DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/01/25.
Claims 1, 17 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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
Argument – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claim 1, that none of the cited references Yu, Puthillathe, Assayag and/or Peeler disclose the limitation “an orchestrator that, without any involvement by an Operating System (OS) of the IHS: detect movement of the IHS during a collaboration session using a first device; and in response to the detection, change a video setting associated with the collaboration session using a second device”. In particular, the applicant states that Puthillathe does not teach a heterogenous computing platform that detects any movement of the IHS, and changes a video setting without any involvement by an Operating System OS of an HIS (see applicant’s remarks; page 7, filed 12/01/25).
Response to argument – The examiner submits that Puthillathe was not used in the 103 rejection. In fact, in the examiner’s non-final office action filed on 09/04/25, the examiner stated that Puthillathe was no longer relied upon. Moreover, the applicant arguments filed on 12/01/25 are the same arguments as the previous arguments filed on 01/21/25.
Even further, the examiner notes that the current claim listing that was filed on 12/01/25 does not include all the claim language (emphasis added) from the last rejected claims filed on 06/24/25. In particular, the examiner notes that the claims filed on 12/01/25 are the same as the previous claims filed on 01/21/25 and do not include all the claim language of the claims that were filed on 06/24/25 (emphasis added) .
Therefore, since the applicant has not addressed the prior art that was used in the 103 rejection in the examiner’s non-final office action filed 09/04/25, the rejection has been maintained, as shown below.
The applicant states that claims 17 and 19 are similar to claim 1 (see applicant’s remarks; page 8). As such, the same rationale discussed above regarding claim 1, applies equally as well to claims 17 and 19.
Since the claims filed on 12/01/25 include claim language that was previously presented in the claims filed on 01/21/25, the examiner did not show the underline portion, e.g. the amendments, in the rejection below. In other words, the amended claim language was already presented in the applicant’s last response filed 01/21/25, as well as, 06/24/25.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 15, 18 and 20, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or” and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (U.S. 2021/0051245 A1) in view of Assayag et al. (U.S. 2016/0182940).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising:
a heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices (see Yu; paragraphs 0029-0031; Yu discloses an information handling system including a chipset architecture which includes a group of integrated circuits, i.e. “plurality of devices”. The examiner notes that the applicant’s specification states that a “heterogeneous computing platform” is an integrated circuit, see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0031); and
a memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform, wherein the memory comprises a plurality of sets of firmware instructions, wherein each set of firmware instructions, upon execution by a respective device, enables the respective device to provide a corresponding firmware service, and wherein at least one of the plurality of devices operates as an orchestrator (see Yu; paragraphs 0021, 0022, 0035 and 0036; Yu discloses instructions, implemented in software or firmware, i.e. “sets of firmware instructions”, and embodied in a memory, such as ROM for communication to the devices. An I/O controller hub, i.e. “orchestrator”, may execute the instructions and communicates with a firmware hub, i.e. “firmware service”) configured to:
While Yu discloses “a heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices” and an “orchestrator”, as discussed above, Yu does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of devices operates as an orchestrator configured to without any involvement by an Operating System (OS) of the IHS: detect, using a first of the devices, movement of the IHS during a collaboration session; and in response to the detection, change, using a second of the devices that is a different type than the first device, a video setting associated with the collaboration session.
