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 .
Status of Application
This final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment received by the Office on 05-JAN-2026. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 16, 18, 20-25, 33, 37, 40-44 have been presented in the application, of which 8, 16, 18, 20, 21, 33, 37, 40, and 42 are original/previously presented. Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 22, 23, 24, 25, 41, 43, and 44 are amended. Accordingly, pending claims 1-3, 8, 9, 16, 18, 20-25, 33, 37, 40-44 are addressed herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05-JAN-2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 43, and 44 under 102 have been fully considered. The amendments change the scope of the claims and a new rejection has been made in view of Boroushaki et al. (US 20220168899 A1). Applicant’s amendments overcome the 101 rejection.
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 1-3, 8, 9, 16, 18, 20-24, 37, 40-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkeri et al. (US 20150217455 A1) in view of Boroushaki et al. (US 20220168899 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Kikkeri teaches: A method, comprising: receiving first sensor data from one or more sensors, the first sensor data being captured (element 104, 210) at a first time (Figure 6; element 606; "previous frame"); identifying, based on the first sensor data, a first unobserved portion of a safety field in an environment of a mobile robot (element 108, 110; Paragraph [25]); assigning, to each region of a plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field, an occupancy state (element 114; Paragraph [27, 29]); updating, at a second time after the first time, the occupancy state of one or more regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field (Figure 6; element 602) and determining, by a computing device, one or more operating parameters for the mobile robot, the one or more operating parameters based, at least in part, on the occupancy state of at least some regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field at the second time (Figure 6; element 614, 618) and controlling the mobile robot to operate according to the one or more operating parameters (Paragraph [56])
While Kikkeri teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly teach:
wherein the first unobserved portion of the safety field corresponds to a portion of the safety field that the one or more sensors cannot observe at the first time due to a first occlusion
However, Boroushaki et al. teaches: wherein the first unobserved portion of the safety field corresponds to a portion of the safety field that the one or more sensors cannot observe at the first time due to a first occlusion (Paragraph [70], “based on the current field of view of the camera and the obstruction(s), what part of the environment is hidden from the camera because of the obstruction(s) may be calculated. Each of the occlusions may then be modeled, for example, by a Gaussian 3D distribution.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robot control based on MCO detection, of Kikkeri, to include calculation of obstruction hidden from the camera as taught by Boroushaki et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the robot control based on MCO detection where the environment hidden from the camera is calculated.
Regarding claim 3, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the safety field defines a volume surrounding the mobile robot, and the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field are three-dimensional (3D) regions arranged within the volume (Figure 1; Paragraph [16], "three-dimensional pixels")
Regarding claim 9, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, based on the first sensor data, an entity in the safety field (element 114; Paragraph [27]); determining based on information about the entity, whether the entity is a whitelisted entity (Paragraph [27], "Voxels with inconsistent motion vectors may be eliminated"; Paragraph [51], "At block 608, data from the robot controller can be used to determine if motion is expected for the robot, auxiliary equipment, or both. If motion is expected, at block 610, every MCO for which motion is expected can be removed from the count "); and ignoring, when it is determined that the entity is a whitelisted entity, a presence of the entity within the safety field when determining the one or more operating parameters for the mobile robot (Figure 6; element 610)
Regarding claim 16, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 9, wherein the information about the entity includes information identifying the entity with a particular confidence level, and the entity is determined as a whitelisted entity only when the particular confidence level is above a threshold confidence level (Paragraph [27], "The group of voxels 114 is identified as a connected object. The grouping of the voxels to form the connected object may be controlled by a previously determined error range")
Regarding claim 18, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein updating, at the second time, the occupancy state of one or more regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field comprises: assigning an occupied state to a first region of the plurality of contiguous regions (Paragraph [55]), the first region having an unoccupied state at the first time (Figure 6; element 612 -> N; This instance, where region 108 does not have an unexpected MCO, may occur by mere happenstance given the disclosure of Kikkeri), wherein the first region is located adjacent to a second region having an occupied state at the first time (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 22, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving at or before the second time, second sensor data from the one or more sensors (Paragraph [32]); and identifying, based on the second sensor data, a second unobserved portion of the safety field at the second time (Paragraph [30], "In this case, the warning region 108 and hazard region 110 may be defined as surrounding each moving vehicle, which would be identified as an expected MCO"; Paragraph [27], "The grouping is repeated for the next frame, forming a connected object within that frame"), wherein updating, at the second time, the occupancy state of one or more regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field is based on an overlap between the first unobserved portion and the second observed portion (Paragraph [32], "The vision module 212 may use various techniques to determine groups of connected voxels in the frame, and comparisons to subsequent frames to determine regions of motion in the image. These regions can then be identified as MCOs. At each frame the number of MCOs 216 is reported to a control module 214.")
