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 filed 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that Sato as modified by Goland fails to disclose ” determining that the first participant is to operate as an authority for the distinguished type of network service in the network; and notifying at least the second participant that the first participant is an authority for the distinguished type of network service in the network” (Applicant’s Arguments and Remarks, pages 9-10). The examiner agrees but notes that these elements are taught by the newly cited reference of Thompson and Kouznetsov. Therefore, Applicant’s Arguments have been considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 11-24, Applicant argues that these claims are allowable for the same reasons as stated with respect to claim 10 (Id). Therefore, Examiner disagrees for the same reasons as stated with respect to claim 10.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2015/0023242 A1) in view of in view of Thompson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2007/0127504 A1) and Kouznetsov, et al. (US Patent No. 7,062,555).
Regarding claim 10, Sato discloses a method in a first participant in a network, the method comprising:
a. during a first time providing a type of network service in the network; (Sato discloses a providing apparatus, for example providing apparatus 701 in figs9/10a-b, that provides a service in the network, for example, an image publication service [paragraphs 0026, 0075-0077]).
b. during the providing, receiving a broadcast message from a second participant in the network indicating that the second participant is providing the of network service in the network; (Sato discloses that a providing apparatus detects a service presence notification sent/broadcast/multicast from another providing apparatus [paragraphs 0091-0092 – detects service in response to a request; 0085-0086 – detects service based on a device initiated broadcast/multicast; note that a multicast is considered a type of broadcast; note further if it is not, that the wireless medium itself is a broadcast and the transmission is also broadcast in that sense as well]. In response to the detected service, the first participant/service providing apparatus 701 stores the service in the using apparatus management table [paragraphs 0091-0093].
c. In response to the receiving, storing information identifying the second participant in a list of other participants that provide the distinguished type of network service in the network. (paragraphs 0091-0093 – see (b), surpa).
Sato as modified by fails to disclose determining that the first participant is to operate as an authority for a distinguished type of network service in the network and updating an announcement record indicating the first participant is an authority for the distinguished type of service. In the same field of endeavor, Thompson discloses determining that the first participant is to operate as an authority for the distinguished type of network service in the network and notifying at least the second participant that the first participant is an authority for the distinguished type of network service. (Thompson discloses that a first participant/endpoint 111 determines the role that the endpoint will take based on a list of participants in the network announcing an indication of intent to host a particular distinguished network service, including a primary role [0042-045- endpoint announces intent to host topology service, retrieves list/announcement record of all other endpoints indicating support to host the specified service and stores locally; 0047-0049 - determines if first participant/endpoint has the primary role; 0049-0054, 0058 – announces the first participant/endpoint has the primary role and records it in the announcement record; fig. 5, other nodes will retrieve the updated announcement record with the nodes role when they loop back to start)
Therefore, since Thompson discloses determining the first participant is a primary authority from a list of devices indicating provision of a distinguished type of service, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the elections of Thonpson with the system of Sato by having the first participant determine it is the primary/an authority for a particular type of distinguished network service based on a list of participants providing that service. The motive to combine is to allow selection of an authority/primary provider for a service and one or more secondary providers to allow for better redundancy.
Sato as modified by Thompson fails to disclose notifying at least the second participant that the first participant is an authority for the distinguished type of network service. (i.e. Thompson discloses that the master announcement record is updated to indicate the first participant is the primary/authoritative node for the distinguished type of network service but it is not completely clear that this election result is sent to the other nodes). In the same field of endeavor, Kouznetsov discloses notifying at least the second participant that the first participant is an authority for the distinguished type of network service. (Kouznetsov disclose that the results of an election to determine a provider for a specific service is broadcast to all devices on the network [column 2, lines 41-58].)
Therefore, since Kouznetsov discloses broadcasting election results for a distinguished type of network service to all devices, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the announcements of Kouznetsov with the system of Sato as modified by Thompson by announcing the selection of an authority/primary provider for a service to the network, including the second participant. The motive to combine is to allow the second participant to know the election results so it can query the authority/primary provider without having to re-access the announcement record, improving efficiency and speed.
