DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 02/05/2026 in which no claims have been amended. Claims 13-20 have been added. Currently claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this application.
Based on this reply:
The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Duan does not teach each and every limitation of claim 1 and of claim 8. The argument appears to be centered around the following statements, on Pages 10-11:
“With regard to the recited first overlap region and the recited second overlap region, the Office alleges that Duan, at lines 45-67 of column 3, discloses these features. See Id., page 4. Applicant respectively submits that Duan does not teach either overlap region as presently claimed. Duan teaches that distance measurements are determined based on signal strength as detected by two detectors and not by an overlap region. (“[D]distance estimations are performed by emitting light from an emitter of an electronic device toward an object being sensed, receiving emitted light that has been reflected from the object at a first and a second light detector, and using the signal strength of the light received at the first detector and the signal strength of the light received at the second detector to calculate a ratio of signal strengths. This ratio may then be correlated to a distance between the electronic device and the object.” See Duan, lines 45-67 of column 3.)
Because Duan uses signal strength to determine a distance to an object, Applicant submits that Duan do not disclose at least the features of “a controller configured to determine a first distance measurement to a surface within one or both of the first and second overlap regions based on the ratio of reflected light from the light source received by the first sensor and reflected light from the light source received by the second sensor” as recited in claim 1 and the features of “determining a distance to a surface within one or both of the first and second overlap regions based on the ratio of reflected light from the light source received by the first sensor and reflected light from the light source received by the second sensor” as recited in claim 8. Therefore, Applicant submits that claims 1 and 8 are allowable.”
Regarding the first point, “Duan teaches that distance measurements are determined based on signal strength as detected by two detectors and not by an overlap region.”, it is not clear to the examiner why a measurement of signal strength would exclude an overlap region. To the contrary, the fact that a sensor is detecting reflected light that was emitted from the light source (notably single-reflection light, as is depicted in FIG. 5) would seem to prove the fact that the field of view of the sensor and the field of illumination of the light source have some overlap. There would be no way for the sensor to receive single-reflection light from the source if there was no overlap.
Regarding the second point, “Because Duan uses signal strength to determine a distance to an object, Applicant submits that Duan do not disclose at least the features of…”, it is not clear to the examiner which aspect(s) of the quoted claim limitation the applicant is arguing would not be taught as a result of Duan using signal strength, but the prior point addressed the overlap region, so the remaining aspect is the claim limitation regarding “based on a ratio…”. However, the quoted text of Duan noted by the applicant would appear to explicitly discuss an association between the ratio of the signals and the distance (“… using the signal strength of the light received at the first detector and the signal strength of the light received at the second detector to calculate a ratio of signal strengths. This ratio may then be correlated to a distance between the electronic device and the object.” See Duan, lines 45-67 of column 3). See also FIGS 6A-B of Duan. Duan does uses signal strength, but the signal strength is used to calculate a ratio of the signal strengths which is used to determine a distance. Further, the signal strength of each sensor is well understood to correspond to the quantity of “reflected light from the light source”.
The prior art rejections of claims 1-12 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 13, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 12164027 B1), hereinafter Duan.
Regarding claim 1, Duan teaches:
An optical sensor ([Col. 1, Lines 49-62] “described herein is an electronic device, comprising: …”) comprising:
a light source having a field of illumination ([Col. 1, Lines 49-62] “described herein is an electronic device, comprising: a housing; a light emitter operable to emit light outward from or through the housing;”);
first and second light sensors having respective first and second fields of view ([Col. 1, Lines 49-62] “comprising: a housing; a light emitter operable to emit light outward from or through the housing; a first light detector positioned within the housing at a first separation distance from the light emitter; a second light detector…”);
wherein: the intersection of the field of illumination and the first field of view forms a first overlap region ([Col. 3, Lines 45-67] “distance estimations are performed by emitting light from an emitter of an electronic device toward an object being sensed, receiving emitted light that has been reflected from the object at a first and a second light detector”);
the intersection of the field of illumination and the second field of view forms a second overlap region ([Col. 3, Lines 45-67] “distance estimations are performed by emitting light from an emitter of an electronic device toward an object being sensed, receiving emitted light that has been reflected from the object at a first and a second light detector”);
such that when a surface is within one or both of the first and second overlap regions, the surface reflects light from the light source to the respective light sensor ([Col. 3, Lines 45-67] “distance estimations are performed by emitting light from an emitter of an electronic device toward an object being sensed, receiving emitted light that has been reflected from the object at a first and a second light detector”);
a controller configured to determine a first distance measurement to a surface within one or both of the first and second overlap regions based on the ratio of reflected light from the light source received by the first sensor and reflected light from the light source received by the second sensor ([Col. 1, Lines 49-62] “a processor configured to estimate an object distance”; [Col. 3, Lines 45-67] “and using the signal strength of the light received at the first detector and the signal strength of the light received at the second detector to calculate a ratio of signal strengths. This ratio may then be correlated to a distance between the electronic device and the object.”).