While Kikkeri teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly teach:
wherein the second unobserved portion of the safety field corresponds to a portion of the safety field that the one or more sensors cannot observe at the second time due to a second occlusion
However, Boroushaki et al. teaches: wherein the second unobserved portion of the safety field corresponds to a portion of the safety field that the one or more sensors cannot observe at the second time due to a second occlusion (Paragraph [70], “based on the current field of view of the camera and the obstruction(s), what part of the environment is hidden from the camera because of the obstruction(s) may be calculated. Each of the occlusions may then be modeled, for example, by a Gaussian 3D distribution.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robot control based on MCO detection, of Kikkeri, to include calculation of obstruction hidden from the camera as taught by Boroushaki et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the robot control based on MCO detection where the environment hidden from the camera is calculated.
Regarding claim 23, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 22, wherein updating, at the second time, the occupancy state of one or more regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field based on an overlap between the first unobserved portion and the second observed portion comprises: assigning an unoccupied state to a first region of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field having an occupied state at the first time (element 616; This instance, where region 108 does not have an unexpected MCO the first time and does have an unexpected MCO the second time, may occur by mere happenstance given the disclosure of Kikkeri) when the first region is not within the second unobserved portion of the safety field (Paragraph [30], "In this case, the warning region 108 and hazard region 110 may be defined as surrounding each moving vehicle, which would be identified as an expected MCO"; Paragraph [32], "The vision module 212 may use various techniques to determine groups of connected voxels in the frame, and comparisons to subsequent frames to determine regions of motion in the image. These regions can then be identified as MCOs. At each frame the number of MCOs 216 is reported to a control module 214”; By mere happenstance the robot can move into a region that is not the same as the previously captured MCO, defining a new group of voxels in a later frame)
Regarding claim 24, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 23, wherein the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field include a first region and a second region, the first region having an occupied state at the first time and the second region having an unoccupied state at the first time, the second region being adjacent to the first region in the first unobserved portion of the safety field; and updating, at the second time, the occupancy state of one or more regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field based on an overlap between the first unobserved portion and the second observed portion comprises: assigning an occupied state to the second region (Paragraph [54]) when the second region is included within the second unobserved portion of the safety field (Figure 1; Paragraph [32], "The vision module 212 may use various techniques to determine groups of connected voxels in the frame, and comparisons to subsequent frames to determine regions of motion in the image. These regions can then be identified as MCOs. At each frame the number of MCOs 216 is reported to a control module 214."; By mere happenstance the robot can move into a region that is the same as the previously captured MCO in a later frame)
Regarding claim 25, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 23, wherein determining one or more operating parameters for the mobile robot comprises instructing the mobile robot to move at least a portion of the mobile robot to enable the one or more sensors to sense a presence or absence of entities in the first region at the second time (Paragraph [28], "The robot arm 102, if moving, may also be detected as an MCO. However, the motion of the robot arm 102 can be determined from the control sequences of the robot controller. Accordingly, when the robot arm 102 is moving, the voxels detected form an expected MCO, which may be disregarded")
Regarding claim 33, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein determining one or more operating parameters for the mobile robot comprises one or more of: determining a trajectory plan for an arm of the mobile robot (Paragraph [42, 44], "The training pendant 372 can be used to enter the operational program into the operations module 360, by training the movement of the robot") instructing the mobile robot to alter a speed of motion of at least a portion of the mobile robot , or determining the one or more operating parameters (element 618, 622) further based, at least in part, on a distance between the mobile robot and a first region of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field having an occupied state at the second time (Figure 1; element 614, W; This instance, where region 108 does not have an unexpected MCO in a later frame, may occur by mere happenstance given the disclosure of Kikkeri)
Regarding claim 37, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein assigning, to each region of a plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field, an occupancy state comprises: assigning an occupied state to at least one region of the plurality of contiguous regions at a boundary of the safety field within the first unobserved portion of the safety field (element 612 -> Y, 614)
Regarding claim 40, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include at least one first sensor coupled to the mobile robot (Paragraph [25, 46], "In an embodiment, the depth sensing camera 104 may be placed on the robot itself, for example, on the front surface of the casing of the robot arm 102, directly below the robot arm 102") and at least one second sensor not coupled to the mobile robot (element 104, 210; Paragraph [25, 48], "a depth sensing camera 104 placed above the workspace 106 to define a warning zone 108 and a hazard zone 110 around the robot arm 102"), and the first unobserved portion of the safety field includes a portion of the safety field not observable by the at least one first sensor or the at least one second sensor (Paragraph [26], "These cameras use two, or more, offset cameras to collect each frame, and calculate the position of each object within a frame by the shift in position of each pixel associated with an object."; Paragraph [46], "For example, a robot arm may include optical sensors at each joint to let the robot controller 318 know the position of the robot arm at that joint.")
