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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 06/24/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
The applicant's amendment and arguments to the claims rejection are fully considered, however, they still failed to overcome the applied references, as is explained in greater detail below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claims 12 – 20 are now directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention previously claimed for the following reasons:
All previously presented independent claims (1, 12 and 20) were directed to determination whether simultaneous transmission operation can be performed by both first and second radios based on various conditions.
In the response filed on 06/24/2026, claim 1 was amended to further define the conditions under which simultaneous transmission operation may be allowed.
In contrast, claims 12 and 20 were amended in such a manner as to replace simultaneous transmission operation by both radios with a different scenario in which the second radio performs reception while the first radio is to perform transmission operation, so that a decision is made to deny the first radio transmission operation, terminating the reception operation of the second radio early and only then initiating the first radio transmission operation.
As may be seen, the invention now claimed in independent claims 12 and 20 is independent and distinct from the invention of independent claim 1 as well as from the invention previously claimed.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the previously presented invention (non-final rejection mailed on 03/25/2026 after filing an RCE), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12 – 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
While arguing rejection of independent claim 1, on page 10 of the Remarks, the Applicant directs their arguments to Husted. However, Husted was cited only for the rejection of small and specific limitation regarding an indication of a received signal strength. Husted was not cited in the previous office action in the rejection of multiple conditional limitations which define whether simultaneous transmission operation may be performed. It was actually Chao which was cited for that purpose. The Applicant presented no arguments with respect to Chao.
Regardless, while discussing Husted, the Applicant states:
“Notably, this does not constitute disclosure of making a determination of whether to "allow" (or disallow) a transmission. Rather, Husted only discloses whether a device can transmit without interfering with a collocated device's signal reception. Indeed, elsewhere Husted expressly recognizes that such interference may occur, albeit with some degree of "performance degradation". This, the cited portion of Husted cannot be understood as disclosing making a "determination to allow" a signal transmission based on an indication of a received signal strength.”
And
“The Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Husted that the Bluetooth transmission policy dictates whether a transmission is allowed or disallowed.”
In response, the Examiner would like to draw the Applicant’s attention to the following portions of Husted:
Col. 4 lines 19 – 25: the scanning Bluetooth device 106 may defer transmitting the inquiry response if the scanning Bluetooth device 106 determines that frequency separation between the inquiry response frequency and a WLAN communication frequency is less than a pre-determined frequency interval.
Col. 8 lines 20 – 21: temporarily defer transmission
Col. 9 lines 15 – 23: The Bluetooth coexistence device 105 can also direct the Bluetooth controller 107 to not respond to the inquiry frame if it is determined that both the Bluetooth RSSI and the WLAN RSSI are low. The scanning Bluetooth device 106 may choose to temporarily ignore the inquiring Bluetooth device 112. The Bluetooth coexistence device 105 may direct the Bluetooth controller 107 to temporarily defer transmitting the inquiry response.
Col. 9 lines 26 – 31: the Bluetooth coexistence device 105 may direct the Bluetooth controller 107 to defer transmitting the inquiry response if the WLAN RSSI is lower than the threshold level.
This, contrary to the Applicant’s argument, Husted does disclose disallowing transmission under certain circumstances.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive and the rejection of claims 1 – 11 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 – 11 each recites the limitation "the playback device" in the preamble. There is insufficient/unclear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claim 1 now defines “first playback device” and “second playback device”.
