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 amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been received and entered into the record. As a result, 1, 5, 7, 9-11, and 20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a controller configured to control" in claim 1 and "a controller to control" in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 9-12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. [U.S. Pub. 2023/0288088] ("Klein") in view of Sheppick et al. [U.S. Pub. 2019/0360713] ("Sheppick").
With regard to claim 1, Klein teaches a distributed thermostat comprising:
a controller unit that houses a controller ("The control unit 110 can include a controller [par. 0036]") configured to control operation of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system ("the controller includes a processor or other control circuitry configured to execute instructions of a program that controls operation of the system … HVAC components [par. 0036]");
wherein the controller is further configured to receive environmental information from a sensor network that is distributed from the controller unit ("the control unit 110 may periodically receive data activity reports from … sensors 140 [par. 0039]" and "sensors 140 may include various types of sensors that are placed within a property … environmental sensors [par. 0042]" also see [fig. 2] where the sensors are distributed throughout the property);
wherein the controller is further configured to receive user inputs from [fig. 1: Portable Thermostat (120)] ("the control unit 110 obtains temperature data 402 and set point temperature data 404 from the HVAC system 130 [par. 0068]" and "the control unit 110 may generate a set point temperature based on the most recently configured set point temperature on the portable thermostat 120 [par. 0073];" the control unit receives the set point temperature from the portable thermostat via the HVAC system), the connected device (see [figs. 1 and 4A] where Portable Thermostat (120) is distributed from Control Unit (110)); and
wherein the controller is further configured to control the operation of the HVAC system based at least in part on the environmental information and the user inputs ("the control unit 110 obtains temperature data 402 and set point temperature data 404 from the HVAC system 130 [par. 0068]" and "The control unit 110 compares the predicted air temperature in the living room to the set point temperature to determine how to configure HVAC system 130 [par. 0069]").
Although Klein teaches a portable thermostat and a user device running a user interface application capable of receiving user input [pars. 0043], Klein does not explicitly teach a user interface application that is loaded onto the connected device, the user interface application being distributed from the controller.
In an analogous art (HVAC control), Sheppick teaches a user interface application that is loaded onto a connected device, the user interface application being distributed from a controller ("an application (e.g., a client application) may be executed on the local computing device 106 that is configured to interface directly with the HVAC controller 102 and/or a network connected computing device … the local computing device 106 may be usable, in some embodiments, to interface with the HVAC controller 102 (e.g., via the remote computing device 112) while the local computing device 106 is located external, or otherwise remote in proximity, to the structure 108 [par. 0034]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified Sheppick's teachings, to include a user interface application loaded onto a local computing device as taught by Sheppick, for the benefit of providing the user the ability to make changes to the HVAC system when remote from the structure.
With regard to claim 2, the combination above teaches the distributed thermostat of claim 1. Klein in the combination further teaches wherein the operation of the HVAC system comprises maintaining a set point temperature in a conditioned space of a site ("The control unit 110 compares the predicted air temperature in the living room to the set point temperature to determine how to configure HVAC system 130. As shown, since the predicted air temperature of 74 F is higher than the set point temperature of 72 F, the control unit 110 determines to initiate a cooling operation [par. 0069]").
With regard to claim 9, the combination above teaches the distributed thermostat of claim 1. Sheppick in the combination further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to communicate with the user interface application through multiple communication paths comprising:
a direct communication path between the controller and the user interface application ("an application (e.g., a client application) may be executed on the local computing device 106 that is configured to interface directly with the HVAC controller 102 and/or a network connected computing device [par. 0034]"); and
an indirect communication path through the controller, one or more intermediary elements, and the user interface application ("the local computing device 106 may be usable, in some embodiments, to interface with the HVAC controller 102 (e.g., via the remote computing device 112) while the local computing device 106 is located external, or otherwise remote in proximity, to the structure 108 [par. 0034]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have allowed the connected device to communicate via a direct and indirect communication path, for the benefit of providing direct path when the connected device is local, and an indirect path when the connected device is remote from the structure, allowing the connected device the ability to make changes to the HVAC system when remote from the structure.
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Klein and Sheppick teaches the distributed thermostat of claim 1. Although Klein teaches the controller, user interface application, and user inputs (as presented in claim 1, where the user interface application is considered the application that the portable thermostat and user device uses), Klein does not explicitly teach wherein the controller unit also houses an alternative user interface application and a display that are operable to also receive and transmit the user inputs without going through the user interface application.
Sheppick in the combination teaches wherein a controller unit also houses an alternative user interface application and a display that are operable to also receive and transmit user inputs without going through a user interface application ("The illustrative I/O peripherals 208 includes a user interface 210, such as a touchscreen, to provide an interface to a user for to review information of the HVAC system 100, as well as receive direct input at the HVAC controller 102 from a user, such as may be used for setting/parameter manipulation [par. 0043]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have allowed user input through a direct interface of the HVAC unit for the benefit of providing the user greater flexibility in setting various parameters.
With regard to claims 11, 12, 19, and 20, Klein teaches claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 above. Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claims 1, 2, 9, and 10, respectively; therefore, claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected along the same grounds as claims 1, 2, 9, and 10.
Claims 3-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Sheppick further in view of Roy [U.S. Pub. 2014/0257575].
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Klein and Sheppick teaches the distributed thermostat of claim 2, wherein the sensor network comprises a first sensor positionedadjacent the HVAC system ("HVAC 130 is located in an unconditioned space such as a utility closet [par. 0065]" and "temperature data 402 identifies an air temperature measured in an unconditioned space (e.g., utility closet) [par. 0068]").
Klein does not explicitly teach the first sensor position in or on the HVAC system.
In an analogous art (HVAC systems) Roy teaches a first sensor positioned in or on an HVAC system ("the exemplary system 200 may be communicatively connected with a plurality of temperature, humidity and current sensors located in the HVAC system, HVAC system ductwork, and in the building serviced by the HVAC system [par. 0066]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have positioned the first sensor taught by Klein, in or on an HVAC system as taught by Roy, since the sensor would still perform the same function and would have predictably allowed the sensor to measure the temperature in the location that the sensor is placed. That is, Klein teaches where the sensor is placed in the same utility closet where the HVAC is located. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have placed the first sensor on the HVAC structure itself, within the utility closet, since doing so would have yielded the predictable result of Klein's system determining the temperature difference between the location where the first sensor was placed and the location where the second sensor was placed.
With regard to claim 4, the combination above teaches the distributed thermostat of claim 3. Klein in the combination further teaches wherein the sensor network comprises a second sensor positioned within the conditioned space of the site ("air temperature measured in the conditioned space [par. 0067]").
With regard to claim 5, the combination above teaches the distributed thermostat of claim 4. Klein in the combination further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform a calibration operation ("The correlation can be determined using various machine learning, pattern recognition, and/or tracking technique [par. 0067]") comprising:
receiving a first temperature information from the first sensor ("the control unit 110 and/or server 170 may track air temperature measured in the unconditioned space [par. 0067]");
receiving a second temperature information from the second sensor ("air temperature measured in the conditioned space [par. 0067]"); and
based at least in part on the first temperature information and the second temperature information, determining an offset between the first temperature information and the second temperature information ("the correlation may be an average temperature differential between the air temperatures in the conditioned and unconditioned spaces over the monitoring time period [par. 0067]" and "model 172A identifies that the living room air temperature is typically 10 F higher than the utility closet air temperature [par. 0069]").
With regard to claim 6, the combination above teaches the distributed thermostat of claim 5. Klein in the combination further teaches wherein:
the controller comprises a machine learning algorithm having a machine learning model of the site and the HVAC system ("model 172A provides a correlation between air temperature in a conditioned space (e.g., living room) and air temperature in an unconditioned space (e.g., utility closet). The correlation can be determined using various machine learning, pattern recognition, and/or tracking technique … the correlation may be an average temperature differential between the air temperatures in the conditioned and unconditioned spaces over the monitoring time period. In other instances, the correlation may be inferred based on monitoring data generated at other properties identified to be similar to property 400. For example, the control unit 110 and/or server 170 may identify similar properties with HVAC systems are also placed in unconditioned spaces (e.g., similar square footage, similar property type, similar location, etc.) and obtain temperature correlation data generated at these properties. In some other instances, the correlation specified by model 172A may be generated based on a combination of data generated in property 400 and data generated at other similar properties [par. 0067]"); and
the machine learning model is trained to perform a task comprising the calibration operation ("machine learned model trained to predict a temperature of a conditioned space [par. 0010]" and "the correlation may be an average temperature differential between the air temperatures in the conditioned and unconditioned spaces over the monitoring time period [par. 0067]" and "model 172A identifies that the living room air temperature is typically 10 F higher than the utility closet air temperature [par. 0069]").
With regard to claim 7, the combination above teaches the distributed thermostat of claim 6. Klein in the combination further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to maintain the set point temperature in the conditioned space of the site based at least in part on the offset ("the control unit 110 obtains temperature data 402 and set point temperature data 404 from the HVAC system 130 [par. 0068]" and "The control unit 110 compares the predicted air temperature in the living room to the set point temperature to determine how to configure HVAC system 130 [par. 0069]").
With regard to claim 8, the combination above teaches the distributed thermostat of claim 5. Roy in the combination further teaches wherein the first sensor positioned in or on the HVAC system comprises the first sensor positioned within an air duct of the HVAC system ("the exemplary system 200 may be communicatively connected with a plurality of temperature, humidity and current sensors located in the HVAC system, HVAC system ductwork, and in the building serviced by the HVAC system [par. 0066]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have positioned the first sensor taught by Klein, in an airduct as taught by Roy, since the sensor would still perform the same function and would have predictably allowed the sensor to measure the temperature in the location that the sensor is placed. That is, Klein teaches where the sensor is placed in the same utility closet where the HVAC is located. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have placed the first sensor within the HVAC structure itself since doing so would have yielded the predictable result of Klein's system determining the temperature difference between the location where the first sensor was placed and the location where the second sensor was placed.
With regard to claims 13-18, the combination above teaches claims 3-8. Claims 13-18 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claims 3-8, respectively; therefore, claims 13-18 are rejected along the same grounds as claims 3-8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are summarized and responded to below:
Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because "controller" is a structural term understood by persons of ordinary skill in the HV AC and embedded systems fields, and the claims, read in light of the Specification, recite sufficient structure and context. The Specification describes concrete structural implementations and subcomponents of the controller, including a set point controller module 112, a sensor calibration module 114, and an alternative UI application module 116, as well as physical placements on or near the HV AC system and integration with a motherboard controller coupled to a display [remarks pages 8-9]
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that the term "controller" does not inherently convey structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art, despite the instant specification reciting various structural implementations of the controller. That is, the term "controller" in the claim is coupled with functional language and the claim does not recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the term "controller" in the claim is not preceded by the recitation of a structural modifier. As such, the claims are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
With respect to claim 1, Klein does not anticipate the independent claims because it fails to disclose the controller in the controller unit receiving user inputs from a user interface application distributed from that controller unit and controlling HV AC based on those user inputs together with environmental information under normal operation [remarks pages 10-11]
Applicant's arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
The amendment makes clear that user inputs flow from an application that is separate from the controller unit directly to the controller housed in that unit, and that the controller then uses those inputs together with environmental information from a distributed sensor network to control the HVAC [remarks page 11]
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of claim 1 do not necessitate that the inputs flow from the application directly to the controller. As such, Klein teaches where the controller receives the input from the connected device which is separate from the controller unit ("the control unit 110 obtains temperature data 402 and set point temperature data 404 from the HVAC system 130 [par. 0068]" and "the control unit 110 may generate a set point temperature based on the most recently configured set point temperature on the portable thermostat 120 [par. 0073]") and then uses inputs together with environmental information from the distributed sensor network to control the HVAC ("the control unit 110 obtains temperature data 402 and set point temperature data 404 from the HVAC system 130 [par. 0068]" and "The control unit 110 compares the predicted air temperature in the living room to the set point temperature to determine how to configure HVAC system 130 [par. 0069]"). As such, the combination of Klein and Sheppick teaches the amended limitations of claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, the claim requires the controller to communicate with the user interface application via both direct and indirect paths. Klein does not teach either path as claimed because the application does not directly interface with the controller in the control unit, and the described server communications do not constitute the claimed indirect path to the application [remarks page 12]
Applicant's arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
With respect to claim 3, the Examiner's rationale that the sensor "would still perform the same function and would have predictably allowed the sensor to measure the temperature in the location that the sensor is placed" is a conclusory statement that does not identify a clear teaching grounded in Klein or Roy for making that specific structural change in Klein's system, nor does it address Klein's reliance on a failsafe correlation model using unconditioned space measurements rather than on HVAC mounted sensing for normal control [remarks page 14]
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. Klein teaches where the sensor is placed in the same utility closet where the HVAC is located. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have placed the first sensor on the HVAC structure itself, within the utility closet, since doing so would have yielded the predictable result of Klein's system determining the temperature difference between the location where the first sensor was placed and the location where the second sensor was placed. As such, the combination of Klein, Sheppick, and Roy teaches claim 3.
With respect to claim 5, Klein does not teach a calibration operation in which the controller contemporaneously "receiv[es] a first temperature information from the first sensor" positioned in or on the HV AC system and "receiv[es] a second temperature information from the second sensor" positioned within the conditioned space, and "determin[es] an offset between" those two measured values as a calibration parameter [remarks page 14]
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The "calibration operation" is defined in the claim as comprising receiving the receiving a first temperature information from the first sensor, receiving a second temperature information from the second sensor; and based at least in part on the first temperature information and the second temperature information, determining an offset between the first temperature information and the second temperature information. Klein in the combination teaches these limitations (as presented in the rejection of claim 5) which define the calibration operation; thus, Klein teaches the calibration operation. Additionally, Klein teaches determine a different between air temperatures of the two sensors (via various methods). The determined difference reads on the claimed "offset" and the difference is used to maintain a setpoint temperature in the conditioned space. As such, the combination of Klein, Sheppick, and Roy teaches claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Klein's model is not trained to perform the specific calibration task of determining a sensor to sensor offset between the first HVAC mounted sensor and the second conditioned space sensor [remarks pages 14-15]
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented above, Klein in the combination teaches the calibration task. It is Klein's model that performs the calibration task ("model 172A provides a correlation between air temperature in a conditioned space (e.g., living room) and air temperature in an unconditioned space (e.g., utility closet). The correlation can be determined using various machine learning, pattern recognition, and/or tracking technique … the correlation may be an average temperature differential between the air temperatures in the conditioned and unconditioned spaces over the monitoring time period. In other instances, the correlation may be inferred based on monitoring data generated at other properties identified to be similar to property 400. For example, the control unit 110 and/or server 170 may identify similar properties with HVAC systems are also placed in unconditioned spaces (e.g., similar square footage, similar property type, similar location, etc.) and obtain temperature correlation data generated at these properties. In some other instances, the correlation specified by model 172A may be generated based on a combination of data generated in property 400 and data generated at other similar properties [par. 0067]"), where the model is trained to perform the task ("machine learned model trained to predict a temperature of a conditioned space [par. 0010]"). Therefore, the combination of Klein, Sheppick, and Roy teaches claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, Klein describes a failsafe prediction and comparison, not "maintain[ing] the set point ... based at least in part on the offset" determined by the calibration operation of claim 5 [remarks page 15]
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented above, Klein in the combination teaches determining the offset. Klein further uses this offset to maintain the set point ("the control unit 110 obtains temperature data 402 and set point temperature data 404 from the HVAC system 130 [par. 0068]" and "The control unit 110 compares the predicted air temperature in the living room to the set point temperature to determine how to configure HVAC system 130 [par. 0069]"). As such, the combination of Klein, Sheppick, and Roy teaches claim 6.
With respect to claim 8, there is no articulated teaching to move Klein's first sensor into "an air duct of the HV AC system" as claimed, and the rejection does not explain how such duct placement operates within Klein's failsafe control flow that predicts conditioned space temperature from unconditioned space measurements. The combination thus lacks a teaching of the required specific structural placement of the first sensor "within an air duct of the HV AC system." [remarks page 15]
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. Klein teaches where the sensor is placed in the same utility closet where the HVAC is located. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have placed the first sensor within the HVAC structure itself since doing so would have yielded the predictable result of Klein's system determining the temperature difference between the location where the first sensor was placed and the location where the second sensor was placed. As such, the combination of Klein, Sheppick, and Roy teaches claim 8.
With respect to claim 10, The cited DeLoach passages do not disclose that the controller unit "houses an alternative user interface application." They disclose an HMI on the unit and a mobile service application on a separate device. An HMI is a physical interface, not an application housed in the controller unit [remarks page 16]
Applicant's arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. [U.S. Pub. 2015/0285526] teaches a dynamic correction factor that includes an offset that can account for dynamic operation of an HVAC system.
Delgoshaei et al. [U.S. Pub. 2021/0372651] teaches storing temperature offsets into a memory to predict a return air temperatures based on various sensor data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT W CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1214. The examiner can normally be reached (M-F) 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/VINCENT WEN-LIANG CHANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119