In analogous art, Assayag discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of devices operates as an orchestrator configured to without any involvement by an Operating System (OS) of the IHS (see Assayag; paragraphs 0042, 0050 and 0053; Assayag discloses functionality associated with a virtual binoculars video display may be implemented in a video conferencing program. A video processing module, i.e. “orchestrator”, of a mobile computing device, i.e. “IHS”, may be configured for receiving a video stream, determining the correlation with a local camera image, implementing zooming/panning and other enhancing effects of the video. The examiner notes that no instruction or command is given for the receiving, determining and implementing, and as such, the video processing module operates “without any involvement by an Operating System (OS) of the IHS”. The examiner also notes that according to the applicant’s specification, the IHS may be a tablet, laptop or smart phone; see applicant’s specification; paragraph 0028):
detect, using a first of the devices, movement of the IHS during a collaboration session (see Assayag; paragraphs 0042, 0050, and 0053; Assayag discloses the mobile computing device having a virtual binoculars video display incorporated in a video conferencing program, i.e. “collaboration session”. The mobile computing devices includes hardware modules, such as, the video processing module, implementing zooming, panning and other enhancing effects. And a motion processing module processes movement of the mobile computing device, i.e. “IHS”, as detected by accelerometers and gyroscopes, i.e. “a first of the devices”. The motion processing module operates in connection with the video processing module. In other words, the video processing module uses the accelerometers/gyroscopes via the motion processing module to detect movement of the mobile device, i.e. “detect, using a first of the devices, movement of the IHS”, while video is displayed in a video conferencing program, i.e. “during a collaboration session”); and
and in response to the detection, change, using a second of the devices that is a different type than the first device, a video setting associated with the collaboration session (see Assayag; paragraphs 0042, 0050 and 0053; Assayag discloses the video display is incorporated in a video conference program. The mobile computing device includes hardware modules, such as the video processing module and motion processing module. In other words, the hardware modules are “a different type” because one module is for video processing and the other module is for motion processing. Further, the motion processing module, i.e. “second of the devices”, is configured for adapting the display of the zoomed/panned video and operates in connection with the video processing to enable interactive changes to the video display as the mobile computing device is moved, i.e. “in response to the detection…”. In other words, the video processing module uses the motion processing module to implement interactive changes to the video display in a video conference as the mobile computing device is moved, i.e. “…change, using a second of the devices that is a different type than the first device, a video setting associated with the collaboration session”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yu and Assayag because they both disclose features of an information handling system, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Assayag’s changes in a video display into the system of Yu in order provide the benefit of location dependent display settings for a video feed (see Assayag; paragraph 0056) when movement of the system is detected (see Yu; paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 2, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the heterogeneous computing platform comprises at least one of a System-On-Chip (SoC), a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) (see Yu; paragraph 0022; Yu discloses a FPGA), or an Application- Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) (see Yu; paragraph 0022; Yu discloses a ASIC). (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “FPGA” and “ASIC” alternatives).
Regarding claim 3, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the orchestrator comprises a sensing hub (see Yu; paragraph 0039; Yu discloses the system may include a gyroscope that senses, i.e. “sensing hub”, and/or measures the orientation of the system and provides input related thereto to the processor, as well as, an accelerometer that senses acceleration and/or movement of the system).
Regarding claim 4, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the orchestrator comprises at least one of an Embedded Controller (EC) (see Yu; paragraphs 0035 and 0036; Yu discloses the I/O controller hub includes a variety of interfaces and provides for communication with various devices, i.e. a controller that handles various system tasks and therefore a “Embedded Controller”) or Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “embedded controller” alternative).
Regarding claim 5, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the collaboration session comprises a video conference (see Yu; paragraph 0043; Yu discloses a video conference) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “video conference” alternative).
Regarding claim 6, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the orchestrator is configured to receive a message or an instruction from an Operating System (OS) agent (see Yu; paragraphs 0035 and 0037; Yu discloses the I/O controller, i.e. “orchestrator”, has a LPC interface that communicates with, i.e. “receive a message or an instruction”, a BIOS support, i.e. “OS agent”) or application that indicates a start of the collaboration session (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “an Operating System (OS) agent” alternative).
