
Regarding claim 5, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 3 does not teach the first layer has a thickness selected from the group consisting of less than 1.5 mm, less than 0.76 mm, less than 0.51 mm, and less than 0.25 mm.
Tsukamoto teaches the first layer (fig. 4, element 36; col. 5, lines 33-38) has a thickness selected from the group consisting of less than 1.5 mm, less than 0.76 mm, less than 0.51 mm, and less than 0.25 mm (col. 5, line 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and
Cerreno such that the first layer has a thickness selected from the group consisting of less than
1.5 mm, less than 0.76 mm, less than 0.51 mm, and less than 0.25 mm, as described in Tsukamoto. Doing so allows for permeability of microwaves (Tsukamoto, col. 5, lines 30-38).
Regarding claim 9, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 7 does not teach the second layer has a thickness selected from the group consisting of greater than 3.0 mm, less than 4.5 mm, or in the range of 3.0 mm to 4.5 mm.
Tsukamoto teaches the second layer (fig. 4, element 35; col. 5, lines 33-38) has a thickness selected from the group consisting of greater than 3.0 mm, less than 4.5 mm, or in the range of 3.0 mm to 4.5 mm (col. 5, line 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the second layer has a thickness selected from the group consisting of greater than 3.0 mm, less than 4.5 mm, or in the range of 3.0 mm to 4.5 mm, as described in Tsukamoto. Doing so allows for permeability of microwaves (Tsukamoto, col. 5, lines 30-38).
Examiner's note: When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a
prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskiniemi in view of Cerreno, and further in view of Fuller et al. (GB 2458663 A), hereinafter referred to as "Fuller".
Regarding claim 8, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 7 does not teach the second layer is made from a polymethacrylimide foam.
Fuller teaches the second layer (fig. 2, elements 6 and 7; abstract) is made from a
polymethacrylimide foam (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 the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the second layer is made from a polymethacrylimide foam, as described in Fuller. Doing so allows for good flame-inhibiting properties (Fuller, abstract).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskiniemi in view of Cerreno, and further in view of Frank (US 6285323 Bl), hereinafter referred to as "Frank".
Regarding claim 13, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 1 does not teach an outer edge of a
second radome layer is set inward from the outer edge of a first radome layer to provide an
outer radome lip.
Frank teaches an outer edge of a second radome layer (fig. 1, element 16) is set inward from the outer edge of a first radome layer (fig. 1, element 6) to provide an outer radome lip (fig. 1, element 6- side walls bonded to bonding surface 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that an outer edge of a second radome layer is set inward from the outer edge of a first radome layer to provide an outer radome lip, as described in Frank. Doing so allows for sealing the antenna from the environment (Frank, col. 7, lines 20-41). Furthermore, Koskiniemi teaches alternate fastening technologies (para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 14, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 13 does not teach the outer radome lip couples with the chassis portion at a bezel surface on the chassis portion.
Frank teaches the outer radome lip (fig. 1, element 6 side walls) couples with the chassis portion (fig. 1, element 4) at a bezel surface (fig. 1, element 8) on the chassis portion (fig. 1, element 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the outer radome lip couples with the chassis portion at a bezel surface on the chassis portion, as described in Frank. Doing so allows for sealing the antenna from the environment (Frank, col. 7, lines 20-41). Furthermore Koskiniemi teaches alternate fastening technologies (para. [0056]).
Claims 16-17, 28, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Koskiniemi in view of Cerreno, and further in view of Emerick (US 20180366820 Al), hereinafter referred to as "Emerick".
Regarding claim 16, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 15 does not teach the bonding portion includes a plurality of bonding bars.
Emerick teaches the bonding portion (fig. 19 as annotated below, bonding portion) includes a plurality of bonding bars (fig. 19, element 16-3; para. [0069], fig. 23, elements 23-1 through 23-5; para. [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the bonding portion includes a plurality of bonding bars, as described in Emerick. Doing so enables heat dissipation (Emerick, para. [0063]), thereby improving device performance.
PNG
media_image2.png
450
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 16 does not teach the plurality of bonding bars is oriented in a parallel configuration.
Emerick teaches the plurality of bonding bars (fig. 23, elements 23-1 through 23-5) is oriented in a parallel configuration (fig. 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the plurality of bonding bars is oriented in a parallel configuration, as
described in Emerick. Doing so enables heat dissipation (Emerick, para. [0063]), thereby improving device performance.
Regarding claim 28, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 15 does not teach city-scaping in the moat portion.
Emerick teaches city-scaping (fig. 12 and fig. 19 as annotated above, element 12-1 fold; para. [0061], [0069]) in the moat portion (fig. 19 as annotated above, moat section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi Cerreno to include city- scaping in the moat portion. Doing so enables greater structural strength (Emerick para. [0061]).
Regarding claim 42, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 1 does not teach the bonding portion includes a plurality of bonding bars coupled to the first portion, and wherein the plurality of bonding bars are oriented in a parallel configuration.
Emerick teaches the bonding portion (fig. 19 as annotated above, bonding portion) includes a plurality of bonding bars (fig. 19, element 16-3; para. [0069], fig. 23, elements 23-1 through 23-5; para. [0075]) coupled to the first portion (fig. 19 as annotated above, bonding portion), and wherein the plurality of bonding bars are oriented in a parallel configuration (fig. 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the chassis portion includes a plurality of bonding bars coupled to the first portion, and wherein the plurality of bonding bars are oriented in a parallel configuration, as described in Emerick. Doing so enables heat dissipation (Emerick, para. [0063]), thereby improving device performance.
Claims 30-32, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Koskiniemi in view of Cerreno, and further in view of Sanford (US 20140227985 Al), hereinafter referred to as "Sanford".
Regarding claim 30, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 29 does not teach the mounting system includes a single leg.
Sanford teaches the mounting system (figs. 6A-6C, element 605) includes a single leg (figs. 6A-6C, element 605). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the mounting system includes a single leg, as described in Sanford. Doing so allows for adjusting the position of the antenna system before or after mounting the antenna system (Sanford, para. [0230]), which allows for a more convenient and accurate positioning system.
Regarding claim 31, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 30 does not teach the single leg is mounted at a center point on the chassis portion of the housing.
Sanford teaches the single leg (figs. 9A-9B, elements 905 and 917; para. [0235], [0237]) is mounted at a center point (figs. 9A-9B) on the chassis portion (fig. 9A, element 103'; para. [0235]) of the housing (figs. 9A-9B, elements 101' and 103'; para. [0235]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the single leg is mounted at a center point on the chassis portion of the housing, as described in Sanford. Doing so increases structural stability of the mounting device.
Regarding claim 32, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 29 does not teach the mounting system includes a hinge assembly for tiltably mounting the housing relative to the horizontal plane.
Sanford teaches the mounting system (fig. 1, element 107; para. [0217]) includes a hinge assembly (para. [0219]) for tiltably mounting the housing (fig. 1, element 101; para. [0214]) relative to the horizontal plane (para. [0219]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the mounting system includes a hinge assembly for tiltably mounting the housing relative to the horizontal plane, as described in Sanford. Doing so allows for adjusting
the mount (Sanford, para. [0219]).
Regarding claim 38, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 30 does not teach the mounting system is configured to receive a cabling within the single leg.
Sanford teaches the mounting system (figs. 9A-9B, elements 905 and 907) is configured to receive the cabling (para. [0237]) within the single leg (figs. 9A-9B, elements 905, 907, and 917). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the mounting system is configured to receive a cabling within the single leg, as described in Sanford. Doing so enables connection with other devices to power the antenna system or transmit a signal (Sanford, para. [0108]).
Regarding claim 40, Koskiniemi as modified in claim 29 does not teach the mounting system includes a tilt locking mechanism for locking the housing at one or more tilted orientations.
Sanford teaches the mounting system (figs 6A-6C, element 605) includes a tilt locking mechanism (para. [0231]) for locking the housing (fig. 6A, element 607) at one or more tilted orientations (figs. 6A-6C; para. [0231]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of devices described in Koskiniemi and Cerreno such that the mounting system includes a tilt locking mechanism for locking the housing at one or more tilted orientations, as described in Sanford. Doing so allows for maintaining the system in a fixed position (Sanford, para. [0231]), thereby enabling communications in the desired direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “a radome portion having a planar body extending from a first end to a second end, wherein the first and second ends are directly coupled to the chassis portion such that the radome portion and chassis portion define an inner chassis chamber”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Koskiniemi discloses a radome portion 104, 113 having a planar body [paragraph 57 “the radome may have a flat (planar shape)…”] extending from a first end to a second end [Fig. 1C], wherein the first and second ends are directly coupled to the chassis 106 portion [paragraph 56 “the radome 104 is snap-fit 115 to the rear cover element 106…”] such that the radome portion and chassis portion define an inner chassis chamber 105 [Fig. 1C].
For at least these reasons, the rejections set forth above are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Judd et al. US20130130620 see Fig. 4
Chang et al. US20120177376 see Fig. 1 and paragraph 38
Barak et al. US20090231186 see Figs. 1 and 2
Hiroki JP2003017924A see Figs. 1-3
Frank US6285323 see Fig. 1
Tsukamoto et al. US4851855 see Fig. 1
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 Alexander Taningco whose telephone number is (571)272-8048. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm, 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, ANDREA WELLINGTON can be reached at 571 272 4483. 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.
ALEXANDER H. TANINGCO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2844
/ALEXANDER H TANINGCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2844