Regarding claim 13, Sato discloses in response to the receiving notifying at least the second participant that the first participant will discontinue providing the distinguished type of network service in the network; and discontinuing providing the distinguished type of network service in the network. (When the providing apparatus/first participant determines that it is to stop offering a service is notifies all devices in the using apparatus management table that it will be stopping service, which would include the second participant/using apparatus [paragraphs 0098-0101, see also 0088-0089]. This is done in response to the receiving notifying as it is the reception of the notification that places the second participant in the using apparatus management table.)
Regarding claim 14, Sato discloses a first communication device connected to a network, the first communication device comprising a radio configured to conduct wireless communication with other communication devices at least one processor and memory having contents configured to cause the processor to (paragraph 0132) perform a method, the method comprising:
during a first period, providing a first type of network service to the network, accessing a list of communication devices other than the first communication device providing the first type of network service in the network (Sato discloses a providing apparatus, for example providing apparatus 701 in figs9/10a-b, that provides a service in the network, for example, an image publication service with other devices also providing the same service [paragraphs 0026, 0075-0077; note 0026 only discloses one service type [i.e. image publication] therefore it is taught that all providing/using apparatus could use the same service type]. Sato further discloses that a providing apparatus detects a service presence notification sent/broadcast/multicast from another providing apparatus [paragraphs 0091-0092 – detects service in response to a request; 0085-0086 – detects service based on a device initiated broadcast/multicast; note that a multicast is considered a type of broadcast; note further if it is not, that the wireless medium itself is a broadcast and the transmission is also broadcast in that sense as well]. In response to the detected service, the first participant/service providing apparatus 701 stores the service in the using apparatus management table [paragraphs 0091-0093]. Therefore the using apparatus management table is a list of communication devices other than the first which provide the first type of service [i.e. image publication]. The using apparatus management table/list of communication devices is accessed to transmit service withdrawal messages indicating the first communication device stops offering the service [paragraphs 0098-0101]. The first period may be the time from initialization of the first device until the determination to discontinue providing the first type of network service. )
b. during a second time period after the first time period, with the radio, notifying at least the communication devices on the list that the communication device will discontinue provision of the network service in the network (as discussed in (a), supra, the using apparatus management table/list of communication devices is accessed to transmit service withdrawal messages indicating the first communication device stops offering the service [paragraphs 0098-0101].)
c. discontinuing providing the first type of network service in the network (paragraphs 0098-0101 – see (a), supra).
Sato as modified by Goldad fails to disclose determining that the first communication device is to operate as an authority for the first type of network service to the network. In the same field of endeavor, Thompson discloses determining that the first communication device is to operate as an authority for the first type of network service to the network (Thompson discloses that a first participant/endpoint 111 determines the role that the endpoint will take based on a list of participants in the network announcing an indication of intent to host a particular distinguished network service, including a primary role [0042-045- endpoint announces intent to host topology service, retrieves list/announcement record of all other endpoints indicating support to host the specified service and stores locally; 0047-0049 - determines if first participant/endpoint has the primary role; 0049-0054, 0058 – announces the first participant/endpoint has the primary role and records it in the announcement record; fig. 5, other nodes will retrieve the updated announcement record with the nodes role when they loop back to start)
Therefore, since Thompson discloses determining the first communication device is a primary authority from a list of devices indicating provision of a distinguished type of service, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the elections of Thonpson with the system of Sato as modified by Goldad by having the first communication device determine it is the primary/an authority for a particular type of distinguished network service based on a list of participants providing that service. The motive to combine is to allow selection of an authority/primary provider for a service and one or more secondary providers to allow for better redundancy.
Sato as modified by Thompson fails to disclose or with the radio, notify at least the communication devices on the list that the first communication device is an authority for the first type of network service to the network. (i.e. Thompson discloses that the master announcement record is updated to indicate the first participant is the primary/authoritative node for the distinguished type of network service but it is not completely clear that this election result is sent to the other nodes). In the same field of endeavor, Kouznetsov discloses notifying at least the second participant that the first participant is an authority for the distinguished type of network service. (Kouznetsov disclose that the results of an election to determine a provider for a specific service is broadcast to all devices on the network [column 2, lines 41-58].)