Regarding claim 7, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein to change the audio or video setting, the orchestrator is configured to receive a message from an Operating System (OS) agent (see Assayag; paragraph 0042; Assayag discloses the functionality associated with the virtual binoculars video display may be integrated into operating system functionality for the mobile device, i.e. “receive a message from an Operating System (OS) agent”) or application to implement a policy received from at least one of an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “Operating System (OS) agent” alternative) or application to implement a policy received from at least one of an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “Operating System (OS) agent” alternative).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the policy identifies at least one of: a rule that associates the movement with the change to the video setting (see Assayag; paragraph 0053; Assayag discloses enable interactive changes to the video display, i.e. “change to the video setting”, as the mobile computing device is moved), or a parameter usable to detect the movement (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “video setting” alternative).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein to change the video setting, the orchestrator is configured to send a message to a firmware service provided by a high-performance Artificial Intelligence (Al) device among the plurality of devices via an Application Programming Interface (API) to execute an Artificial Intelligence (Al) model (see Assayag; paragraphs 0023, 0033 and 0066; Assayag discloses automated monitoring, i.e. “Artificial Intelligence (Al) model”, and control, such as, automatic video enhancement for the video streams and communication with firmware to carry out the operations).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the Al model comprises: a user framing model (see Assayag; paragraph 0033; Assayag discloses video enhancement or modification techniques may occur automatically, or to assist manual control, for the video stream. In other examples, other machine-to-machine communication and object detection techniques, including facial detection, may be used to coordinate the orientation of the mobile device relative to the desired video output and corresponding zooming, panning, and other modifications to the video stream), a video stabilization model, or a video replacement model (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “user framing model” alternative).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the Al model is selected based upon contextual information (see Assayag; paragraph 0033; Assayag discloses utilizing human outline or face detection techniques to identify that a human person is located, i.e. “contextual information”, within a scene, the accompanying high-definition video stream may be zoomed and centered on this particular person).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the orchestrator is further configured to classify the movement as being of a given movement type among a plurality of movement types based upon the contextual information, wherein the policy associates each movement type with a different video setting, and wherein to change video setting, the orchestrator is configured to select a video setting that corresponds to the given movement type (see Assayag; paragraphs 0053 and 0056; Assayag discloses enabling interactive changes to the video display as the mobile computing device is moved, i.e. one location to different location is a “movement type”, and repositioned by the user. Allocating the most appropriate video stream according to location, such as, providing location-dependent display settings. In other words, when the mobile computing device moves location, changes to the display occur, such that there is provided location-dependent display settings, i.e. “configured to select a video setting that corresponds to the given movement type” )
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein to change the video setting, the orchestrator is configured to send a message or command to a firmware service provided by a camera Digital Signal Processor (aDSP) via an Application Programming Interface (API) (see Yu; paragraphs 0021, 0022 and 0036; Yu discloses firmware instructions and the I/O hub controller, i.e. “orchestrator”, communication with various devices, including a digital signal processor, i.e. “Digital Signal Processor (aDSP)”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “camera Digital Signal Processor” alternative).
Regarding claim 14, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the firmware service is configured to indicate the video setting to the host OS, at least in part, as a Human Interface Device (HID) report (see Yu; paragraph 0036; Yu discloses the I/O controller hub interfaces with various devices, such as, USB devices including keyboards and mouse, i.e. examples of “Human Interface Device”).
Regarding claim 15, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the video settings comprises a camera input on or off setting (see Assayag; paragraph 0053; Assayag discloses enable changes on the video display, i.e. “video setting”, including zooming, panning and other enhancing effects on the video. In other words, “a camera input on” occurs in order to implement, at least, the zooming and panning) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “camera on setting” alternative).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations recited are similar to the limitations recited in claim 1. As such, the same rationale discussed above regarding claim 1, applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Yu and Assayag clearly discloses wherein to detect the movement of the heterogeneous computing platform, the orchestrator is configured to receive movement data from one or more firmware services provided by one or more of the plurality of devices via an Application Programming Interface (API), and wherein the movement data comprises gyroscope or accelerometer data (see Yu; paragraph 0039; Yu discloses the system may include a gyroscope that senses and/or measures the orientation of the system and provides input related thereto to the processor, as well as an accelerometer that senses acceleration and/or movement of the system, i.e. “receive movement data”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the both “gyroscope or accelerometer data” alternatives).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (U.S. 2021/0051245 A1) in view of Assayag et al. (U.S. 2016/0182940), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peeler et al. (U.S. 2020/0221244 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Yu and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. The combination of Yu and Assayag does not explicitly disclose wherein the sets of firmware instructions are delivered to the plurality of devices as one or more extension drivers within a firmware installation package prior to the collaboration session.
In analogous art, Peeler discloses wherein the sets of firmware instructions are delivered to the plurality of devices as one or more extension drivers within a firmware installation package prior to the collaboration session (see Peeler; paragraph 0037; Peeler discloses instructions sent using unified extensible firmware interface, i.e. “extension drivers” upon booting, i.e. “prior to the collaboration session”, of the information handling system).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yu, Assayag and Peeler because they all disclose features of an information handling system, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Peeler’s preference and rules feature into the combined system of Yu and Assayag in order provide the benefit of improving the imaging displayed in a video conference for a remote and local user (see Yu; paragraph 0043).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peeler et al. (U.S. 2020/0221244 A1) in view of Assayag et al. (U.S. 2016/0182940).