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.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160196106 (Hammer) in view of US 20220345159 (Chao) and US 8520586 (Husted).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Hammer teaches “A first playback device (paragraph 0051 and FIG 3: speaker 300 also shown in FIG 7 – 9 as speaker 604) comprising:
a communication interface (paragraph 0053: communication interface(s) 320) comprising a plurality of wireless radios comprising
a first radio to facilitate wireless communication in a first frequency range (paragraph 0053: the communication interface 320 may comprise BLUETOOTH™. Paragraph 0070: speaker 604 receives the multi-channel audio stream 708/710 via Bluetooth™ (Wireless Protocol 1). In alternative configuration shown in FIG 7 – 9, reception of the multichannel audio stream is shown through Wireless Protocol 2, which corresponds to Wi-Fi)…”
“…a second radio (paragraph 0053: the communication interface 320 may comprise a Wi-Fi) to facilitate wireless communication in a second frequency range (paragraph 0070: speaker 604 transmits the discrete audio channels 712A-712C via Wi-Fi (Wireless Protocol 2). In alternative configuration shown in FIG 7 – 9, transmission of the audio channels is shown through Wireless Protocol 1, which corresponds to Bluetooth) that at least partially overlaps with the first frequency range (the frequency range for a Bluetooth “at least partially overlaps” with the frequency range of Wi-Fi at least with respect to 2.4 GHz)…”
“…the communication interface being configured to
make a first determination that a transmission operation is to be performed by the first radio (FIG 7 – 9 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0069 – 0073. Speaker 604 may forward or transmit received multichannel audio stream 708/710 to speakers 704A-704C through Wireless Protocol 1, which may be mapped to “the first radio”. Similar process applies to the configurations in FIG 7 and FIG 9. Therefore, claimed “make a first a determination that a transmission operation is to be performed by the first radio” is at least implicitly present in the system of Hammer)…”
“…an audio amplifier (paragraph 0051 and FIG 3: amplifier 336);
at least one processor (paragraph 0051 and FIG 3: processor 308); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor (paragraph 0051 and FIG 3: memory 312; Processor 308 is provided to execute instructions contained within memory 312.) such that the first playback device is configured to
while receiving a first data stream comprising audio content via the first radio (FIG 7 – 9 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0069 – 0073. For example, with respect to FIG 8 and paragraph 0072: receiving multichannel audio stream 708/710, includes multiple channels of audio represented as 1, 2, . . . n. Speaker 604 may receive the multichannel audio stream 708/710, identify one or more channels of audio that have been assigned to it, separate the assigned audio channel, and then play the assigned audio channel at a synchronized timing. Reception of the multichannel audio stream is shown through Wireless Protocol 2 with corresponding “first radio”. Similar process applies to the configurations in FIG 7 and FIG 9 (the latter with respect to a single channel)),
play back the audio content using the audio amplifier (FIG 8 and paragraph 0072: speaker 604 may receive the multichannel audio stream 708/710, identify one or more channels of audio that have been assigned to it, separate the assigned audio channel, and then play the assigned audio channel at a synchronized timing. Similar process applies to the configurations in FIG 7 and FIG 9 (the latter with respect to a single channel));
generate a second data stream based on the audio content; and transmit the second data stream via the second radio to at least one second playback device (paragraph 0072: Speaker 604 may forward or transmit the received multichannel audio stream 708/710 (“the second data stream”) to speakers 704A-704C, each of which corresponds to “at least one second playback device”, as multichannel audio streams 812A-812C. With respect to FIG 7, paragraph 0070: Processor 308 of speaker 604 may separate the received audio stream 708/710 into multiple discrete channels 712 and provide the discrete multiple channels 712A-712C (“the second data stream”) to their respective speakers 704A-704C, each of which corresponds to “at least one second playback device”. Similar process applies to a single channel configuration of FIG 9. Paragraph 0072: by playing all channels simultaneously, with each channel playback time synchronized with the others, the desired spatial effect of stereo or surround sound may be realized.).”
Hammer does not teach “the first radio being designated as a prioritized radio for a first time period”, “the second radio being designated as the prioritized radio for a second time period subsequent to the first time period”, that transmission operation by the first radio is “during the second time period when the second radio is designated as the prioritized radio, and while the second radio is performing a previously-initiated transmission operation, obtain at least one parameter that indicates (a) a received signal strength of a wireless signal from at least one external device received via the first radio and/or the second radio, and (b) an indication that simultaneous transmission operations of the first radio and the second radio are allowed, and make a second determination to allow the first radio to transmit data to the at least one external device by performing the transmission operation during the second time period, and while the second radio is simultaneously performing the previously-initiated transmission operation, wherein the second determination is made based on the at least one parameter.”
Chao also teaches multi radio device, the radios including at least one of: Wi-Fi radio and a Bluetooth radio (see par. 0005). Particularly, paragraph 0059 and FIG 5 teach an example timing diagram 500 of the multi-radio device mediating between two radios. Although the example includes an 802.15.4 radio and a Wi-Fi radio, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that the same teaching may be applied to the combination of Bluetooth (may be mapped to “first radio” of instant claim) and a Wi-Fi radio (may be mapped to “second radio” of instant claim). As may be seen from FIG 5 and Sketch below representing annotated FIG 5, Chao teaches “the first radio being designated as a prioritized radio for a first time period (shown as Priority 1 for the 802.15.4 radio)”, “the second radio being designated as the prioritized radio for a second time period subsequent to the first time period (shown as Priority 3 for the Wi-Fi radio)”. Chao further teaches “make a first determination that a transmission operation is to be performed by the first radio during the second time period when the second radio is designated as the prioritized radio (shown as 802.15.4 Tx request in FIG 5 which coincides with ongoing Wi-Fi Tx request and grant asserted earlier), and while the second radio is performing a previously-initiated transmission operation (paragraph 0060: In a first overlap region 502 where simultaneous transmission by both radios may result in IMD, the higher priority (i.e. priority-3) signal from the Wi-Fi radio has received a “Wi-Fi Grant” permission to transmit. As may be seen, the W-Fi radio is scheduled to transmit prior to Tx request from 802.15.4 radio), obtain at least one parameter that indicates…” “…(b) an indication that simultaneous transmission operations of the first radio and the second radio are allowed, and make a second determination to allow the first radio to transmit data to the at least one external device by performing the transmission operation during the second time period, and while the second radio is simultaneously performing the previously-initiated transmission operation, wherein the second determination is made based on the at least one parameter (paragraph 0060: when the 802.15.4 radio has a lower priority (i.e. priority-1) signal to transmit, the 802.15.4 radio still receives the “802.15.4 Grant” (“an indication that simultaneous transmission operations of the first radio and the second radio are allowed”) signal because the 802.15.4 radio has its opportunistic Tx flag enabled; however the 802.15.4 radio can only transmit at an adjusted/lower power level due to its lower priority compared to the ongoing Wi-Fi transmission (the act of “make a second determination to allow the first radio to transmit data to the at least one external device by performing the transmission operation during the second time period” results in positive determination at a lower power level). This “second determination is made” based on receiving “802.15.4 Grant” representing “the at least one parameter” which is “an indication that simultaneous transmission operations of the first radio and the second radio are allowed”, as was mapped above).”
PNG
media_image1.png
1109
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Chao transmission arbitration between collocated radios, in the system of Hammer. Doing so would have allowed to implement simultaneous transmissions by the collocated radios thus increasing functionality of the device.
Lastly, neither Hammer, nor Chao disclose that the obtained at least one parameter also indicates “(a) a received signal strength of a wireless signal received from at least one external device via the first radio and/or the second radio”.
Husted in col. 1 lines 11 – 17 teaches that when wireless devices are in close proximity to each other, communication from one wireless device may interfere with communication from the other wireless device. For example, when Bluetooth and wireless local area network (WLAN) devices operate in close proximity to each other, the radio protocol of one device can interfere with the radio protocol of the other device. Husted discloses a method of overcoming this problem. In particular, Husted teaches: “make a first determination that a transmission operation is to be performed by the first radio”, “obtain at least one parameter that indicates
(a) a received signal strength of a wireless signal received from at least one external device via the first radio and/or the second radio (Col. 3 line 64 – col. 4 line 7: At stage D (which is subsequent to the step of “make a first determination that a transmission operation is to be performed by the first radio” in stage C), the scanning Bluetooth device 106 determines an RSSI for an RF signal received by the collocated WLAN device 108 (WLAN RSSI) (“indicates (a) a received signal strength of a wireless signal received from at least one external device”). The WLAN device 108 may communicate the WLAN RSSI to the scanning Bluetooth device 106.)”; “make a second determination to allow the first radio to transmit” “by performing the transmission operation during the second time period” “wherein the second determination is made based on the at least one parameter (Col. 4 lines 15 – 43: At stage E, the scanning Bluetooth device 106 accesses a Bluetooth transmission policy 114 to determine whether the scanning Bluetooth device 106 can transmit the inquiry response without interfering with the collocated WLAN device. The Bluetooth transmission policy 114 may indicate a power level at which the Bluetooth scanning device 106 may transmit the inquiry response based on the WLAN RSSI (“based on the at least one parameter”), the Bluetooth RSSI. In contrast, col. 9 lines 15 – 23: The Bluetooth coexistence device 105 can also direct the Bluetooth controller 107 to not respond to the inquiry frame if it is determined that both the Bluetooth RSSI and the WLAN RSSI are low. Thus the determination can be made both ways: whether to allow or deny)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Husted arbitration process between multiple collocated radios operating in the same frequency range, in the system of combined Hammer and Chao’s disclosures by adding it to the arbitration process already disclosed by Chao. Doing so would have allowed to eliminate or reduce interference between collocated radios by using more sophisticated decision process based on multiple criteria.
