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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/24/2025, have been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the Office’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 should be withdrawn because Murakami fails to teach all the limitations of claim 1. In particular, the applicant argues that, “Murakami's comparison of a signal with a calculated range is not the same as the comparison of a present scatter signal with a previous scatter signal recited by claim 1.” The examiner agrees with the applicant that the present scatter signal is not being directly compared with a single previous scatter signal. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, “compare a present scatter signal received during a first observation interval to a previous scatter signal received during a second observation interval that precedes the first observation interval,” does not necessitate a one-to-one comparison between raw signals. Rather, the limitation requires only that a present scatter signal is compared, in some way, to a previous scatter signal. By its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is taught by Murakami.
As noted by the applicant, Vth is calculated based on Vppmax. Para. 0050 of Murakami states that Vppmax is based on measurements taken from scatter signals taken when the surrounding environment is determined to be in a stable state. Said measurements are then used to redefine Vth. Thus, to compare a present scatter signal to Vth is to compare it to a previous scatter signal (namely, the signal with the maximum peak-to-peak value of the previous ten signals).
The applicant further argues that Murakami does not teach, “generat[ing] events corresponding to each of the frequency bins in which the present scatter signal differs from the previous scatter signal by at least an event threshold amount." The applicant first argues that this limitation is not met by Murakami because Murakami’s “predetermined threshold value is actually a calculated range of values.” However, the examiner believes the applicant is misunderstanding the calculation of Murakami’s threshold, and further notes that the limitation above does not preclude a range of event threshold amounts. Specifically, by giving Vth as a range rather than a single value, Murakami simply allows for signals with both positive and negative amplitudes (as is standard for a waveform) to be used to determine events. That is, if a measured value differs from the average by at least Vppmax, in either the positive or negative directions, then an event is generated.
Looking, for example, at the upper limit of Vth, Vth = Vavg + Vppmax. If V > Vth, an event is generated. That is,
If V > (Vth = Vavg + Vppmax), an event is generated
Thus, if V > Vavg + Vppmax, an event is generated
i.e., if V – Vppmax > Vavg, an event is generated
As can be seen above, if the difference between the present scatter signal V and the previous scatter signal Vppmax is greater than Vavg, then an event is generated. Thus, Murakami’s definition of Vth clearly teaches, “generating events… in which the present scatter signal differs from the previous scatter signal by at least an event threshold amount.”
The applicant further argues that Murakami additionally fails to teach, “generat[ing] events corresponding to each of the frequency bins in which the present scatter signal differs from the previous scatter signal by at least an event threshold amount,” because the OR circuit 20 generates an event every time any frequency bin measures a value greater than its respective threshold. That is, the applicant argues,
However, the OR circuit 20 of Murakami generates a high-level signal "1" if any of the comparators 19 corresponding to respective frequency bands generates a high-level signal. This alleged event cannot correspond to a single frequency bin as required by claim 1 because the output of the OR circuit 20 corresponds to the outputs of the comparators 19 collectively as a whole. That is, the output of the OR circuit 20 cannot reveal which of the comparators 19 generated a high-level signal because the OR circuit 20 generates a high-level output whether one of the comparators 19 or all of the comparators 19 generate a high-level output.
The examiner agrees with the applicant: Murakami’s circuit does not reveal which comparator(s) (i.e., which frequency bin(s)) generated a high-level output. However, the examiner disagrees with the applicant’s premise that claim 1 as currently written requires an output in which events are assigned to a particular frequency bin.
MPEP 2111.01 notes that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, noting that words should be given their “plain meaning” as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, “generat[ing] events corresponding to each of the frequency bins in which the present scatter signal differs from the previous scatter signal by at least an event threshold amount,” requires that events are generated for each frequency bin in which the present scatter signal differs from the previous scatter signal by at least said threshold. However, the limitation requires only that events are generated for those bins that do exceed said threshold. The limitation does not require that said events are only generated for threshold-exceeding frequency bins, only that events are assigned at least to those bins. If an event is measured by the OR circuit of Murakami, said event is generated for (i.e., corresponds to) all frequency bins, including each bin in which the present signal differs from the previous one by at least the event threshold. Thus, Murakami teaches the limitation above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0009555).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami et al. discloses,
A system (abs., “an object detection device”) comprising: a signal transmitter configured to successively generate and transmit detection signals (para. 0005, “The Doppler sensor transmits the millimeter wave.”), a signal receiver configured to receive scatter signals (para. 0005, “The Doppler sensor…then receives the millimeter wave reflected by the detection target object”) comprising frequency bins resulting from a scattering of the detection signals by an object or a person (para. 0008, “Then, said active sensor…receives the detection wave reflected by a detection target object, and thereby detects the presence or absence of the detection target object in the predetermined detection area, and outputs a sensor signal. Then, said signal processor outputs the sensor signal with respect to each predetermined frequency band”), an event generator (fig. 1, determining unit 12), configured to: compare a present scatter signal received during a first observation interval to a previous scatter signal received during a second observation interval that precedes the first observation interval (para. 0050, “Then, the determining unit 15 reads out the maximum "Vppmax" of peak to peak "Vpp" stored during the past 10 [s] with respect to each amplifier 18 and redefines a value calculated from Vth = Vavg
±
Vppmax by using the maximum "Vppmax" as new threshold value "Vth.” The examiner notes that, per para. 0033, a received signal is converted into digital values and then the comparator 19 compares, “the digital value with a predetermined threshold value,” making it clear that a present scatter signal is being compared against Vth, which is determined using previous scatter signals), and generate events corresponding to each of the frequency bins in which the present scatter signal differs from the previous scatter signal by at least an event threshold amount that corresponds to each of the frequency bins (para. 0033, “Then, if there is even one high-level signal, the OR circuit 20 outputs a sensing signal showing "sensed condition" which means the presence of the detection target object M1.”); and an event processor (determining unit 12) configured to: determine characteristics of the object or the person by analyzing the events (para. 0033, “Then, if there is even one high-level signal, the OR circuit 20 outputs a sensing signal showing "sensed condition" which means the presence of the detection target object M1.” The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation in light the specification of “characteristics of the object or the person” includes the presence of the detection target object. See, e.g., para. 0038 of the applicant’s specification, which states that the event processor includes an event interpreter and, “The event interpreter 24 interprets the events further. Especially, this interpretation can comprise…a presence of a person…”).
Regarding claim 2, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, wherein the previous scatter signal is a first previous scatter signal and the event generator is configured to also compare the present scatter signal to at a second previous scatter signal, and to generate an event for each of the frequency bins in which the present scatter signal differs from the first previous scatter signal and the second previous scatter signal by at least the event threshold amount that corresponds to each of the frequency bins (para. 0050, “Here, the determining unit 12 stores peak to peak "Vpp" in outputs "V" of each amplifier 18 at the same timing that the noise determining unit 15 stores the intensity data every 1 [s]. Then, the determining unit 15 reads out the maximum "Vppmax" of peak to peak "Vpp" stored during the past 10 [s] with respect to each amplifier 18 and redefines a value calculated from Vth=Vavg
±
Vppmax by using the maximum "Vppmax" as new threshold value "Vth".” The examiner notes that the time period of 10 s includes 10 previous scatter signals, including the two signals immediately preceding the present signal for any signal measured immediately after the threshold value is updated).
Regarding claim 3, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, wherein the event threshold amount is different (para. 0033, “the threshold value is set with respect to each band pass”) for at least two of the frequency bins (para. 0032, “Specifically, the amplifying circuit 11 sets a plurality of frequency bands (hereinafter, called "band pass"), being subject to signal amplification in the plurality of amplifiers 18, into 0 to 10 [Hz], 10 to 20 [Hz], 20 to 30 [Hz], . . . , 190 to 200 [Hz]).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, wherein the second observation interval immediately precedes the first observation interval (para. 0050, “Here, the determining unit 12 stores peak to peak "Vpp" in outputs "V" of each amplifier 18 at the same timing that the noise determining unit 15 stores the intensity data every 1 [s]. Then, the determining unit 15 reads out the maximum "Vppmax" of peak to peak "Vpp" stored during the past 10 [s] with respect to each amplifier 18 and redefines a value calculated from Vth=Vavg
±
Vppmax by using the maximum "Vppmax" as new threshold value "Vth".” The examiner notes that the time period of 10 s includes 10 previous scatter signals, including the signal immediately preceding the present signal for any signal measured immediately after the threshold value is updated).
Regarding claim 6, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, further comprising: an event interface (fig. 1, lighting apparatus 2. The examiner notes that the term “event interface” is broad, and is being construed in this case to include the lighting apparatus since it is turned on/off when an event is logged), connectable to an external event processor (fig. 1, lighting controller 13), wherein the event generator is configured to transmit the events determined by the event generator for each of the frequency bins through the event interface (para. 0034, “The lighting controller 13 receives the sensing signal outputted from the determining unit 12, and then generates a control signal to transmit to the lighting apparatus 2.” The examiner notes that the lighting controller is being construed as an event processor, since it notes the event detected by the determining unit 12 and processes it to result in a physical outcome (light on/light off/light timer reset)).
Regarding claim 15, Murakami et al. discloses,
A method comprising: successively generating and transmitting detection signals, (para. 0005, “The Doppler sensor transmits the millimeter wave.” The examiner notes that “in observation intervals” is being interpreted here to indicate the time period over which the sensor is running), receiving scatter signals (para. 0005, “The Doppler sensor…then receives the millimeter wave reflected by the detection target object”) comprising frequency bins resulting from a scattering of the detection signals by an object or a person (para. 0008, “Then, said active sensor…receives the detection wave reflected by a detection target object, and thereby detects the presence or absence of the detection target object in the predetermined detection area, and outputs a sensor signal. Then, said signal processor outputs the sensor signal with respect to each predetermined frequency band”), comparing a present scatter signal received during a first observation interval to a previous scatter signal received during a second observation interval that precedes the first observation interval (para. 0050, “Then, the determining unit 15 reads out the maximum "Vppmax" of peak to peak "Vpp" stored during the past 10 [s] with respect to each amplifier 18 and redefines a value calculated from Vth = Vavg
±
Vppmax by using the maximum "Vppmax" as new threshold value "Vth.” The examiner notes that, per para. 0033, a received signal is converted into digital values and then the comparator 19 compares, “the digital value with a predetermined threshold value,” making it clear that a present scatter signal is being compared against Vth, which is determined using previous scatter signals), generating events corresponding to each of the frequency bins in which the present scatter signal differs from the previous scatter signal by at least an event threshold amount that corresponds to each of the frequency bins (para. 0033, “Then, if there is even one high-level signal, the OR circuit 20 outputs a sensing signal showing "sensed condition" which means the presence of the detection target object M1.”), and determining characteristics of the object or the person by analyzing the events (para. 0033, “Then, if there is even one high-level signal, the OR circuit 20 outputs a sensing signal showing "sensed condition" which means the presence of the detection target object M1.” The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation in light the specification of “characteristics of the object or the person” includes the presence of the detection target object. See, e.g., para. 0038 of the applicant’s specification, which states that the event processor includes an event interpreter and, “The event interpreter 24 interprets the events further. Especially, this interpretation can comprise…a presence of a person…”).
Regarding claim 16, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, wherein the event threshold amount is preset (para. 0033, “Here, the threshold value "Vth" of each band pass in initial state (before shipment) is set into a value represented by Vth=Vavg
±
Vppini”).
Regarding claim 17, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, wherein the event threshold amount is user-adjustable or automatically dynamically adjustable (para. 0050, “Incidentally, the determining unit 12 is configured to redefine the threshold value compared with the output of the amplifying circuit 11 when the noise determining unit 15 determines that the surrounding environment is in "stable state"”).
Regarding claim 18, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, further comprising an event threshold determiner configured to determine the event threshold amount based upon an occurrence of past events (para. 0050, “the determining unit 12 stores peak to peak "Vpp" in outputs "V" of each amplifier 18 at the same timing that the noise determining unit 15 stores the intensity data every 1 [s]. Then, the determining unit 15 reads out the maximum "Vppmax" of peak to peak "Vpp" stored during the past 10 [s] with respect to each amplifier 18 and redefines a value calculated from Vth=Vavg
±
Vppmax by using the maximum "Vppmax" as new threshold value "Vth", at the same timing that the noise determining unit 15 determines that the surrounding environment is in "stable state"”).
Regarding claim 19, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, further comprising an event threshold determiner configured to determine the event threshold amount based upon a type of detection object para. 0011, “the sensor signal outputted from said active sensor includes a frequency at least depending on a size of the detection target object.” The examiner notes that size is one way in which detection objects can be defined by type.).