Regarding claim 19, Peeler discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a firmware installation package comprising extension drivers in a heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices, wherein upon execution, each extension driver causes a respective device to provide a firmware service to other devices via an Application Programming Interface (API) (see Peeler; paragraphs 0022, 0037 and 0074; Peeler discloses an IHS, i.e. “respective device”, coupled to devices, such as displays, cameras, input devices, and sensors, i.e. “plurality of devices”. Instructions are sent using unified extensible firmware interface, i.e. “extension drivers” upon booting, i.e. “installation package”, of the IHS to initialize components of the devices coupled to the IHS and provide a service to the devices, i.e. “provide a firmware service”. The examiner notes that an “API” would be used in order for the software components to communicate).
Peeler does not explicitly disclose delivering an indication of a policy to an orchestrator among the plurality of devices, wherein the policy is usable by the orchestrator to change, using a first of the devices, one or more video settings in response to movement detected, using a second of the devices that is a different type than the first device, during a collaboration session without any involvement by any host Operating System (OS) executed by the heterogenous computing platform.
In analogous art, Assayag discloses delivering an indication of a policy to an orchestrator among the plurality of devices (see Assayag; paragraph 0053; Assayag discloses a video processing module, i.e. “orchestrator”, obtains information from a determination, i.e. an “indication”, to provide enhancing effects, i.e. “policy”, for a video. In other words, the information from the determination indicates a procedure for enhancing effects of the video),
wherein the policy is usable by the orchestrator to change, using a first of the devices, one or more video settings in response to movement detected, using a second of the devices that is a different type than the first device (see Assayag; paragraphs 0042, 0050 and 0053; Assayag discloses the mobile computing device having a virtual binoculars video display incorporated in a video conferencing program. The mobile computing devices includes hardware modules, such as, the video processing module for implementing zooming, panning and other enhancing effects, as well as, the motion processing module. In other words, the hardware modules are “a different type” because one module is for video processing and the other module is for motion processing. Further, the motion processing module, i.e. “second of the devices”, processes movement of the mobile computing device as detected by accelerometers and gyroscopes, i.e. “a first of the devices”. The motion processing module is configured for adapting the display of the zoomed/panned video and operates in connection with the video processing to enable interactive changes to the video display as the mobile computing device is moved. In other words, the video processing module uses the accelerometers/gyroscopes, i.e. “a first of the devices”, via the motion processing module, i.e. “second of the devices”, to detect movement of the mobile device while video is displayed in a video conferencing program, i.e. “change, using a first of the devices, one or more video settings in response to movement detected, using a second of the devices”), during a collaboration session without any involvement by any host Operating System (OS) executed by the heterogenous computing platform (see Assayag; paragraph 0042; Assayag discloses the video display functionality is incorporated as part of a video conferencing program and in other examples the functionality may be integrated into operating system functionality of the mobile device. In other words, when the functionality is part of the video conferencing the operating system is not involved, i.e. “during a collaboration session without any involvement by any host Operating System (OS) executed by the heterogenous computing platform”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Peeler and Assayag because they both disclose features of settings for a collaboration session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Assayag’s changes in a video display into the system of Peeler in order provide the benefit of location dependent display settings for a video feed (see Assayag; paragraph 0056) when device moves during a collaboration session that includes settings and rules (see Peeler; paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 20, Peeler and Assayag disclose all the limitations of claim 19, as discussed above, and further the combination of Peeler and Assayag clearly discloses wherein the video settings comprises a camera input on or off setting (see Assayag; paragraph 0053; Assayag discloses enable changes on the video display, i.e. “video setting”, including zooming, panning and other enhancing effects on the video. In other words, “a camera input on” occurs in order to implement, at least, the zooming and panning) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “camera on setting” alternative).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iyer et al. (U.S. 11,010,125 B1) discloses identifying a location of an information handling system and applying one or more configuration rules to automatically enable a video conference.
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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 02/02/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458