DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s response with respect to the objection to claim 19 has been fully considered and is accepted. The objection to claim 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 8-9 has been fully considered and is accepted. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 8-9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant specifically argues that the cited combination of prior art does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the system disregards movement of gravity capillary waves. Respectfully, the examiner disagrees. In col. 7, l. 3 to col. 8, l. 63, Martin describes how optical interference signals 35 and 36 are processed to yield u(t), which includes a water surface motion component (i.e., gravity-capillary and other water waves) and an acoustic component. This signal is then subjected to filtering to yield a signal ua(t), which is the acoustic component of u(t). See col. col. 7, ll. 56-67. This signal ua(t) is then further analyzed to infer acoustic and other physical properties characteristic of an object 1, etc., to be determined (col. 8, ll. 1-61). Contrary to the applicant's assertion, gravity capillary waves are clearly filtered out of u(t), and thus disregarded, rather than the other way around. This is consistent with the applicant's use of the term "disregard" in at least [0076] of the as-published specification, which is understood to teach that disregarding movement of the gravity capillary waves may comprise filtering out such waves. See at least the last sentence in [0076] which expressly states "In other instances, the techniques presented herein may still disregard movement of the gravity capillary waves 25, such filtering them out, even if the application specific needs measures them."
For this reason, the applicant's assertion that Martin, or any other reference, does not teach the feature of disregarding the movement of gravity capillary waves is not persuasive, and the previous rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,179,535 to Martin et al. (hereinafter referred to as Martin) in view of US 2021/0302555 to DeWeert (cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 1, Martin teaches a system (see fig. 1) comprising:
interferometric (col. 2, ll. 18-37) equipment including a laser beam generator (laser 16) and receiver (collecting optics 15, light combining and interference device 25, optical-electronic conversion devices 33 and 34);
acoustic wave detection logic operatively connected to the interferometric equipment (the logic driving computer 41 as per col. 8, ll. 61-63 and device 39, which includes a DSP as per col. 7, ll. 16-18), the acoustic wave detection logic configured execute instructions to:
transmit a laser beam (light 13) towards a surface of water (see fig. 1, also see at least col. 4, ll. 22-27);
receive, at the interferometer equipment, a reflected beam (reflected light 14) from the surface of water (see fig. 1, also see at least col. 4, ll. 35-39);
measure, via the interferometer equipment, movement of acoustically driven surface waves (surface movement 12 caused by acoustic field 4) at the surface of water at a reaction point (where light is incident on and reflects back from surface 5) in response to a subsurface acoustic wave interacting with the surface water (see at least col. 3, l. 52 to col. 4, l. 12 and col. 7, l. 44 to col. 8, l. 22); and
disregard movement of gravity capillary waves (col. 7, ll. 56-67).
PNG
media_image1.png
1099
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martin does not expressly teach the instructions being on a non-transient computer readable storage medium.
DeWeert teaches the feature of providing instructions for controlling a system on a non-transient computer readable storage medium ([0099]).
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 system of Martin such that the instructions are similarly provided on a non-transient computer readable storage medium (e.g., non-volatile memory/storage in computer 41/device 39). Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of allowing code to be preserved after power is shut off, avoiding the need to re-program the system each time the system is used.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 1. Martin further teaches the acoustic wave detection logic executing instructions to: determine a location of a source of the subsurface acoustic wave based on the interaction of the subsurface wave with the surface (col. 8, ll. 49-56).
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 2. Martin further teaches the acoustic wave detection logic executing instructions to: determine the location of the source of the subsurface acoustic wave via back propagation processing (ua(t,s) is used to deduce acoustic pressure as a function of space within water body 2 to locate an object 1 according to col. 8, ll. 49-56, and is thus understood to comprise back propagation processing).
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 1. Martin further teaches wherein the acoustic wave detection logic executing instructions to: set a period of time for making measurements (col. 4, ll. 32-39) and nullify an influence of gravity-capillary waves of the surface of water (col. 7, ll. 56-67).
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 8. However, this combination does not expressly teach the period of time being about 2/15 of a second.
Still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Martin and DeWeert such that the period of time being about 2/15 of a second, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the period of time light is radiated onto the water surface and measurements are taken of reflected light so that sufficient returned light is collected by the system.
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 1. This combination does not expressly teach the acoustic wave detection logic executing instructions to: obtain velocity of the subsurface acoustic wave; integrate the velocity of the subsurface acoustic wave along a direction of subsurface acoustic wave propagation to obtain velocity potential for the subsurface acoustic wave, wherein the velocity potential is the sum of an incident portion of the subsurface acoustic wave and a reflected portion of the subsurface wave; determine, based on the velocity potential of the subsurface acoustic wave, a pressure level of the subsurface acoustic wave at the surface, wherein the pressure level matches atmospheric pressure at the surface; and determine a displacement of the surface at the reaction point based on the pressure level.
However, in col. 8, ll. 1-63, Martin describes how surface movement at a reaction point and surface velocity at the reaction point are related, describes how surface velocity is related to acoustic pressure below the surface, and explains how well-known assumptions in underwater acoustics, such as the pressure release condition at the air-surface boundary (which would be that the pressure at the air-surface boundary is atmospheric pressure for typical bodies of water), and other assumptions about the acoustic field 4, such as that it is composed of one or more plane waves incident upon the surface 5 (and also, clearly, reflected therefrom) are used to convert amongst these values. The applicant's claimed order of steps is an alternate ordering of conversions between the essentially the same if not identical values, using similar assumptions as described in Martin, and in the same environment.
In light hereof, the examiner has concluded that because the recited steps involve only a small, finite number of variables, and these variables and their relationships are known in the art as is clear from the disclosure of Martin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the instant invention to determine a displacement of the surface at a reaction point based on a pressure level in the same way starting from a velocity of a subsurface wave, converting that to a velocity potential, and converting that value to a pressure level before determining the displacement, as there are only a finite number of predictable solutions for such conversion of known variables with a reasonable expectation of success based on the taught variables of the prior art.
With regards to claim 12, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 11. Although Martin teaches the displacement of the surface is very small and the incident light can be of any suitable frequency to detect small-scale perturbations of the surface caused by an underwater acoustic field (col. 1, ll. 27-36), Martin does not expressly teach the displacement of the surface being in a range from 0.25 microns to 25 microns.
However, the amount of displacement of the surface is not recited in a manner so as to limit the system being claimed, and accordingly does not serve to differentiate the claimed system over the applied prior art. That said, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Martin and DeWeert such that the (detectable) displacement of the surface is in a range from 0.25 microns to 25 microns, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the system incident wavelength, duration of illumination, etc., such that the (detectable) displacement of the surface is in a range from 0.25 microns to 25 microns in order to be able to detect corresponding acoustic field sources.
With regards to claim 13, Martin teaches a system (see fig. 1) comprising:
a platform (e.g., an aircraft or a helicopter; col. 4, ll. 27-29);
interferometer (col. 2, ll. 18-37) equipment carried by the platform, the interferometer equipment including a laser beam generator (laser 16) and a receiver (collecting optics 15, light combining and interference device 25, optical-electronic conversion devices 33 and 34) (a laser beam is generated, and measurements are made, from above the surface of a body of water, and this location may be from, e.g., an aircraft or helicopter; see claim 1, col. 1, ll. 14-22, col. 4, ll. 27-29, etc.; based on fig. 1, etc., the depicted system (apart from optional EM source 11 and all elements located under surface 5) is understood to be located on said platform);
acoustic wave detection logic carried by the platform including instructions (the logic driving computer 41 as per col. 8, ll. 61-63 and device 39, which includes a DSP as per col. 7, ll. 16-18) that, when executed by a processor (computer 41 and/or device 39), execute operations to:
transmit a laser beam (light 13) from the laser beam generator of the interferometer equipment towards a surface of water below the platform (see fig. 1, also see at least col. 4, ll. 22-27);
receive at the receiver of the interferometer equipment a reflected beam (reflected light 14) from the surface of water (see fig. 1, also see at least col. 4, ll. 35-39);
measure, via the interferometer equipment, movement of the surface of water (surface movement 12 caused by acoustic field 4) at a reaction point (where light is incident on and reflects back from surface 5) in response to an acoustic wave interacting with the surface water (see at least col. 3, l. 52 to col. 4, l. 12 and col. 7, l. 44 to col. 8, l. 22); and
disregard movement of gravity capillary waves (col. 7, ll. 56-67).
Martin does not expressly teach the instructions being encoded on a non-transient computer readable storage medium.
DeWeert teaches the feature of providing instructions for controlling a system on a non-transient computer readable storage medium ([0099]).
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 system of Martin such that the instructions are similarly provided on a non-transient computer readable storage medium (e.g., non-volatile memory/storage in computer 41/device 39). Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of allowing code to be preserved after power is shut off, avoiding the need to re-program the system each time the system is used.
With regards to claim 14, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 13. Martin further teaches the operations including further determining a location of a source of the acoustic wave based on the interaction of the acoustic wave with the surface (col. 8, ll. 49-56).
With regards to claim 18, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 13. This combination does not expressly teach the operations being further configured to: obtain velocity of the acoustic wave; integrate the velocity of the acoustic wave along a direction of acoustic wave propagation to obtain velocity potential for the acoustic wave, wherein the velocity potential is the sum of an incident portion of the acoustic wave and a reflected portion of the acoustic wave; determine, based on the velocity potential of the acoustic wave, a pressure level of the acoustic wave at the surface, wherein the pressure level matches atmospheric pressure at the surface; and determine a displacement of the surface based on the pressure level.
However, in col. 8, ll. 1-63, Martin describes how surface movement at a reaction point and surface velocity at the reaction point are related, describes how surface velocity is related to acoustic pressure below the surface, and explains how well-known assumptions in underwater acoustics, such as the pressure release condition at the air-surface boundary (which would be that the pressure at the air-surface boundary is atmospheric pressure for typical bodies of water), and other assumptions about the acoustic field 4, such as that it is composed of one or more plane waves incident upon the surface 5 (and also, clearly, reflected therefrom) are used to convert amongst these values. The applicant's claimed order of steps is an alternate ordering of conversions between the essentially the same if not identical values, using similar assumptions as described in Martin, and in the same environment.
In light hereof, the examiner has concluded that because the recited steps involve only a small, finite number of variables, and these variables and their relationships are known in the art as is clear from the disclosure of Martin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the instant invention to determine a displacement of the surface at a reaction point based on a pressure level in the same way starting from a velocity of a subsurface wave, converting that to a velocity potential, and converting that value to a pressure level before determining the displacement, as there are only a finite number of predictable solutions for such conversion of known variables with a reasonable expectation of success based on the taught variables of the prior art.
With regards to claim 19, Martin teaches a computer program product (the logic driving computer 41 as per col. 8, ll. 61-63 and device 39, which includes a DSP as per col. 7, ll. 16-18) on a moving platform (e.g., an aircraft or a helicopter, see col. 4, ll. 27-29; based on fig. 1, etc., the depicted system (apart from optional EM source 11 and all elements located under surface 5) is understood to be located on said platform)) in operative communication with a computer processing unit (CPU) (computer 41 and/or device 39) in interferometer (col. 2, ll. 18-37) equipment having a laser beam generator (laser 16) and a receiver (collecting optics 15, light combining and interference device 25, optical-electronic conversion devices 33 and 34), the computer program product including instructions that, when executed by the CPU, implement a process to determine the presence of acoustically driven surface waves (surface movement 12 caused by acoustic field 4) at a water surface (surface 5) generated from a subsurface acoustic source (see at least col. 3, l. 52 to col. 4, l. 12 and col. 7, l. 44 to col. 8, l. 22), the process comprising:
transmitting a laser beam (light 13) towards the water surface (see fig. 1, also see at least col. 4, ll. 22-27);
receiving, at the receiver, a reflected beam (reflected light 14) from the surface of water (see fig. 1, also see at least col. 4, ll. 35-39);
measuring, via the interferometer equipment, movement of acoustically driven surface waves at the water surface at a reaction point in response to the subsurface acoustic wave interacting with the surface water (see at least col. 3, l. 52 to col. 4, l. 12 and col. 7, l. 44 to col. 8, l. 22); and
disregarding movement of gravity capillary waves (col. 7, ll. 56-67).
Martin does not expressly teach the computer program product including at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the storage medium having the instructions stored thereon.
DeWeert teaches the feature of providing instructions for controlling a system on a non-transient computer readable storage medium ([0099]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program product of Martin such that the instructions are similarly provided on a non-transient computer readable storage medium (e.g., non-volatile memory/storage in computer 41/device 39). Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of allowing code to be preserved after power is shut off, avoiding the need to re-program the system each time the system is used.
With regards to claim 20, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 19. This combination does not expressly teach measuring movement of the acoustically driven surface waves being accomplished by: obtaining velocity of the subsurface acoustic wave; integrating the velocity of the subsurface acoustic wave along a direction of subsurface acoustic wave propagation to obtain velocity potential for the subsurface acoustic wave, wherein the velocity potential is the sum of an incident portion of the subsurface acoustic wave and a reflected portion of the subsurface wave; determining, based on the velocity potential of the subsurface acoustic wave, a pressure level of the subsurface acoustic wave at the surface, wherein the pressure level matches atmospheric pressure at the surface; and determining a displacement of the surface at the reaction point based on the pressure level.
However, in col. 8, ll. 1-63, Martin describes how surface movement at a reaction point and surface velocity at the reaction point are related, describes how surface velocity is related to acoustic pressure below the surface, and explains how well-known assumptions in underwater acoustics, such as the pressure release condition at the air-surface boundary (which would be that the pressure at the air-surface boundary is atmospheric pressure for typical bodies of water), and other assumptions about the acoustic field 4, such as that it is composed of one or more plane waves incident upon the surface 5 (and also, clearly, reflected therefrom) are used to convert amongst these values. The applicant's claimed order of steps is an alternate ordering of conversions between the essentially the same if not identical values, using similar assumptions as described in Martin, and in the same environment.
In light hereof, the examiner has concluded that because the recited steps involve only a small, finite number of variables, and these variables and their relationships are known in the art as is clear from the disclosure of Martin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the instant invention to determine a displacement of the surface at a reaction point based on a pressure level in the same way starting from a velocity of a subsurface wave, converting that to a velocity potential, and converting that value to a pressure level before determining the displacement, as there are only a finite number of predictable solutions for such conversion of known variables with a reasonable expectation of success based on the taught variables of the prior art.
Claims 4-5, 7, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and DeWeert as respectively applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 9,476,700 to DeWeert et al. (hereinafter referred to as DeWeert '700; cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 1. Martin further teaches the acoustic wave detection logic executing instructions to: generate a plurality of time-resolved interferometer images based on receiving the reflected beam over a period of time (col. 2, ll. 33-40). However, this combination does not expressly teach generating an interferometric movie based on the plurality of time-resolved interferometer images.
DeWeert '700 teaches the feature of collecting interferometric images over an extended period of time and processing said images to yield a movie of motion on a target surface (col. 22, ll. 10-20). 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 system of Martin and DeWeert so as to similarly produce an interferometric movie based on a plurality of time-resolved interferometer images. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit enabling subsurface movement of the object generating the acoustic waves to be monitored, tracked, etc. in essentially real-time like in DeWeert '700 (col. 23, ll. 53-61).
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Martin, DeWeert, and DeWeert '700 teaches the system of claim 4. In this combination, the interferometric movie depicts a representation of the subsurface acoustic wave interacting with the surface of water (each constituent interferometric image depicts this, as is clear from at least col. 8, ll. 1-7 of Martin).
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Martin, DeWeert, and DeWeert '700 teaches the system of claim 4. In this combination, wherein the acoustic wave detection logic further executes instructions to: sample the interferometric movie in space and time (in tracking an object, the location of the object would be determined as per col. 8, ll. 49-56 of Martin, which is understood to involve sampling ua(t,s) at time t and point s) across the multiple images acquired).
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 13. Martin further teaches the instructions on the non-transient computer readable medium further instruct the processor to generate a plurality of time-resolved interferometer images based on receiving the reflected beam over a period of time (col. 2, ll. 33-40). However, this combination does not expressly teach generating an interferometric movie based on the plurality of time-resolved interferometer images.
DeWeert '700 teaches the feature of collecting interferometric images over an extended period of time and processing said images to yield a movie of motion on a target surface (col. 22, ll. 10-20). 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 system of Martin and DeWeert so as to similarly produce an interferometric movie based on a plurality of time-resolved interferometer images. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit enabling subsurface movement of the object generating the acoustic waves to be monitored, tracked, etc. in essentially real-time like in DeWeert '700 (col. 23, ll. 53-61).
With regards to claim 17, the combination of Martin, DeWeert, and DeWeert '700 teaches the system of claim 15. In this combination, the instructions on the non-transient computer readable medium further instruct the processor to sample the interferometric movie in space and time (in tracking an object, the location of the object would be determined as per col. 8, ll. 49-56 of Martin, which is understood to involve sampling ua(t,s) at time t and point s) across the multiple images acquired).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and DeWeert as respectively applied to claims 4 and 15 above, and further in view of US 4,105,990 to Rines et al. (hereinafter referred to as Rines).
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Martin, DeWeert, and DeWeert '700 teaches the system of claim 4. However, this combination does not expressly teach the acoustic wave detection logic executing instructions to: determine that the subsurface acoustic wave is to be discriminated for longer than the period of time; and enter a continuous monitoring mode in response to the determination that the subsurface wave is to be discriminated for longer than the period of time.
Rines teaches the feature of entering a continuous monitoring mode after making a determination that a source signal is of sufficient interest (col. 1, l. 54 to col. 2, l. 25). In light hereof, 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 system of Martin, DeWeert, and DeWeert '700 such that the acoustic wave detection logic executes similar instructions to determine that a subsurface acoustic wave is to be discriminated for longer than the period of time (i.e., a wave or source thereof is determined to be of sufficient interest to warrant continued monitoring beyond the length over which first images are collected); and enter a continuous monitoring mode in response to the determination that the subsurface wave is to be discriminated for longer than the period of time (continuously monitor the wave or source thereon for further investigation). Doing so would predictably enable targets of interest to be monitored without needlessly expending system energy/resources.
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Martin, DeWeert, and DeWeert '700 teaches the system of claim 15. However, this combination does not expressly teach the instructions on the non-transient computer readable medium further instructing the processor to determine that the acoustic wave is to be discriminated for longer than the period of time, and instruct the interferometer equipment to enter a continuous monitoring mode in response to the determination that the acoustic wave is to be discriminated for longer than the period of time.
Rines teaches the feature of entering a continuous monitoring mode after making a determination that a source signal is of sufficient interest (col. 1, l. 54 to col. 2, l. 25). In light hereof, 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 system of Martin, DeWeert, and DeWeert '700 such that the instructions on the non-transient computer readable medium further instructing the processor to determine that the acoustic wave is to be discriminated for longer than the period of time (i.e., a wave or source thereof is determined to be of sufficient interest to warrant continued monitoring beyond the length over which first images are collected), and instruct the interferometer equipment to enter a continuous monitoring mode in response to the determination that the acoustic wave is to be discriminated for longer than the period of time (continuously monitor the wave or source thereon for further investigation). Doing so would predictably enable targets of interest to be monitored without needlessly expending system energy/resources.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and DeWeert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,843,597 to Gjessing et al. (hereinafter referred to as Gjessing) and the Wikipedia entry for "Dispersion (water waves)" dated 29 December 2020).
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Martin and DeWeert teaches the system of claim 1. However, this combination does not teach the acoustic wave detection logic executing instructions to: determine a dispersion relationship between frequency of the subsurface wave and speed of the subsurface wave; and use the dispersion relationship to separate the subsurface wave from gravity-capillary waves at the surface of water.
However, Gjessing teaches that it is known for acoustic waves coming from below the water surface to have frequencies and velocities that differ significantly from those of ordinary ocean waves (i.e., gravity capillary waves) (col. 6, ll. 2-17).
Further, as is clear from the Wikipedia entry on Dispersion (water waves), it is well-known that waves of different wavelengths or frequencies travel at different phase velocities (see the first sentence of the entry).
In light hereof, 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 system of Martin and DeWeert such that the acoustic wave detection logic executes instructions to: determine a known metric for differentiating between types of waves, such as a dispersion relationship between frequency of the subsurface wave and speed of the subsurface wave; and use this known metric (dispersion relationship) to separate the subsurface wave from gravity-capillary waves at the surface of water. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to discriminate between waves-of-interest and waves-not-of-interest based on known exclusive/defining properties thereof such as frequency dispersion.
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 James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858