Regarding claim 8, the scope of the method of claim 8 corresponds to that of the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Duan teaches the optical sensor of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the ratio of reflected light from the light source received by the first sensor and the reflected light from the light source received by the second sensor are based on an area of the surface within each region, a reflectance of the surface, and an intensity of the light source (The three aspects of this claim limitation are naturally understood influences on a light signal – increasing the area of a surface within the field of view which is illuminated increases a light signal; the reflectance of the surface affects how much light is being reflected to the sensor; and the intensity of the light source affects the intensity of the reflected light. Thus, they are thus inherently true of Duan.).
Regarding claim 15, Duan teaches the optical sensor of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the light source is arranged on one side of both the first light sensor and the second light sensor (FIG. 5; light emitter 502 is located towards the ‘right’ side of both light detector 504a and light detector 504b.).
Regarding claim 17, Duan teaches the method of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the ratio of reflected light from the light source received by the first sensor and the reflected light from the light source received by the second sensor are based on an area of the surface within each region, a reflectance of the surface, and an intensity of the light source (The three aspects of this claim limitation are naturally understood influences on a light signal – increasing the area of a surface within the field of view which is illuminated increases a light signal; the reflectance of the surface affects how much light is being reflected to the sensor; and the intensity of the light source affects the intensity of the reflected light. Thus, they are thus inherently true of Duan.).
Regarding claim 19, Duan teaches the method of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the light source is arranged on one side of both the first light sensor and the second light sensor (FIG. 5; light emitter 502 is located towards the ‘right’ side of both light detector 504a and light detector 504b.).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 14, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan.
Regarding claim 2, Duan teaches the optical sensor of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first overlap region is a subset of the second overlap region, or the second overlap region is a subset of the first overlap region.
However, such an arrangement is a simple design choice which operates in a predictable manner with respect to the invention of Duan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have aligned the light emitter to the line connecting the detectors of one detector pair, as this is one choice of optical arrangement which performs a predictable and operationally similar function.
Regarding claim 3, Duan teaches the optical sensor of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first overlap region has a subregion which is outside the second overlap region, and the second overlap region has a subregion which is outside the first overlap region.
However, the geometrical arrangement presented in FIG. 2A, for example, implies that each detector may have subzones of their overlap region that are mutually exclusive of the overlap region of the other detector. This can be seen because the emitter is not located along the line connecting the two detectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen field-of-view and field-of-illumination parameters that fall within reasonable standard design choices with a predictable outcome, and which would have resulted in each overlap region having a subregion which is outside the other overlap region.
Regarding claim 14, Duan teaches the optical sensor of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the light source is arranged between the first light sensor and the second light sensor.
However, the operational principle of Duan depends only on the distance between the emitter and the detectors. The distance between the detectors does not impact the outcome. Thus, any arrangement of parts that simply rotates the relative positions of the detectors about the emitter axis would be understood to provide a predictable and similar result. See, MPEP 2144.04 (V) (D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Duan such that the detectors would be located on opposite sides of the emitter, as a simple design choice of arrangement with predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Duan teaches the optical sensor of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the light source, the first light sensor, and the second light sensor are arranged within 50 mm of the surface.
However, Duan contemplates an operation that at least includes a distance of 100 mm ([Col. 18, Lines 30-32] “In certain embodiments, the critical distance may be approximately 10 centimeters, although this may vary between embodiments.”). Note also that the “critical distance” of Duan is a chosen threshold, and not the operational limit (see FIGS. 6A-B), so the operation would be understood to extend to distances of less than 100 mm. Given these considerations, as well as the well understood design principles that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand for choosing a desired operating distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have set the optical design parameters of the device of Duan to operate in a range of distances which includes 50 mm.
Regarding claim 18, Duan teaches the method of claim 8, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the light source is arranged between the first light sensor and the second light sensor.
However, the operational principle of Duan depends only on the distance between the emitter and the detectors. The distance between the detectors does not impact the outcome. Thus, any arrangement of parts that simply rotates the relative positions of the detectors about the emitter axis would be understood to provide a predictable and similar result. See, MPEP 2144.04 (V) (D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Duan such that the detectors would be located on opposite sides of the emitter, as a simple design choice of arrangement with predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Duan teaches the method of claim 8, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the light source, the first light sensor, and the second light sensor are arranged within 50 mm of the surface.
However, Duan contemplates an operation that at least includes a distance of 100 mm ([Col. 18, Lines 30-32] “In certain embodiments, the critical distance may be approximately 10 centimeters, although this may vary between embodiments.”). Note also that the “critical distance” of Duan is a chosen threshold, and not the operational limit (see FIGS. 6A-B), so the operation would be understood to extend to distances of less than 100 mm. Given these considerations, as well as the well understood design principles that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand for choosing a desired operating distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have set the optical design parameters of the device of Duan to operate in a range of distances which includes 50 mm.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan in view of STMicroelectronics (VL6180X. STMicroelectronics. Accessed online.) and Pennecot et al. (US 20180011196 A1), hereinafter Pennecot.
Regarding claim 4, Duan teaches the optical sensor of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: apply modulation to the light source ([Col. 3, Lines 45-67] “In embodiments with light detects that sense wider range of wavelengths than are outputted by the light emitter, techniques (such as dark channel subtraction, modulation/demodulation, and the like) or filters (including coatings) may be used to separate emitted light from ambient light. This ensures the light detectors receive and are sensitive to a signal (e.g., light) from the emitter rather than ambient light.”);
Duan does not teach:
determine a second distance measurement to the surface based on time of flight of reflected light from the light source to the first sensor;
output the first distance measurement if at least one of the first or second distance measurements is below a threshold distance, and the second distance measurement if at least one of the first or second distance measurements are above a threshold distance.
STMicroelectronics teaches an optical time of flight sensor comprising a light source and a light sensor ([Pg. 1] “the VL6180X precisely measures the time the light takes to travel to the nearest object and reflect back to the sensor (Time-of-Flight)… Combining an IR emitter, a range sensor and an ambient light sensor in a three-in-one ready-to use reflowable package”).
While neither Duan nor STMicroelectronics teach that the two devices are combined into a single device, they both operate using at least one light emitter and one light detector. Further, while the time-of-flight device of STMicroelectronics requires certain operation constraints, in particular, light modulation, the device of Duan simply requires that signal amplitude is measured, which is compatible with the operational constraints of STMicroelectronics. Given this shared equipment and compatible operational constraints, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try combining these two teachings into a single device with a reasonable chance of success. Which is to say, it would have been obvious to try using the light emitter and one of the light detectors of Duan for the time-of-flight measurement of STMicroelectronics to have the benefit of both devices with improved cost and efficiency. Thus teaching the limitation: determine a second distance measurement to the surface based on time of flight of reflected light from the light source to the first sensor.
Further, Pennecot teaches the use of multiple distance sensors, where the data of different sensors is utilized based on the distance of an object and the optimal sensing of the sensors ([0143] “At block 708, the method 700 involves tracking the object based on third data from the third LIDAR based on the given distance being less than the first threshold.”; [0144] “Thus, in an example scenario, the object may move between the various ranges of the various LIDARs, and the method 700 at blocks 704-708 may allow continuous tracking of the object using the respective characteristics of each of the first LIDAR, the second LIDAR, and the third LIDAR.”). Thus teaching the limitation: output the first distance measurement if at least one of the first or second distance measurements is below a threshold distance, and the second distance measurement if at least one of the first or second distance measurements are above a threshold distance.
While Pennecot explicitly discusses multiple LIDAR devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such a system would apply to any selection of detectors which each measure the same parameter and have different ranges and/or sensitivities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the distance-threshold-based analysis as taught by Pennecot with the combined time-of-flight and distance proximity sensor of Duan in view of STMicroelectronics to utilize the two data returns in their optimal conditions.
Regarding claim 5, Duan in view of STMicroelectronics and Pennecot teaches the optical sensor of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the threshold distance is between 50mm and 100mm.
Duan contemplates a “critical distance”, which must be within the operational range of the device, of approximately 10 centimeters (100 mm) ([Col. 18, Lines 30-32] “In certain embodiments, the critical distance may be approximately 10 centimeters, although this may vary between embodiments.”), and the time-of-flight detector of STMicroelectronics is shown to be reasonably operable to at least less than 50 mm (5 cm) (STMicroelectronics: Fig. 6). Given such operating conditions, a distance threshold within the range of 50 to 100 mm is a reasonable design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Duan teaches the optical sensor of claim 1, as described above:
An optical sensor array comprising: an optical sensor according to claim1;
But does not teach or is not relied upon for:
an optical time of flight sensor comprising a third light sensor, a further light source, and a time of flight system configured to determine a second distance measurement to the surface based on time of flight of light emitted by the further light source, reflected by the object, and received by the third light sensor;
wherein the controller is configured to output the first distance measurement if at least one of the first or second distance measurements is below a threshold distance, and the second distance measurement if at least one of the first or second distance measurements are above a threshold distance.
STMicroelectronics teaches an optical time of flight sensor comprising a light source and a light sensor ([Pg. 1] “the VL6180X precisely measures the time the light takes to travel to the nearest object and reflect back to the sensor (Time-of-Flight)… Combining an IR emitter, a range sensor and an ambient light sensor in a three-in-one ready-to use reflowable package”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the devices of Duan and STMicroelectronics together, each performing their ranging measurements as they would separately, as this is a simple and predictable combination of two known detectors. Thus teaching the limitation: an optical time of flight sensor comprising a third light sensor, a further light source, and a time of flight system configured to determine a second distance measurement to the surface based on time of flight of light emitted by the further light source, reflected by the object, and received by the third light sensor;
Further, Pennecot teaches the use of multiple distance sensors, where the data of different sensors is utilized based on the distance of an object and the optimal sensing of the sensors ([0143] “At block 708, the method 700 involves tracking the object based on third data from the third LIDAR based on the given distance being less than the first threshold.”; [0144] “Thus, in an example scenario, the object may move between the various ranges of the various LIDARs, and the method 700 at blocks 704-708 may allow continuous tracking of the object using the respective characteristics of each of the first LIDAR, the second LIDAR, and the third LIDAR.”). Thus teaching the limitation: output the first distance measurement if at least one of the first or second distance measurements is below a threshold distance, and the second distance measurement if at least one of the first or second distance measurements are above a threshold distance.
While Pennecot explicitly discusses multiple LIDAR devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such a system would apply to any selection of detectors which each measure the same parameter and have different ranges and/or sensitivities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the distance-threshold-based analysis as taught by Pennecot with the combined time-of-flight and distance proximity sensor of Duan in view of STMicroelectronics to combine the data from multiple sensors in a way that leverages each sensor’s strengths.
Regarding claim 7, Duan in view of STMicroelectonics and Pennecot teaches the optical sensor array of claim 6, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the threshold distance is between 50mm and 100mm.
Duan contemplates a “critical distance”, which must be within the operational range of the device, of approximately 10 centimeters (100 mm) ([Col. 18, Lines 30-32] “In certain embodiments, the critical distance may be approximately 10 centimeters, although this may vary between embodiments.”), and the time-of-flight detector of STMicroelectronics is shown to be reasonably operable to at least less than 50 mm (5 cm) (STMicroelectronics: Fig. 6). Given such operating conditions, a distance threshold within the range of 50 to 100 mm is a reasonable design choice.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan in view of Yu et al. (US 20230350060 A1), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 9, Duan teaches:
An […] sensor ([Col. 1, Lines 49-62] “described herein is an electronic device, comprising: …”) comprising:
an […] source having a target field which is the volume exposed to […] the source ([Col. 1, Lines 49-62] “described herein is an electronic device, comprising: a housing; a light emitter operable to emit light outward from or through the housing;”);
first and second […] sensors having respective first and second fields of view ([Col. 1, Lines 49-62] “comprising: a housing; a light emitter operable to emit light outward from or through the housing; a first light detector positioned within the housing at a first separation distance from the light emitter; a second light detector…”);
wherein: the intersection of the target field and the first field of view forms a first overlap region ([Col. 3, Lines 45-67] “distance estimations are performed by emitting light from an emitter of an electronic device toward an object being sensed, receiving emitted light that has been reflected from the object at a first and a second light detector”);
the intersection of the target field and the second field of view forms a second overlap region ([Col. 3, Lines 45-67] “distance estimations are performed by emitting light from an emitter of an electronic device toward an object being sensed, receiving emitted light that has been reflected from the object at a first and a second light detector”);
such that when a surface is within one or both of the first and second overlap region, the surface reflects […] from the […] source to the respective […] sensor ([Col. 3, Lines 45-67] “distance estimations are performed by emitting light from an emitter of an electronic device toward an object being sensed, receiving emitted light that has been reflected from the object at a first and a second light detector”);
a controller configured to determine a first distance measurement to a surface within one or both of the first and second overlap regions based on the ratio of reflected [light] from the […] source received by the first sensor and reflected [light] from the […] source received by the second sensor ([Col. 1, Lines 49-62] “a processor configured to estimate an object distance”; [Col. 3, Lines 45-67] “and using the signal strength of the light received at the first detector and the signal strength of the light received at the second detector to calculate a ratio of signal strengths. This ratio may then be correlated to a distance between the electronic device and the object.”).
Duan does not teach that the system can operate as an ultrasonic/ultrasound device.
Yu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a similar distance proximity sensor to Duan, and further contemplates that such a device can be operated either as an optical device or an ultrasonic device ([0010] “Optionally, the signal source includes at least one of an infrared signal source, a laser signal source, and an ultrasonic signal source; and the cone-shaped detection signal includes at least one of infrared light, laser, and ultrasonic waves.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the optical device of Duan to operate as an ultrasonic device instead as this was one known and predictable choice for an operating scheme for such distance sensors.
Regarding claim 10, Duan in view of Yu teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 9, as described above, but does not explicitly teach or is not relied upon for:
wherein the first overlap region is a subset of the second overlap region, or the second overlap region is a subset of the first overlap region.
However, such an arrangement is a simple design choice which operates in a predictable manner with respect to the invention of Duan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have aligned the light emitter to the line connecting the detectors of one detector pair, as this is one choice of optical arrangement which performs a predictable and operationally similar function.
Regarding claim 11, Duan in view of Yu teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 9, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the first overlap region has a subregion which is outside the second overlap region, and the second overlap region has a subregion which is outside the first overlap region.
However, the geometrical arrangement presented in FIG. 2A, for example, implies that each detector may have subzones of their overlap region that are mutually exclusive of the overlap region of the other detector. This can be seen because the emitter is not located along the line connecting the two detectors.
Regarding claim 12, the scope of the method of claim 12 corresponds to that of the apparatus of claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonnefoy et al. (US 4822170 A) teaches a distance sensor utilizing one emitter and two detectors, which determines distance based on the intensity of reflected light to the two detectors.
Schaefer (US 7221437 B1) teaches determining the distance to an object by measuring the relative intensity of light reflected from the object and traveling over two or more paths of differing optical length.
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 SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3603. 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.
/SEAN C. GRANT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645