Regarding claim 41, Kikkeri teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the safety field includes a restricted zone around the mobile robot (Figure 1; element 110) and a monitored zone located outside of the restricted zone (element 108), the method further comprising: detecting an entity located in the monitored zone that has not yet entered the restricted zone (Figure 6; element 614 ->W); determining whether the entity is an entity of concern (element 612); and determining the one or more operating parameters for the mobile robot based, at least in part, on whether the entity is an entity of concern (element 618, 622)
Regarding claim 43, Kikkeri teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a plurality of instructions that, when executed, by at least one computer processor, perform a method (Paragraph [24]) identifying, based on first sensor data received from one or more sensors, a first unobserved portion of a safety field in an environment of a mobile robot, the first sensor data being captured at a first time (element 108, 110; Paragraph [25]); assigning, to each region of a plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field, an occupancy state (element 114; Paragraph [27]); updating, at a second time after the first time, the occupancy state of one or more regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field (Figure 6; element 602; "frame"); and determining one or more operating parameters for a mobile robot, the one or more operating parameters based, at least in part, on the occupancy state of at least some regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field at the second time (Figure 6; element 614, 618) and controlling the mobile robot to operate according to the one or more operating parameters (Paragraph [56])
While Kikkeri teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly teach:
wherein the first unobserved portion of the safety field corresponds to a portion of the safety field that the one or more sensors cannot observe at the first time due to a first occlusion
However, Boroushaki et al. teaches: wherein the first unobserved portion of the safety field corresponds to a portion of the safety field that the one or more sensors cannot observe at the first time due to a first occlusion (Paragraph [70], “based on the current field of view of the camera and the obstruction(s), what part of the environment is hidden from the camera because of the obstruction(s) may be calculated. Each of the occlusions may then be modeled, for example, by a Gaussian 3D distribution.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robot control based on MCO detection, of Kikkeri, to include calculation of obstruction hidden from the camera as taught by Boroushaki et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the robot control based on MCO detection where the environment hidden from the camera is calculated.
Regarding claim 44, Kikkeri teaches: A mobile robot, comprising: one or more sensors configured to sense first sensor data at a first time (element 104, 210); and at least one computer processor programmed to perform a method of: identifying, based on the first sensor data, a first unobserved portion of a safety field in an environment of the mobile robot (element 302; Paragraph [35]); assigning, to each region of a plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field, an occupancy state (element 114; Paragraph [27]); updating, at a second time after the first time, the occupancy state of one or more regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field (Figure 6; element 602; "frame"); and determining one or more operating parameters for the mobile robot (Figure 6; element 614, 618), the one or more operating parameters based, at least in part, on the occupancy state of at least some regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field at the second time (Figure 6) and controlling the mobile robot to operate according to the one or more operating parameters (Paragraph [56])
While Kikkeri teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly teach:
wherein the first unobserved portion of the safety field corresponds to a portion of the safety field that the one or more sensors cannot observe at the first time due to a first occlusion
However, Boroushaki et al. teaches: wherein the first unobserved portion of the safety field corresponds to a portion of the safety field that the one or more sensors cannot observe at the first time due to a first occlusion (Paragraph [70], “based on the current field of view of the camera and the obstruction(s), what part of the environment is hidden from the camera because of the obstruction(s) may be calculated. Each of the occlusions may then be modeled, for example, by a Gaussian 3D distribution.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robot control based on MCO detection, of Kikkeri, to include calculation of obstruction hidden from the camera as taught by Boroushaki et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the robot control based on MCO detection where the environment hidden from the camera is calculated.
Claims 2, 8, 20, 21, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkeri (US 20150217455 A1) in view of Boroushaki et al. (US 20220168899 A1) in further view Denenberg (US 20210379762 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al. teaches the limitations set forth above, including updating the occupancy state of a mobile robot region according to claim 1 (rejected base claim 1). Kikkeri further teaches: wherein the safety field defines a plane surrounding the mobile robot (Figure 1).
While Kikkeri teaches the claims as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field are two-dimensional (2D) regions arranged within the plane
However, Denenberg teaches: and the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field are two-dimensional (2D) regions arranged within the plane (Paragraph [19], "In various embodiments, one or more two-dimensional (2D) and/or three-dimensional (3D) imaging sensors are employed to scan the robot, human operator and/or workspace during actual execution of the task. Based thereon, the POEs of the robot and the human operator can be updated in real-time")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robot region monitoring method, of Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al., to include the regions being two dimensional imaged, as taught by Denenberg. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a method of a robot region that is monitored with 2D imaging sensors.
Regarding claim 8, Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al. further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion include a first region (element 108) and a second region (element 110), the second region being closer to the mobile robot than the first region within the first unobserved portion of the safety field (Figure 1), and assigning an occupancy state to each of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field comprises: assigning an occupied state to the first region (Paragraph [55])
While Kikkeri teaches the claims as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
and assigning an unoccupied state to the second region
However, Denenberg teaches: and assigning an unoccupied state to the second region (Paragraph [113], "the analysis module 242 may classify space in the workspace 1720 into safe zones (e.g., corresponding to unoccupied space)")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for monitoring the regions of a robot for object presence, of Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al., to include the classification of safe zones, as taught by Denenberg. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a method of a robot region that is monitored wherein unoccupied spaces are classified as safe zones.
Regarding Claim 20, Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al. teaches the limitations set forth above, including updating the occupancy state of a mobile robot regions according to claim 18 (rejected base claim 18).
While Kikkeri teaches the claims as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
determining based on an entity speed for an entity associated with the second region at the first time
whether it is possible for the entity associated with the second region at the first time to have travelled into the first region at the second time
and assigning an occupied state to the first region only when it is determined that it is possible for the entity associated with the second region at the first time to have travelled into the first region at the second time
However, Denenberg teaches: The method of claim 18, wherein updating, at the second time, the occupancy state of one or more regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field further comprises: determining based on an entity speed for an entity associated with the second region at the first time (Paragraph [79], "For example, referring to FIG. 6A, a POE 602 that instantaneously characterizes the spatial region potentially occupied by any portion of the human body in the time interval δt can be computed based on the worst-case scenario (e.g., the furthest distance with the fastest speed) that the human operator can move"), whether it is possible for the entity associated with the second region at the first time to have travelled into the first region at the second time (Paragraph [79], "As used herein, the term “possible movements” or “anticipated movements” of the human includes a bounded possible location within the defined time interval based, for example, on ISO 13855 standards defining expected human motion in a hazardous setting"); and assigning an occupied state to the first region only when it is determined that it is possible for the entity associated with the second region at the first time to have travelled into the first region at the second time (Paragraph [79], "To compute/map the POE of the human operator, the control system 112 may first utilize the sensor system 101 to acquire the current position and/or pose of the operator in the workspace 100. In addition, the control system 112 may determine (i) the future position and pose of the operator in the workspace using a well-characterized human model or (ii) all space presently or potentially occupied by any potential operator based on the assumption that the operator can move in any direction at a maximum operator velocity as defined by the standards such as ISO 13855")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for monitoring the regions of a robot for object presence, of Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al., to include the determining occupancy of space is based on an operator velocity, as taught by Denenberg. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a method of a robot region that is monitored wherein occupancy of space is based on an operator velocity.
Regarding Claim 21, Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al. teaches the limitations set forth above, including updating the occupancy state of a mobile robot regions according to claim 18 (rejected base claim 18).
While Kikkeri teaches the claims as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
assigning an occupied state to a third region of the plurality of contiguous regions
the third region having an unoccupied state at the first time
wherein the third region is located adjacent to the first region and is not located adjacent to the second region
However, Denenberg teaches: The method of claim 18, wherein updating, at the second time, the occupancy state of one or more regions of the plurality of contiguous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field comprises: assigning an occupied state to a third region of the plurality of contiguous regions (Figure 13; element 1306), the third region having an unoccupied state at the first time (This instance, where region 1306 does not have an object, may occur by mere happenstance), wherein the third region (1306) is located adjacent to the first region (1304) and is not located adjacent to the second region (1302; Figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for monitoring the warning regions of a robot for object presence, of Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al., to include a third outer region, as taught by Denenberg. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a method of a robot space that is monitored with warning regions, including a third outer region.
Regarding Claim 42, Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al. teaches the limitations set forth above, including monitoring the different zones around a robot according to claim 41 (rejected base claim 41).
While Kikkeri teaches the claims as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
determining whether the entity is moving toward the restricted zone, wherein determining the one or more operating parameters for the mobile robot is further based, at least in part, on whether the entity is moving toward the restricted zone
However, Denenberg teaches: The method of claim 41, further comprising: determining whether the entity is moving toward the restricted zone, wherein determining the one or more operating parameters for the mobile robot is further based, at least in part, on whether the entity is moving toward the restricted zone (Paragraph [104-105], "if any portion of the human operator crosses into the danger zone 1302—or is predicted to do so within the next cycle based on the computed POE of the human operator")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for monitoring the warning regions of a robot for object presence, of Kikkeri in view of Boroushaki et al., to include occupancy based on a prediction of movement the operator, as taught by Denenberg. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a method of a robot space that is monitored for the presence of objects, including presence based on a prediction of movement the operator into a region.
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 ALYSE TRAMANH TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm 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, Khoi Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/A.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656