Therefore, since Kouznetsov discloses broadcasting election results for a distinguished type of network service to all devices, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the announcements of Kouznetsov with the system of Sato as modified by Thompson by announcing the selection of an authority/primary provider for a service to the network, including the second participant. The motive to combine is to allow the second participant to know the election results so it can query the authority/primary provider without having to re-access the announcement record, improving efficiency and speed.
Regarding claim 17, Sato discloses the notifying and discontinuing during the second time period are performed in response to an event not related to any change in the network's topology. (Sato discloses the shutdown/notification and discontinuing can be caused by battery state or user request [paragraph 0111].)
Regarding claim 19, Sato discloses during the first time period assessing whether it would benefit operation of the first communication device to discontinue providing the first type of network service in the network, to obtain an assessment result, wherein the notifying and discontinuing in the second time period are performed in response to the assessment result. (Sato discloses the shutdown/notification and discontinuing can be caused by a determination/assessment of a battery level of the device [paragraph 0111].)
Regarding claim 20, Sato discloses during the first time period determining that the first communication device should discontinue providing the firs type of network service in the networ and wherein the notifying and discontinuing during the second time period are performed directly in response to the determining (Sato discloses the shutdown/notification and discontinuing can be caused by battery state or user request determined prior to the second time period/determination to discontinue service [paragraph 0111].)
Claim(s) 11, 12, 16, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2015/0023242 A1) in view of Thompson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2007/0127504 A1) and Kouznetsov, et al. (US Patent No. 7,062,555) as applied to claims 10 and 14 and further in view of Dustdar, et al. (S. Dustar, L. Juszczyk, Dynamic Replication and Synchronization of Web Services for High Availability in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks, pages 1-20, 2007)
Regarding claim 11, Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov fails to disclose the providing comprises establishing a state used in providing the distinguished type of network service in the network, the method further comprising in response to the receiving, communicating with the second participant to synchronize at least part of the state established in the first participant with a corresponding state established in the second participant. In the same field of endeavor, Dustdar discloses the providing comprises establishing a state used in providing the distinguished type of network service in the network, the method further comprising in response to the receiving, communicating with the second participant to synchronize at least part of the state established in the first participant with a corresponding state established in the second participant.
That is, the system of Sato discloses adding the second participant to the network service in the network in response to receiving the second participant is added to participate in providing the service to the network (see claim 10, supra, in response to the service notification/response the device is added to the participants/users of the service)
In the same field of endeavor, Dustdar deals with synchronizing services in participants when they re-join a specific ad-hoc network after a network split (pages 24-25, section 2.3 – after merging following a split there may be state inconsistencies with a newly added replica including collisions; the states are broadly split into two main groups: 1. Different state information, with the different state information comprising inconsistent and colliding state 2. Common state information that is the same The synchronization only updates the different/first state information)
Therefore, since Dustdar discloses state synchronization when re-joining an adhoc network, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the re-joining of Dusdar with the system of Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov by making the second participant a re-joining participant to the network that advertises its availability to provide the service and then synchronizing only the different/first portion of the state information with the second participant. The motive to combine is to update the state information efficiently by only updating different information and to resolve inconsistencies in the state.
Regarding claim 12, Sato as modified by Thompson, Kouznetsov and Dustdar discloses the established state comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein the synchronization is performed with respect to the first portion, to the exclusion of the second portion (see claim 11, supra).
Regarding claim 16, Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov fails to disclose during the first time period identify a change to the topology of the network, wherein the notifying and discontinuing are performed in response to the identifying. In the same field of endeavor, Dusdar discloses during the first time period identify a change to the topology of the network, wherein the notifying and discontinuing are performed in response to the identifying. (Dusdat discloses that when two networks that were previously split merge, a new leader is elected [pages 7-8, section 2.2.4] in response to the merging of the network may move and shut down replicas in the network [pages 8-9, in particular “Furthermore, it checks whether some of the replicas have to be moved to better suited locations by comparing the performance properties of hosts and the requirements of services.”])
Therefore, since Dustdar discloses replica shutdown based on topology changes caused by mesh network merging, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the topology shutdown of Dustdar with the system of Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov by moving the first participant and shutting down services in accordance with the notifying and discontinuing. The motive to combine is to allow movement of the replica to the optimal participant.
Regarding claim 23, Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov fails to disclose during the first time period establish state in providing the first type of network service to the network, and perform bilateral synchronization of the established state with one during the first time period establish state in providing the first type of network service to the network, and perform bilateral synchronization of the established state with one or more of the communication devices on the list (Dustdar deals with synchronizing services in participants when they re-join a specific ad-hoc network after a network split [pages 24-25, section 2.3 – after merging following a split there may be state inconsistencies with a newly added replica including collisions; see also pages 7-8, section 2.2.4 – disclosing election following a merger and subsequent response]. In relevant part the differences/inconsistencies may be resolved in two different ways 1. A bilateral merger/synchronization involving “fusing” the two states 2. A unilateral merger in which one state is dominant and replaces the other state [page 11, “Possible state collisions, which might happen after two desynchronized groups of replicas merge again, can be resolved by either fusing the states or by simply declaring one state as dominant and withdrawing the others”]. Finally, once the merger is complete one or more of the replicas may be moved and shut down [pages 8-9, in particular “Furthermore, it checks whether some of the replicas have to be moved to better suited locations by comparing the performance properties of hosts and the requirements of services.”].)
Therefore, since Dusdar discloses unilateral or bilateral synchronization followed by movement and shutdown, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the synchronization of Dusdar with the system of Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov by performing an election after merging networks and associated service replicas, including the first communication device, and then perfuming bilateral or unilateral synchronization/merging of the first communication device and finally moving the replica on the first communication device and shutting down/discontinuing the service. The motive to combine is to allow smooth merging of the networks including state updates of an appropriate type for the service and to improve efficiency by moving the replica on the first communication device to the best target and discontinuing service at the first communication device.
Regarding claim 24, Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov discloses during the first time period establish state in providing the first type of network service to the network and performing unilateral synchronization of the established state to one or more of the communication devices on the list (see claim 23, supra).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2015/0023242 A1) in view of Thompson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2007/0127504 A1) and Kouznetsov, et al. (US Patent No. 7,062,555) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of and Hamdy, et al. (M. Hamdy, Service Replication in Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, pages 1-367, 2010)
Regarding claim 15, Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov fails to disclose during the first time period, assess supply versus demand for the first type of network service in the network to obtain an assessment result, wherein the notifying and discontinuing during the second time period is performed in response to the assessment result. In the same field of endeavor, Hamdy discloses during the first time period, assess supply versus demand for the first type of network service in the network to obtain an assessment result, wherein the notifying and discontinuing during the second time period is performed in response to the assessment result. (Hamdy discloses that an active service assesses demand for a service and if there is insufficient demand, will shut down/hibernate the service [pages 0134-0135].)
Therefore, since Hamdy discloses shutdown/hibernation based on supply vs demand it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the shutdown/hibernation of Hamdy with the system of Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov by performing a shutdown of the service using notification and discontinuation, as taught by Sato in response to the supply vs demand detection of Hamdy. The motive to combine is to lower the overhead on the first communication device by shutting down the replica when it is not needed.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2015/0023242 A1) in view of Thompson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2007/0127504 A1) and Kouznetsov, et al. (US Patent No. 7,062,555) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of UPNP (Author Unknown, UPnP SSDP for WPS, pages 1-24, 2016).
Regarding claim 18, Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov fails to disclose the notifying and discontinuing during the second time period are performed in response to a random determination. In the same field of endavor, UPNP discloses the notifying and discontinuing during the second time period are performed in response to a random determination. (UPNP dislcoses that the interval for transmitting the UPNP advertisements, which include the byebye/discontinuation notification may be determine using the random portion of half of the cache control age [lines 275-284 – random length; lines 145-154 – period includes the byebye/discontinuation advertisement].)
Therefore, since UPNP discloses a random determination of delay before the discontinuation transmission, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the random delay of UPNP with the system of Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov by delaying a random time based on the cache control age before sending the discontinuation notification and discontinuing the service. The motive to combine is to add randomness to the advertisements to prevent a synchronized source from periodically interfering with the advertisement transmissions.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2015/0023242 A1) in view of Thompson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2007/0127504 A1), Kouznetsov, et al. (US Patent No. 7,062,555) and UPNP (Author Unknown, UPnP SSDP for WPS, pages 1-24) as applied to claim 18 and further in view of Atjomi, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2007/0124447 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov and UPNP fails to disclose during the first time period each time that a period of a length expires, sending a broadcast message to the network indicating that the first communication device is providing the first type of network service and determining that the first communication device should discontinue the providing of the first type of network service in the network, wherein the notifying and discontinuing during the second time period are performed at thuring the first time period each time that a period of a length expires, sending a broadcast message to the network indicating that the first communication device is providing the first type of network service and determining that the first communication device should discontinue the providing of the first type of network service in the network, wherein the notifying and discontinuing during the second time period are performed at the end of the period during which the determining occurs. (UPNP discloses that the interval for transmitting the UPNP advertisements, which include the byebye/discontinuation and up advertisements/notifications may be determine using the random portion of half of the cache control age [lines 275-284 – random length; lines 145-154 – period includes the byebye/discontinuation advertisement].)
Therefore, since UPNP discloses a random determination of delay before the discontinuation transmission, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the random delay of UPNP with the system of Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov and UPNP by delaying a random time based on the cache control age before sending the discontinuation notification and discontinuing the service. The motive to combine is to reduce overhead by sending the advertisement bye notifications at quasi periodic intervals.
Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov and UPNP fails to disclose a fixed time period. In the same field of endeavor Atjomi discloses a fixed time period. (Atjomi discloses that the SSDP message transmission may be periodic instead of quasi periodic).
Therefore, since Atjomi discloses periodic SSDP advertisements, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the periodic transmissions of Atjomi with the system of Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov and UPNP by sending the alive and bybye messages using a periodic and not quasi periodic interval. The motive to combine is to allow for predictable transmission so a receiving device known when to expect the transmission to allow quick detection of a missed transmission and/or sleeping.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2015/0023242 A1) in view of Thompson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2007/0127504 A1) and Kouznetsov, et al. (US Patent No. 7,062,555) as applied to claim 14 and further in view of and Brittenham, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2002/0178254 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov fails to disclose during the first time period receiving a plurality of requests for the first type of network service from communication devices connected to the network, by a first time at which the notifying occurs, resolving only a first portion of the received plurality of requests, such that a second portion of the received plurality of requests are unresolved and at a second time after the first time, determining that the second portion of the received plurality of requests have been resolved, wherein the discontinuing during the second time period is performed after the second time. In the same field of endeavor, Brittenham discloses during the first time period receiving a plurality of requests for the first type of network service from communication devices connected to the network, by a first time at which the notifying occurs, resolving only a first portion of the received plurality of requests, such that a second portion of the received plurality of requests are unresolved and at a second time after the first time, determining that the second portion of the received plurality of requests have been resolved, wherein the discontinuing during the second time period is performed after the second time. (The system of Brittenham discloses that gracefully shutting down a service with outstanding requests entails first removing the service registry indicating the device provides a service and then waiting to finish all unresolved requests before shutting down [paragraphs 0088-0091].)
Therefore, since Brittenham discloses a graceful shutdown of a service it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the graceful shutdowns of Brittenham by receiving a plurality of requests and performing processing as in normal operation and then sometime before processing is complete [i.e. a first time] determining to shut down gracefully and removing the service from the registry of service providers by sending the notice o Sato as modified by Thompson and Kouznetsov and to then finish processing the requests at a second time and then performing a shutdown of the service. The motive to combine is to gracefully shut down by processing all outstanding requests before fully shutting down.
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 CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached on (571) 272-7969. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466