Regarding claim 20, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, further comprising an event threshold determiner configured to determine the event threshold amount based upon a detection situation (para. 0050, “the determining unit 12 stores peak to peak "Vpp" in outputs "V" of each amplifier 18 at the same timing that the noise determining unit 15 stores the intensity data every 1 [s]. Then, the determining unit 15 reads out the maximum "Vppmax" of peak to peak "Vpp" stored during the past 10 [s] with respect to each amplifier 18 and redefines a value calculated from Vth=Vavg
±
Vppmax by using the maximum "Vppmax" as new threshold value "Vth", at the same timing that the noise determining unit 15 determines that the surrounding environment is in "stable state"” The examiner notes that “detection situation” is being construed to define the state of the surrounding environment. In this reference, the event threshold is being configured based on the determination that the surrounding environment is in a stable state).
Regarding claim 21, Murakami et al. discloses,
The system according to claim 1, further comprising an event threshold determiner configured to determine the event threshold amount based upon a noise level (para. 0040, “the noise determining unit 15 determines whether or not a variation of the intensity data stored during the past 10 [s] is within a definite range (here, within 20% of the maximum value) with respect to each frequency. Then, when determining that the relationship satisfies "the minimum value
≥
the maximum value*0.8" and the variation of the intensity data is within the definite range, the noise determining unit 15 determines that the surrounding environment is currently in "stable state".” The examiner notes that, per para. 0050, Vth is only recalculated when the surrounding environment is determined to be in a stable state).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eschbaumer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0342039 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Murakami et al. discloses (note: what Murakami et al. does not disclose is struck through),
The system according to claim 1,
Eschbaumer et al. discloses,
…wherein the event generator is configured to compare the present scatter signal to the previous scatter signal, with regard to absolute signal values in a time domain, and/or to compare the present scatter signal to the previous scatter signal, with regard to phase differences compared to a corresponding detection signal of the detection signals (para. 0073, “a peak selection in an FFT output (such as the aggregate R/D map) may be understood as a selection based on absolute values”).
Murakami et al. and Eschbaumer et al. are analogous to the claimed invention because both disclose apparatuses that analyze sensor data to identify objects based on frequency bins. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Murakami et al. with the use of absolute values to select peaks of Eschbaumer et al. because doing so eliminates the impact of phase shifts on peak identification, resulting in more accurate identification of peak frequencies.
Claims 7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, respectively, and further in view of Masuda (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0377714).
Regarding claim 7, Murakami et al. discloses (note: what Murakami et al. does not disclose is struck through),
The system according to claim 1,
Masuda discloses,
…wherein the signal receiver comprises a first antenna configured to receive the scatter signal (para. 0057, “Further, the receiver includes an antenna for reception.”), and wherein the signal transmitter comprises a second antenna configured to transmit the detection signal (para. 0057, “The transmitter includes an antenna for transmission.”).
Murakami et al. and Masuda are analogous to the claimed invention because both references disclose apparatuses that process detection signals to identify events. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signal transmitter and receiver of Murakami et al. with the antennae of Masuda because minimizing the number of antennae reduces the cost of the detector.
Regarding claim 11, Murakami et al. discloses (note: what Murakami et al. does not disclose is struck through),
The system according to claim 8, (para. 0034, “The lighting controller 13 receives the sensing signal outputted from the determining unit 12, and then generates a control signal to transmit to the lighting apparatus 2.” The examiner notes that the lighting controller is being construed as an event processor, since it notes the event detected by the determining unit 12 and processes it to result in a physical outcome (light on/light off/light timer reset))
Masuda discloses,
…wherein the event processor comprises an event post-processor, configured to perform post-processing on the event generated by the event generator for each of the frequency bins, and wherein the post-processing comprises a statistical evaluation in a time domain and/or a frequency domain, a one-dimensional filtering regarding the frequency bins, a one-dimensional filtering regarding the observation intervals, a two-dimensional filtering regarding the frequency bins and regarding the observation intervals, or a plausibility check (para. 0102, “the sensor signal shows a unique frequency distribution (statistical distribution in a frequency domain) which differs among the objects.” The examiner notes that additional post-processing is described in paras. 101-107.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the event processor of Murakami et al. to include the event post-processor of Masuda because performing a statistical analysis in the frequency direction reduces the probability of false detection (see Masuda, para. 102).
Regarding claim 12, Murakami et al. discloses (note: what Murakami et al. does not disclose is struck through),
The system according to claim 8, (para. 0034, “The lighting controller 13 receives the sensing signal outputted from the determining unit 12, and then generates a control signal to transmit to the lighting apparatus 2.” The examiner notes that the lighting controller is being construed as an event processor, since it notes the event detected by the determining unit 12 and processes it to result in a physical outcome (light on/light off/light timer reset))
Masuda discloses,
…wherein the event processor comprises a motion analyzer, configured to perform a motion analysis on the event generated by the event generator, for each of the frequency bins (para. 0102, “When the feature of the frequency distribution is used for detection of the object, the signal processing device 2 can separate and recognize the objects different in the frequency distribution. Therefore, the signal processing device 2 can reduce the probability of the false detection caused by motion of the unintended object of detection.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the event processor of Murakami et al. with the motion analyzer of Masuda because the motion analyzer of Masuda reduces the probability of false detections (see Masuda, para. 102, as cited above).
Regarding claim 13, Murakami et al. discloses (note: what Murakami et al. does not disclose is struck through),
The system according to claim 8, (para. 0034, “The lighting controller 13 receives the sensing signal outputted from the determining unit 12, and then generates a control signal to transmit to the lighting apparatus 2.” The examiner notes that the lighting controller is being construed as an event processor, since it notes the event detected by the determining unit 12 and processes it to result in a physical outcome (light on/light off/light timer reset))
Masuda discloses,
…wherein the event processor (fig. 1, database device 11, recognizer 7, level setter 13, parameter adjuster 14) comprises an event interpreter (fig. 1, recognizer 7), configured to interpret the event generated by the event generator, for each of the frequency bins (para. 0062, “Further, the signal processing device 2 includes a recognizer 7 configured to perform a recognition process of detecting the object based on a frequency distribution calculated from the normalized intensities of the individual filter banks 5a outputted from the normalizer 6.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the event processor of Murakami et al. with the event interpreter of Masuda because the event interpreter of Masuda reduces the likelihood of false detections, particularly when the device is used outside (see Masuda paras. 0013-0016).
Regarding claim 14, Murakami et al. as previously modified by Masuda discloses (note: what the prior modification of Murakami et al. by Masuda does not disclose is struck through),
The system according to claim 13,
Masuda further discloses,
… wherein the event interpreter is configured to determine a type of a detected object, a type of movement by the detected object, a presence of a person, a specific person, a type of gesture performed by the person, a type of activity performed by the person, or a type of motion in a spatial domain and/or in a time domain (para. 0013-0014, “However, when the object detection device 101 is used in outdoors for example, due to motion of an object other than a detection target (intended object of detection), false detection in which an unintended object of detection is misidentified as the intended object of detection may occur…motion of an object other than a detection target may include raining, motion of sway of branches and leaves of trees, and motion of sway of electric wires, for example.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the event interpreter of Murakami et al. with the object determination of Masuda because identifying objects such as rain, the motion sway of tree leaves and branches, and the motion of electric wires helps prevent those objects from triggering the event generator, thus reducing the number of false detections (see Masuda, paras. 0013-0014).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Omer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9584974 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Murakami et al. discloses (note: what Murakami et al. does not disclose is struck through),
The system according to claim 1, wherein the signal transmitter, the signal receiver, and the event generator are arranged in a first housing (para. 0023, fig. 2, “As shown in FIG. 1, the object detection device 1 comprises an amplifying circuit 11, a determining unit 12 and a lighting controller 13 in addition to the above-mentioned sensor 10”)
Omer et al. discloses,
…wherein the signal transmitter, the signal receiver, and the event generator are arranged in a first housing, wherein the event processor is arranged in a second housing, and wherein the first housing and the second housing are connected through a cable connection or a wireless connection (col. 3, line 64 – col. 4, line 2, “the motion detection data processing apparatus 112 may be remote from and communicatively coupled to the receiver circuitry such as through a network (e.g., local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), the Internet, the like, or a combination thereof) or another type of connection”).
Murakami et al. and Omer et al. are analogous to the claimed invention because both disclose signal detectors that analyze wireless signals to identify event occurrences. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection sensor of Murakami et al. with the separate housings of Omer et al. because separating the devices makes it easier to modify and maintain the devices as needed, since the detection components (e.g., antennae) are separated from the analytical components (e.g., a processor).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648