Regarding claim 2, Hammer teaches “to play back comprises to play back the audio content in synchrony with playback of the audio content by the at least one second playback device (Paragraph 0072: by playing all channels simultaneously, with each channel playback time synchronized with the others, the desired spatial effect of stereo or surround sound may be realized.).”
Regarding claim 3, Hammer teaches “wherein: the audio content comprises one or more audio channels (corresponds to setup in FIG 9 in which the digital audio stream is not separated into channels but is combined to become monaural. See paragraph 0073. Reception of a single channel 710 from mobile phone 120 by the speaker 604); and to play back comprises to play back all of the one or more audio channels in synchrony with playback of all of the one or more audio channels by the at least one second playback device (paragraph 0073: A monaural stream 912 may then be transmitted to any number of speakers for simultaneous playback. That is, in such a configuration, the same speaker may be used in an array of speakers to play back monaural audio from a streamed source, from a variety of sources, including mobile devices, which stream audio from their libraries or from the Internet. In this case, all speakers may play the same audio simultaneously to cover a large area like a whole house or outdoor party with sound.).”
Regarding claim 4, Hammer teaches “wherein: the audio content is multi-channel audio content comprising a plurality of audio channels (FIG 7 and paragraph 0070: reception of the multichannel audio stream 708/710 including multiple channels of audio represented as 1, 2, . . . n.); and to play back comprises to play back a first subset of the plurality of audio channels in synchrony with playback of a second subset of the plurality of audio channels by the at least one second playback device, the second subset of the plurality of audio channels being non-overlapping with the first subset of the plurality of audio channels (paragraph 0069: A processor 308 is used to separate the received streamed audio file into multiple discrete channels, such as and not limited to Stereo, Stereo with Subwoofer, Dolby or DTS 5.1 or 7.1 Surround Sound. Each audio channel may be sent to a different speaker for playback at a specific time to achieve the desired spatial effect of stereo or surround sound. Therefore, by playing all channels simultaneously (“in synchrony”), the desired spatial effect of stereo or surround sound may be realized. In configurations like stereo and other options of paragraph 0069, the audio channels are “non-overlapping”).”
Regarding claim 5, Hammer teaches “wherein: the multi-channel audio content is stereo audio content comprising a first audio channel and a second audio channel; and to play back comprises to play back the first audio channel in synchrony with playback of the second audio channel by the at least one second playback device (paragraph 0069: A processor 308 is used to separate the received streamed audio file into multiple discrete channels including Stereo. Each audio channel may be sent to a different speaker for playback at a specific time to achieve the desired spatial effect of stereo. Therefore, by playing all channels simultaneously, the desired spatial effect of stereo may be realized. Similar effect is described in paragraph 0072 with respect to FIG 8. Additionally, as stated in paragraphs 0069 and 0072, the speaker 604 itself may separate and play the assigned channel. Although plurality of speakers is shown in each of FIG 7 and FIG 8, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that if only one additional speaker 704 is used in combination with the main speaker 604, the latter would play one channel of a stereo and the former would play another channel of the stereo).”
