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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 04/15/2026.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pages 9-10 of arguments argue specifically about the claimed multi-protocol node, stating that examiner is mapping to the mobile device. However, pages 7 and 8 of Michielsen detail that “the wireless control system comprising a node and at least one further node in a mesh network and the mobile device”. This direct quote shows that the node itself is different than the mobile device being argued about on pages 9-10 of remarks. The mobile device is part of the system but isn’t the claimed ‘node’. The argument on page 9 regarding “switching between the first mode and the second mode”, reads on the recited bridge mode and being a dual-mode node since it is able to switch between modes. On page 10 there are arguments regarding the listed modes. However, the cited reference Michielsen teaches using either the first mode, the second mode, or dualmode, showing the three recited options. For other arguments regarding newly recited limitations please see the claim mapping below for more details.
Examiner would also like to note that dual connectivity is well known in the art. Further, the bridge mode is not well defined as it could be interpreted as simultaneous implementation of modes, selecting between different modes, or (dynamic) switching between different modes.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michielsen (WO 2023/011917 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Michielsen teaches
A multi-protocol node comprising (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5: “the node comprising…”; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 9-11: supports both protocols (multi-protocol); Michielsen Pg. 9 paragraph 1: “The node 200 is capable to support… a dualmode node”):
a storage element (Michielsen pg. 12 lines 26-33: storage means including memory devices); and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the storage element (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 13-15: computer programming code (instructions) executed by the processing means; pg. 12 lines 26-33: code stored on storage means including memory devices), the instructions being executable to selectively update a corresponding connectivity mode from an initial connectivity mode based on whether the multi-protocol node detects a networking device and based on another corresponding connectivity mode of a neighboring multi-protocol node (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 14-22: may decide to select a dual-mode for further node (connectivity mode of a neighboring multi-protocol node) by comparing connectivity information; Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: switch between first and second modes (selectively update connectivity mode), can be from second protocol to first protocol; Michielsen pg. 4 paragraph 2: “one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”; see also fig. 1, pg. 11 paragraph 5, and claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michielsen (WO 2023/011917 A1) in view of Matthieu (Patent No.: US 9,210,534 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Michielsen teaches
A method for operating a network of multi-protocol nodes (Michielsen pg. 8 paragraph 1: method; Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: network of nodes; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 9-11: supports both protocols (multi-protocol)) comprising:
…the first multi-protocol node configuring itself in a mode selected from at least
a first connectivity mode using the first communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5 and Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the node comprising the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol…”; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device (configuring itself)),
a second connectivity mode using a second communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: second mode according to a second communication protocol),
and a bridge connectivity mode using the first communications protocol and the second communications protocol (Michielsen Pg. 9 paragraph 1 and Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: “The node 200 is capable to support two different operation modes or two different communication protocols, such as a combo node or a dualmode node.”),
wherein the mode is selected by the first multi-protocol node based on whether the first multi-protocol node detects the networking device (Michielsen fig. 1, pg. 11 paragraph 5, and claims 1-2; Michielsen pg. 4 paragraph 2: “one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”; pg. 8 paragraph 2, pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the advertisement message is used to assist the mobile device in either deciding whether to select the node for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network”).
While Michielsen does teach a device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node, Michielsen appears to be silent regarding explicitly searching for a network device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes.
However, Matthieu, in the analogous art of utilizing device protocols, teaches
searching for a networking device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49: searching for devices to connect with based on a connection protocol (communications protocol) where multiple devices are present (plurality of nodes)); and…
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Michielsen to incorporate the teachings of Matthieu and search for a networking device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes. Doing so would allow for certain criteria to be used when searching for a device (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 2, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) further comprising:
Michielsen further teaches
prior to the searching, configuring the first multi-protocol node in the second connectivity mode (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 5-7: configured to operate according to a second mode).
Regarding claim 3, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) further comprising:
Michielsen further teaches
in response to a trigger event, using the second communications protocol to provision each of the plurality of multi-protocol nodes to enable the first communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: trigger event causing to switch between first and second modes, can be from second protocol to first protocol).
Regarding claim 4, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein the first multi-protocol node selects the second connectivity mode in response to the first multi-protocol node failing to connect to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 14 cl. 1 and pg. 8 lines 1-12 connectivity information, connectivity problem of the node switching between the first and second mode; pg. 9 paragraph 2 and claim 1: “switch to the second mode occasionally, and mainly operate in the mesh network according to the first mode”; pg. 4 paragraph 2: “the point-to-point connection according to the second mode can also be a point-to-multipoint connection. And then, one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”).
Regarding claim 5, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein the first multi-protocol node selects the mode further based on whether neighboring multi-protocol nodes of the plurality of multi-protocol nodes detect the networking device. (Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: “the node performing the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol”; Michielsen fig. 1, pg. 11 paragraph 5, and claims 1-2; Michielsen pg. 4 paragraph 2: “one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”; pg. 8 paragraph 2, pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the advertisement message is used to assist the mobile device in either deciding whether to select the node for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network”),
Regarding claim 6, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 5 (the limitations of parent claim 5 as indicated above) further comprising:
Michielsen further teaches
the first multi-protocol node receiving indications of enabled connectivity modes of neighboring multi-protocol nodes (Michielsen pg. 3 lines 26-28: connectivity information comprising number of active neighbor entries).
Regarding claim 7, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 5 (the limitations of parent claim 5 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein the first multi-protocol node selects the first connectivity mode in response to all multi-protocol nodes neighboring the first multi-protocol node being connected to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 9 lines 12-17 and pg. 2 lines 15-27: node and further node (all other multi-protocol nodes) in first mode; pg. 2 lines 22-24: “comprising connectivity information of the node when operating in the first mode”).
Regarding claim 8, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 4 (the limitations of parent claim 4 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein the first multi-protocol node selects the bridge connectivity mode in response to at least one multi-protocol node neighboring the first multi-protocol node failing to connect to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 14-22: “may decide to select a dual-mode node [bridge connectivity mode] for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network by comparing the connectivity information received from that node against a certain selection criterion”; dual-mode operation capability; pg. 7 lines 14-17: select dual-mode node by comparing connectivity information).
Regarding claim 9, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) further comprising:
Michielsen further teaches
all other multi-protocol nodes of the plurality of multi-protocol nodes configuring themselves in a corresponding mode selected from at least the first connectivity mode, the second connectivity mode, and the bridge connectivity mode based on whether each other multi-protocol node detects the networking device (Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device; Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: the node performing the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol or a second mode according to a second communication protocol; Michielsen fig. 1, pg. 11 paragraph 5, and claims 1-2; Michielsen pg. 4 paragraph 2: “one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”; pg. 8 paragraph 2, pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the advertisement message is used to assist the mobile device in either deciding whether to select the node for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network”).
Regarding claim 10, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 9 (the limitations of parent claim 9 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein all the other multi-protocol nodes configure themselves in the corresponding mode selected from at least the first connectivity mode, the second connectivity mode, and the bridge connectivity mode further based on whether corresponding neighboring multi-protocol nodes detect the networking device. (Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device; Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: the node performing the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol or a second mode according to a second communication protocol; Michielsen fig. 1, pg. 11 paragraph 5, and claims 1-2; Michielsen pg. 4 paragraph 2: “one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”; pg. 8 paragraph 2, pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the advertisement message is used to assist the mobile device in either deciding whether to select the node for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network”; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device (configuring itself))
Regarding claim 11, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above)
While Michielsen does disclose an inter-PAN, Michielsen does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first communications protocol is a wireless local area network protocol and the second communications protocol is a wireless personal area network mesh network protocol.
However, Matthieu, in the analogous art of utilizing device protocols, discloses
wherein the first communications protocol is a wireless local area network protocol and the second communications protocol is a wireless personal area network mesh network protocol (Matthieu col. 7 lines 12-60: personal area network (PAN) may provide network access, “An IoT device may be connectable to a local area network (LAN), a personal area network (PAN), and to a wide area network (WAN). For example, an IoT device may include one or more radios operating using one or more communications protocols that allow the IoT device to connect to one or more LANs or PANs”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Michielsen to incorporate the teachings of Matthieu and have the first communications protocol be a wireless local area network protocol and the second communications protocol be a wireless personal area network mesh network protocol. Doing so would provide network access for a user’s personal devices and may further provide access to other networks (Matthieu col. 7 lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 12, Michielsen teaches
A network of multi-protocol nodes (Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: network of nodes; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 9-11: supports both protocols (multi-protocol)), the network comprising:
a multi-protocol node comprising (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5: “the node comprising…”):
a radio frequency transceiver configured to transmit and receive radio frequency signals (Michielsen pg. 12 line 1: radio unit with transceiver); and
data processing circuitry (Michielsen pg. 13 lines 4-5 and pg. 8 lines 13-15: processing means/processors) operable to:
…enable a mode selected from at least a first connectivity mode using the first communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5 and Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the node comprising the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol…”; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device (configuring itself)), a second connectivity mode using a second communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: second mode according to a second communication protocol), and a bridge connectivity mode using the first communications protocol and the second communications protocol (Michielsen Pg. 9 paragraph 1 and Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: “The node 200 is capable to support two different operation modes or two different communication protocols, such as a combo node or a dualmode node.”),
Wherein the mode is selected by the first multi-protocol node based on whether the multi-protocol node detects the networking device (Michielsen fig. 1, pg. 11 paragraph 5, and claims 1-2; Michielsen pg. 4 paragraph 2: “one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”; pg. 8 paragraph 2, pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the advertisement message is used to assist the mobile device in either deciding whether to select the node for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network”).
While Michielsen does teach a device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node, Michielsen appears to be silent regarding explicitly searching.
However, Matthieu, in the analogous art of utilizing device protocols, teaches
use the radio frequency transceiver to search for a networking device associated with a first communications protocol (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49: searching for devices to connect with based on a connection protocol (communications protocol)); and…
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Michielsen to incorporate the teachings of Matthieu and have the radio frequency transceiver to search for a networking device associated with a first communications protocol. Doing so would allow for certain criteria to be used when searching for a device (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 13, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 12 (the limitations of parent claim 12 as indicated above) wherein the data processing circuitry comprises:
a storage element (Michielsen pg. 12 lines 26-33: storage means including memory devices); and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the storage element, the instructions being executable by the processor (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 13-15: computer programming code (instructions) executed by the processing means; pg. 12 lines 26-33: code stored on storage means including memory devices) to cause the processor to:
configure the radio frequency transceiver and the data processing circuitry to …and (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5: “the node comprising the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol…”; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device (configuring itself)), to select the mode based on whether the multi-protocol node detects the networking device (Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: “the node performing the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol”; Michielsen fig. 1, pg. 11 paragraph 5, and claims 1-2; Michielsen pg. 4 paragraph 2: “one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”; pg. 8 paragraph 2, pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the advertisement message is used to assist the mobile device in either deciding whether to select the node for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network”).
Michielsen does not appear to explicitly teach searching.
However, Matthieu, in the analogous art of utilizing device protocols, teaches
… search for a networking device associated with the first connectivity mode (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49: searching for devices to connect with based on a connection protocol (communications protocol); Matthieu col. 31 lines 60-65: first connection protocol connecting in first mode) …
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Michielsen to incorporate the teachings of Matthieu and search for a networking device associated with the first connectivity mode. Doing so would allow for certain criteria to be used when searching for a device (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 14, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to:
configure the multi-protocol node in the second connectivity mode prior to the search (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 5-7: configured to operate according to a second mode); and
in response to a trigger event, use the second communications protocol to provision each multi-protocol node of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes to enable the first communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: trigger event causing to switch between first and second modes, can be from second protocol to first protocol).
Regarding claim 15, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the second connectivity mode is selected in response to the multi-protocol node failing to connect to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 14 cl. 1 and pg. 8 lines 1-12 connectivity information, connectivity problem of the node switching between the first and second mode; pg. 9 paragraph 2 and claim 1: “switch to the second mode occasionally, and mainly operate in the mesh network according to the first mode”; pg. 4 paragraph 2: “the point-to-point connection according to the second mode can also be a point-to-multipoint connection. And then, one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”).
Regarding claim 16, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the mode is selected further based on whether neighboring devices of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes detect the networking device. (Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: “the node performing the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol”; Michielsen fig. 1, pg. 11 paragraph 5, and claims 1-2; Michielsen pg. 4 paragraph 2: “one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”; pg. 8 paragraph 2, pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the advertisement message is used to assist the mobile device in either deciding whether to select the node for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network”)
Regarding claim 17, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the multi-protocol node selects the first connectivity mode in response to all multi-protocol nodes neighboring the multi-protocol node being connected to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 9 lines 12-17 and pg. 2 lines 15-27: node and further node (all other multi-protocol nodes) in first mode; pg. 2 lines 22-24: “comprising connectivity information of the node when operating in the first mode”).
Regarding claim 18, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the multi-protocol node selects the bridge connectivity mode in response to at least one multi-protocol node neighboring the multi-protocol node failing to connect to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 14-22: “may decide to select a dual-mode node [bridge connectivity mode] for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network by comparing the connectivity information received from that node against a certain selection criterion”; dual-mode operation capability; pg. 7 lines 14-17: select dual-mode node by comparing connectivity information).
Regarding claim 19, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to:
self-enable, by all other multi-protocol nodes of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes, a corresponding mode selected from at least the first connectivity mode, the second connectivity mode, and the bridge connectivity mode based on whether each other multi- protocol node detects the networking device and based on whether corresponding neighboring multi-protocol nodes detect the networking device. (Michielsen pg. 9 lines 12-17 and pg. 2 lines 15-27: node and further node (all other multi-protocol nodes) in first mode; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device; Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: the node performing the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol or a second mode according to a second communication protocol; Michielsen fig. 1, pg. 11 paragraph 5, and claims 1-2; Michielsen pg. 4 paragraph 2: “one or more nodes with a dual-mode operation capability may be used as an interface between the mesh network and the mobile device”; pg. 8 paragraph 2, pg. 3 paragraph 2: “the advertisement message is used to assist the mobile device in either deciding whether to select the node for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network”)
Regarding claim 21, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 11 (the limitations of parent claim 11 as indicated above)
wherein the first communications protocol is a Wi-Fi protocol and the networking device is a Wi-Fi access point configured to couple the network to a wireless communications device via another network. (Michielsen pg. 9 paragraphs 4-5, pg. 6, and fig. 1: Wi-Fi protocol for first protocol)
While Michielsen does disclose an inter-PAN, Michielsen does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first communications protocol is a wireless local area network protocol and the second communications protocol is a wireless personal area network mesh network protocol.
However, Matthieu, in the analogous art of utilizing device protocols, discloses
…wherein the network includes a wireless local area network configured according to the first communications protocol and a wireless personal area network configured according to the second communications protocol (Matthieu col. 7 lines 12-60: personal area network (PAN) may provide network access, “An IoT device may be connectable to a local area network (LAN), a personal area network (PAN), and to a wide area network (WAN). For example, an IoT device may include one or more radios operating using one or more communications protocols that allow the IoT device to connect to one or more LANs or PANs”), and
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Michielsen to incorporate the teachings of Matthieu and have the network includes a wireless local area network configured according to the first communications protocol and a wireless personal area network configured according to the second communications protocol. Doing so would provide network access for a user’s personal devices and may further provide access to other networks (Matthieu col. 7 lines 29-31).
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 RACHEL E MARKS whose telephone number is (703)756-1309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571)270-7191. 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.
/R.E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights