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
The amendment filed 12/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-14 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “It is respectfully submitted that Khalid et al, taken singly or in combination with the remaining cited references, fails to disclose, suggest, or render obvious all of the features recited in amended independent claim 1. As recited in amended claim 1, the radar device includes a first unit group and a second unit group. The first and second unit groups are formed by same components (e.g., a divider and two radar units), wherein the divider supplies a signal to the two radar units in the group. It is respectfully submitted that Khalid et al fails to disclose or suggest this structure. According to the Examiner's interpretation, Fig. 16B and paragraph [0060] of
Khalid et al teach a system including two groups (group 1 and group 2), where group 1 includes MMIC1 and MMIC6, and group 2 includes MMIC3, MMIC4, and MMIC5. See page 2 of the Office Action. As shown in Fig. 17A of Khalid et al, the master (MMIC2) corresponds to the oscillator recited in claim 1. Further, couplers 9b, 9d, and 9c respectively correspond to the first divider, the second divider, and the third divider recited in amended claim 1, and the slave (MMIC3) corresponds to the claimed "first unit." It is respectfully submitted, however, that Khalid et al does not disclose or
suggest all of the features of the "second unit group" as recited in amended claim 1, which comprises a third unit, a fourth unit, and a third divider, wherein the third divider is configured to supply the reference signal to the third unit via a fifth signal line and to supply the reference signal to the fourth unit via a sixth signal line. In particular, as shown in Figs. 17A and 17C, the coupler 9c ("third divider") supplies a signal to the MMIC1 in group 1; however, this coupler 9c does not also supply the signal to the MMIC6 in group 1, and also does not supply the signal to both a "third unit" and a "fourth unit" of the second unit group thereof. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Khalid et al fails to disclose or suggest the structure recited in amended claim 1. The remaining cited references also fail to disclose or suggest this structure. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that amended independent claim 1 and claims 5, 6, 8, and 10-14 depending therefrom clearly patentably distinguish over Khalid et al, taken singly or in any combination with the remaining cited references, under 35 USC 102 as well as under 35 USC 103”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Khalid has another embodiment, Figure 8, which anticipates the structure of the amended 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, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid (US20190293784A1).
Regarding claim 1 Khalid discloses
A radar device comprising: an oscillator configured to generate a reference signal (Paragraph 0037, "Therefore, the LO signal is generated in one MIMIC—the master MMIC"); a first unit group; and a second unit group (Figure 8 elements MMIC 1-5 and the three couplers which are tantamount to dividers, where mmic 2-3 and its coupler can be one group); a first divider configured to receive the reference signal, to supply the reference signal to the first unit group via a first signal line, and to supply the reference signal to the second unit group via a second signal line (Figure 8 elements MMIC 1 and the three couplers), wherein; the first unit group comprises a first unit, a second unit, and a second divider, the second divider is configured to supply the reference signal to the first unit via a third signal like and to supply the reference signal to the second unit via a fourth signal line (Figure 8 elements left coupler 9’, MMIC 2-3); the first unit is configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal, (Figure 8 MMIC 2; Paragraph 0060, "The spatial separation illustrated in FIG. 16A by virtue of RX and TX channels being arranged on different MMICs may be desirable in some applications, but is not necessary in all applications. That is to say that it is also possible to use MMICs (master and/or slave) having RX and TX channels in one silicon chip. It should be noted at this juncture that the number and division of RX and TX channels as illustrated in FIGS. 16A to 16D are purely by way of example and other divisions are possible in other example implementations" where Fig. 16 is an example of the mmics ability to transmit and receive); the second unit configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal (Figure 8 MMIC 3; Paragraph 0060, "The spatial separation illustrated in FIG. 16A by virtue of RX and TX channels being arranged on different MMICs may be desirable in some applications, but is not necessary in all applications. That is to say that it is also possible to use MMICs (master and/or slave) having RX and TX channels in one silicon chip. It should be noted at this juncture that the number and division of RX and TX channels as illustrated in FIGS. 16A to 16D are purely by way of example and other divisions are possible in other example implementations"), the second unit group comprises a third unit, a fourth unit, and a third divider, the third divider is configured to supply the reference signal to the third unit via a fifth signal line and to supply the reference signal to the fourth unit via a sixth signal line (Figure 8 elements right coupler 9’, MMIC 4-5); the third unit is configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal (Figure 8 MMIC 4; Paragraph 0060, "The spatial separation illustrated in FIG. 16A by virtue of RX and TX channels being arranged on different MMICs may be desirable in some applications, but is not necessary in all applications. That is to say that it is also possible to use MMICs (master and/or slave) having RX and TX channels in one silicon chip. It should be noted at this juncture that the number and division of RX and TX channels as illustrated in FIGS. 16A to 16D are purely by way of example and other divisions are possible in other example implementations"); and the fourth unit is configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal (Figure 8 MMIC 5; Paragraph 0060, "The spatial separation illustrated in FIG. 16A by virtue of RX and TX channels being arranged on different MMICs may be desirable in some applications, but is not necessary in all applications. That is to say that it is also possible to use MMICs (master and/or slave) having RX and TX channels in one silicon chip. It should be noted at this juncture that the number and division of RX and TX channels as illustrated in FIGS. 16A to 16D are purely by way of example and other divisions are possible in other example implementations").
Khalid does not explicitly disclose a length of the first signal line is equal to a length of the second signal line; a length of the fifth signal line is equal to a length of the third signal line; a length of the sixth signal line is equal to a length of the fourth signal line.
But Khalid does disclose the concept of a divider with equal paths for units (Figure 6 mmic 1, 2, 3 and coupler 9; Claim 18, “The radar system as claimed in claim 16, wherein, in the first operating mode a line length for transferring the RF oscillator signal from the first radar chip to the second radar chip and the third radar chip is identical” where the coupler is dividing the input signal and acting as a divider; Figure 8 paths from MMIC 1 to MMIC 2-5 where the paths all appear the same length).
Khalid does not explicitly disclose that signal paths 1 and 2 are equal or that signal paths 3 and 5 or signal paths 4 and 6 are equal, but it does disclose two dividers with two units each (Figure 11 mmic 2, 3, 4, 5 and bidirectional couplers where mmic is the master and generating the LO and the couplers are acting as dividers and dividing the signal) and it discloses that a divider could have equal paths for two units. So, Khalid already has the infrastructure and configuration of equal signal paths it simply hasn’t specified that the paths in Figure 8, for example, are equal. If the device can apply equal lengths to one divider it would be obvious to apply equal lengths to a second divider. Having the same path length for all the units could be advantageous in that it allows for all the units to have the same phase. All the transmitters having the same phase can help distinguish phase changes in the reflected signal, which can contribute to processes like Doppler shift detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalid with Khalid so that one could apply the equal length attribute of one divider to two dividers which could maintain the same phase for all of its transmitted signals.
Regarding claim 8 Khalid discloses
The radar device of claim 1, wherein the first unit group further comprises a fifth unit configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal (Figure 5 elements MMIC 2-4 where MMIC 2-4 can be the first unit group and labelled MMIC 1, 2, and 5); the divider is further configured to supply the reference signal to the fifth unit via a ninth signal line (Figure 5 elements MMIC 2-4 where MMIC 2-4 can be the first unit group and the MMICs and the signal lines can be labelled as needed);
Khalid does not disclose the second unit group further comprises a sixth unit configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal; a second divider connected to three units; the third divider is further configured to supply the reference signal to the sixth unit via a tenth signal line; a length of the ninth signal line the length of the third signal line, and the length of the fourth signal line are equal to each other; and a length of the tenth signal line, the length of the fifth signal line, and the length of the sixth signal line are equal to each other.
But Khalid does disclose the concept of a divider with equal paths for units (Figure 6 mmic 1, 2, 3 and coupler 9; Claim 18, “The radar system as claimed in claim 16, wherein, in the first operating mode a line length for transferring the RF oscillator signal from the first radar chip to the second radar chip and the third radar chip is identical” where the coupler is dividing the input signal and acting as a divider; Figure 8 paths from MMIC 1 to MMIC 2-5 where the paths all appear the same length).
Khalid in Figure 8 has a ‘second’ and ‘third’ divider (labelled as 9’ in the figure) both connected to two units but there is no third unit for either divider. However, Khalid does disclose a divider connected to three units in Figure 5 as cited above. As the dividers of Khalid can have multiple connections and Figure 8 of Khalid shows the cascading divider set up described in the instant application, it would be obvious and reasonable to implement one more unit to the 9’ dividers. The change would be advantageous as it could improve the angular resolution and gain. As Khalid can add one more unit to each divider in Figure 8, which it has proven possible with Figure 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalid with itself to add extra units and connections to the first and second group to improve angular resolution and gain.
In Figure 5 Khalid does not disclose that the paths are all equal in length but, as cited above, Khalid does disclose two connections to a divider that are equal. Figure 5, and by extension Figure 8, with three connections per divider, could easily apply the concept of equal path lengths for all of the connections. So, Khalid already has the infrastructure and configuration of equal signal paths it simply hasn’t specified that the paths in Figure 8, for example, are equal. If the device can apply equal lengths to one divider it would be obvious to apply equal lengths to a second divider. Having the same path length for all the units could be advantageous in that it allows for all the units to have the same phase. All the transmitters having the same phase can help distinguish phase changes in the reflected signal, which can contribute to processes like Doppler shift detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalid with Khalid so that one could apply the equal length attribute of one divider to two dividers which could maintain the same phase for all of its transmitted signals.
Regarding claim 11 Khalid further discloses
The radar device of claim 1, further comprising: a circuit board, wherein the first unit and the oscillator are formed on the circuit board (Figure 5 elements mmic 1 and mmic 2, or 3 or 4 and ‘printed circuit board’ in the bottom right corner).
Claim 5, 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid (US20190293784A1) in view of Chan (US 20210376483 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Khalid discloses
The radar device of claim 1 including the three dividers and the subsequent connections. Khalid does not disclose wherein the second divider, a part of the third signal line, and a part of the fourth signal line are formed on a first printed circuit board; and the third divider and a part of the fifth signal line, and a part of the sixth signal line are formed on a second printed circuit board.
Chan discloses
Wherein the second divider, a part of the third signal line, and a part of the fourth signal line are formed on a first printed circuit board (Paragraph 0121, "A conductive surface 1703C, with 16 dumbbell shaped slots, each associated with a power divider assembly, is formed on the lower surface of the substrate layer of the second-uppermost substrate 1703C. The lower substrate 1700B right below the second-uppermost substrate 1700C is a power divider with multiple power divider assemblies" where 1703 can be the first substrate and it has traces that can be the third/fourth signal line); and the third divider and a part of the fifth signal line, and a part of the sixth signal line are formed on a second printed circuit board (Paragraph 0121, "A conductive surface 1703C, with 16 dumbbell shaped slots, each associated with a power divider assembly, is formed on the lower surface of the substrate layer of the second-uppermost substrate 1703C. The lower substrate 1700B right below the second-uppermost substrate 1700C is a power divider with multiple power divider assemblies" where 1700B can be the second substrate and it has traces that can be the fifth/sixth signal line).
Khalid and Chan are both considered analogous art as they both concern radar devices, in particular collision avoidance radar for Chan. Khalid discloses three dividers each with multiple connections but it does not disclose that the dividers and their connections are on separate pcbs/substrates. Khalid is able to use one divider on one pcb and a pcb with different configurations; so, one with ordinary skill in the art could integrate into Khalid multiple substrates, each with a divider, with a reasonable expectation for success. Using two pcbs allows the device to be physically larger which for a phased array can improve the resolution by increasing the antenna aperture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalid with Chan to use each divider and subsequent connections on a different pcb in order to increase the device’s angular resolution.
Regarding claim 10 Khalid discloses
The radar device of claim 8 including two dividers each with multiple connections. Khalid does not disclose wherein the second divider, the third signal line, the fourth signal line, and the ninth signal line are formed on a first printed circuit board; and the third divider, the fifth signal line, the sixth signal line, and the tenth signal line are formed on a second printed circuit board.
Chan discloses
Wherein the second divider, the third signal line, the fourth signal line, and the ninth signal line are formed on a first printed circuit board (Paragraph 0121, "A conductive surface 1703C, with 16 dumbbell shaped slots, each associated with a power divider assembly, is formed on the lower surface of the substrate layer of the second-uppermost substrate 1703C. The lower substrate 1700B right below the second-uppermost substrate 1700C is a power divider with multiple power divider assemblies" where 1703 can be the first substrate and three of the 16 connections can be the third, fourth, and ninth signal line); and the third divider, the fifth signal line, the sixth signal line, and the tenth signal line are formed on a second printed circuit board (Paragraph 0121, "A conductive surface 1703C, with 16 dumbbell shaped slots, each associated with a power divider assembly, is formed on the lower surface of the substrate layer of the second-uppermost substrate 1703C. The lower substrate 1700B right below the second-uppermost substrate 1700C is a power divider with multiple power divider assemblies" where 1700B can be the second substrate and its multiple connections can be the fifth, sixth, and tenth signal line).
Khalid and Chan are both considered analogous art as they both concern radar devices, in particular a collision avoidance radar for Chan. Khalid discloses two dividers each with multiple connections but it does not disclose that the dividers and their connections are on separate pcbs/substrates. Khalid is able to use one divider on one pcb and a pcb with different configurations; so, one with ordinary skill in the art could integrate into Khalid multiple substrates, each with a divider, with a reasonable expectation for success. Using two pcbs allows the device to be physically larger which for a phased array can improve the resolution by increasing the antenna aperture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalid with Chan to use each divider and subsequent connections on a different pcb in order to increase the device’s angular resolution.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid (US20190293784A1) in view of Vuketich (DE 102018117688 A1).
Regarding claim 6 Khalid discloses
The radar device of claim 1 including a first and second unit group and second and third divider. Khalid discloses a length of the eighth signal line is equal to a length of the seventh signal line (Figure 6 mmic 1, 2, 3 and coupler 9; Claim 18, “The radar system as claimed in claim 16, wherein, in the first operating mode a line length for transferring the RF oscillator signal from the first radar chip to the second radar chip and the third radar chip is identical” where the 7th and 8th signal lines can be set to be equal). Khalid does not disclose wherein the first unit group further comprises a fourth divider and a fifth unit; the fourth divider is configured to receive the reference signal from the second divider, to supply the reference signal to the second unit, and to supply the reference signal to the fifth unit via a seventh signal line; the fifth unit is configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal; the second unit group further comprises a fifth divider and a sixth unit; the fifth divider is configured to receive the reference signal from the third divider, to supply the reference signal to the fourth unit, and to supply the reference signal to the sixth unit via an eighth signal line; and the sixth unit is configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal.
Vuketich discloses
Wherein the first unit group further comprises a fourth divider and a fifth unit; the fourth divider is configured to receive the reference signal from the second divider, to supply the reference signal to the second unit, and to supply the reference signal to the fifth unit via a seventh signal line; the fifth unit is configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal (Figure 7 elements 101, 111, TX01, TX02, TX03, 150; Paragraph 0028, "In the present example, the RF switch/splitter 111 is switched such that input b is selected and the LO signal s<sub>LO</sub>(t) is forwarded to the TX channels TX01 , TX02 , TX03"; Paragraph 0029, "The LO signal s<sub>LO</sub>(t) provided at the outputs of the splitter 150 is fed to the various slave MMICs"); the second unit group further comprises a fifth divider and a sixth unit; the fifth divider is configured to receive the reference signal from the third divider, to supply the reference signal to the fourth unit, and to supply the reference signal to the sixth unit via an eighth signal line (Figure 7 elements 101, 111, TX01, TX02, TX03, 150; Paragraph 0028, "In the present example, the RF switch/splitter 111 is switched such that input b is selected and the LO signal s<sub>LO</sub>(t) is forwarded to the TX channels TX01 , TX02 , TX03"; Paragraph 0029, "The LO signal s<sub>LO</sub>(t) provided at the outputs of the splitter 150 is fed to the various slave MMICs" where the same configuration can be applied to the second unit group); and the sixth unit is configured to perform at least one of transmit and receive operations based on the reference signal.
Khalid does not disclose a fourth and fifth divider that feeds to more units but it does disclose a second and third divider where a first divider is connecting to a second/third divider which feeds to a unit. Adding a fourth and fifth divider would simply be adding another level to the already existing pyramid of dividers. Vuketich could be incorporated into Khalid where Vuketich’s Figure 7 element 111 would act as divider 2/3 and Figure 7 element 150 would act as divider 4/5. The device adding another divider that connects to two more units would be advantageous for more complex beamforming and increased gain. As such, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalid with Vuketich to add another layer of dividers to enable more complex beamforming and to increase the gain.
Claims 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid (US20190293784A1) in view of Matsuo (US 20150139352 A1).
Regarding claim 12 Khalid discloses
The radar device of claim 1. Khalid does not disclose further comprising: a correction circuit configured to correct a first phase error of the reference signal to be transmitted to the first unit, a second phase error of the reference signal to be transmitted to the second unit, a third phase error of the reference signal to be transmitted to the third unit, and a fourth phase error of the reference signal to be transmitted to the fourth unit.
Matsuo discloses
Further comprising: a correction circuit configured to correct a first phase error of the reference signal to be transmitted to the first unit, a second phase error of the reference signal to be transmitted to the second unit, a third phase error of the reference signal to be transmitted to the third unit, and a fourth phase error of the reference signal to be transmitted to the fourth unit (Paragraph 0053, "As a second procedure, the correction controller 130 causes both the transmission branch 101 and the transmission branch 102 to operate, and detects the phase error amount between the transmission branches."; Paragraph 0057, “Next, the correction controller 130 causes the phase controller 180 to fix the phase shift amount ” where the correction can be applied to multiple units).
Khalid and Matsuo are both considered analogous art as they both concern a radar device. Khalid discloses many combinations of the multiple transmitting/receiving units but does not disclose a way to correct a phase error. Correcting the phase errors is advantageous in that it maintains that the phases of several transmitters remain the same, which is useful for improved gain; it is also useful for generally making sure that the radar device is transmitting the signal it is intended to transmit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalid with Matsuo to add the ability to correct the phases of the units to maximize gain and make sure the device is operating as intended.
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Khalid and Matsuo discloses
The radar device of claim 12. Khalid does not disclose wherein: the correction circuit comprises: a detection circuit; and a phase shift circuit, the detection circuit is configured to detect the first phase error, the second phase error, the third phase error, and the fourth phase error; and the phase shift circuit is configured to shift a phase of the reference signal transmitted to the first unit based on the first phase error, shift a phase of the reference signal transmitted to the second unit based on the second phase error, shift a phase of the reference signal transmitted to the third unit based on the third phase error, and shift a phase of the reference signal transmitted to the fourth unit based on the fourth phase error.
Matsuo discloses
Wherein: the correction circuit comprises: a detection circuit (Paragraph 0053, "As a second procedure, the correction controller 130 causes both the transmission branch 101 and the transmission branch 102 to operate, and detects the phase error amount between the transmission branches."); and a phase shift circuit, the detection circuit is configured to detect the first phase error, the second phase error, the third phase error, and the fourth phase error (Paragraph 0053, "As a second procedure, the correction controller 130 causes both the transmission branch 101 and the transmission branch 102 to operate, and detects the phase error amount between the transmission branches" where detecting the error can be applied to multiple units); and the phase shift circuit is configured to shift a phase of the reference signal transmitted to the first unit based on the first phase error, shift a phase of the reference signal transmitted to the second unit based on the second phase error, shift a phase of the reference signal transmitted to the third unit based on the third phase error, and shift a phase of the reference signal transmitted to the fourth unit based on the fourth phase error (Paragraph 0053, "As a second procedure, the correction controller 130 causes both the transmission branch 101 and the transmission branch 102 to operate, and detects the phase error amount between the transmission branches."; Paragraph 0057, “Next, the correction controller 130 causes the phase controller 180 to fix the phase shift amount ” where the correction can be applied to multiple units).
Khalid and Matsuo are both considered analogous art as they both concern a radar device. Khalid discloses many combinations of the multiple transmitting/receiving units but does not disclose a way to detect a phase error so subsequently correct the error. Detecting the phase error allows the device to undergo action to fix the problem, that would otherwise go unnoticed. Correcting the phase errors maintains that the phases of several transmitters remain the same, which is useful for improved gain; it is also useful for generally making sure that the radar device is transmitting the signal it is intended to transmit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalid with Matsuo to add the ability to detect and correct the phases of the units to maximize gain and make sure the device is operating as intended.
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Khalid and Matsuo discloses
The radar device of claim 12. Khalid does not disclose further comprising: a nonvolatile memory configured to store the first phase error, the second phase error, the third phase error, and the fourth phase error.
Matsuo discloses
Further comprising: a nonvolatile memory configured to store the first phase error, the second phase error, the third phase error, and the fourth phase error (Paragraph 0066, "Then, the correction controller 130 stores the correction value of the amplitude error, and that of the phase error in the correction storage 150." where you know the phase error from the correction value and this can be applied to multiple units).
Khalid and Matsuo are both considered analogous art as they both concern a radar device. Khalid discloses many combinations of the multiple transmitting/receiving units but does not disclose a way to keep track of detected phase errors. Keeping a log of the errors is useful in that the data can be used for analytics on the device which can be used for developing a better version of the device in the future. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalid with Matsuo by adding the ability to keep track of the phase errors in order to perform analytics on the radar device and potentially develop a better device in the future.
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 PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm ET.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648