Regarding claim 6, Hammer in combination with Chao teaches or fairly suggest “wherein: the transmission operation is a first transmission operation (as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and in view of Chao, “the transmission operation” was mapped to the 802.15.4 (or Bluetooth) radio device (“the first radio”) receiving the “802.15.4 Grant” and performing transmission at a reduced power level during the Wi-Fi time interval.)…”
With respect to “the communication interface is configured to determine whether the second radio is to perform a second transmission operation during the first time period when the first radio is designated as the prioritized radio”, as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, in the device of combined Hammer and Chao’s disclosures, “the second radio” was mapped to Wi-Fi radio and “the first time period” was mapped to the period when Bluetooth or 802.15.4 radio device is assigned higher priority.
Chao in paragraphs 0048 – 0057 and FIG 4 teaches that priority levels can be moderated using an opportunistic transmission grant (e.g. flag). An opportunistic Tx grant means a radio having a lower priority transmission compared to another radio's transmission, can nevertheless transmit at the reduced power level. If the on-going transmission has a higher priority than a later coming request, the later coming lower priority request is granted opportunistically at an adjusted Tx power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application, and in view of Chao’s disclosure in paragraphs 0048 – 0057, that in the device of combined Hammer and Chao’s disclosures, during the time period when Bluetooth or 802.15.4 radio device (“the first radio”) has higher priority (“during the first time period when the first radio is designated as the prioritized radio”) than the priority of the Wi-Fi device, if a transmission request comes from the Wi-Fi device, to consider assigning, opportunistically, transmission grant to the Wi-Fi device at a lower transmission power (“determine whether the second radio is to perform a second transmission operation during the first time period”). Doing so would have simply been in line with the teaching of Chao in paragraphs 0048 and 0051 and FIG 4.
Regarding claim 7, Hammer in combination with Chao teaches or fairly suggest “wherein the communication interface is configured to determine whether to allow the second radio to perform the second transmission operation during the first time period (Chao, paragraphs 0048 and 0051 and FIG 4: An opportunistic Tx grant means a radio having a lower priority transmission compared to another radio's transmission, can nevertheless transmit at the reduced power level. If the on-going transmission has a higher priority (In Chao, the ongoing Bluetooth or 802.15.4 transmission has higher priority during “the first time period”) than a later coming request, the later coming lower priority request is granted opportunistically at an adjusted Tx power (“determine whether to allow the second radio to perform the second transmission operation during the first time period” at an adjusted power level).).”
Regarding claim 8, Hammer in combination with Chao teaches or fairly suggest “wherein the communication interface is configured to determine, after determining that the second radio is to perform the second transmission operation during the first time period, at least one characteristic associated with the second transmission operation (In Chao, it is determined that only when the level of the transmission power for the lower priority radio is reduced, can it proceed with opportunistic transmission grant. In the device of combined Hammer and Chao’s disclosures, the Wi-Fi radio would be granted transmission request at a reduced transmission power).”
Regarding claim 9, Hammer in combination with Chao teaches or fairly suggest “wherein the at least one characteristic associated with the second transmission operation is one or more of an operation type or an operation power level (In Chao, it is determined that only when the level of the transmission power for the lower priority radio is reduced, can it proceed with opportunistic transmission grant. In the device of combined Hammer and Chao’s disclosures, the Wi-Fi radio would be granted transmission request at a reduced transmission power (“an operation power level”)).”
Regarding claim 10, Hammer in combination with Chao teaches or fairly suggest “wherein to determine whether to allow the first radio to perform the transmission operation comprises to identify the prioritized radio for the second time period (as may be seen in Chao’s FIG 5 and paragraph 0060, and as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, In a first overlap region 502, the higher priority (i.e. priority-3) signal from the Wi-Fi radio has received a “Wi-Fi Grant” permission to transmit. This overlap region 502 represent an instance of “a second time period”. This means that the prioritized radio for this, “second time period” is identified prior to the actual “transmission operation” being performed.).”
Regarding claim 11, Hammer teaches “wherein the plurality of wireless radios comprises two or more of a BLUETOOTH radio, a ZIGBEE radio, a WIFI radio, or an Ultra-Wideband radio (paragraph 0072: Although FIG. 8 may illustrate an example configuration in which speaker 604 receives the multi-channel audio stream 708/710 via Bluetooth™ (Wireless Protocol 1) and transmits the multichannel audio streams 712A-712C via Wi-Fi (Wireless Protocol 2), the exact wireless communication technology, standard, or network may be different.).”
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights