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
Applicants’ arguments filed on 21 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
By the amendment filed 21 May 2026, no claim has been amended, claims 19 and 20 have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not disclose “while performing the first scan, receiving a request for a second scan.” Applicant contends that Zhang merely describes management of an ongoing scan or Probe Request behavior rather than receiving a request for a distinct second scan while a first scan is being performed.
This argument is not persuasive because the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and does not require a single Zhang embodiment to expressly recite the claimed sequence verbatim. Zhang expressly teaches the corresponding situation in which a scanning operation is underway and competing scanning-related activity is encountered. In particular, during active scanning, a STA may detect another Probe Request and determine whether its own pending Probe Request should be transmitted, suspended, or cancelled depending on whether the detected request has matching scanning parameters or a matching scanning target (¶¶[0140]–[0142]). Zhang further describes one STA’s scanning activity interacting with another STA’s Probe Request directed to the same scanning target and explains that such techniques avoid unnecessary Probe Request transmissions and accelerate active scanning (¶¶[0162]–[0164]). Zhang additionally contemplates requests affecting an already ongoing scan, including an MLME-SCAN-STOP.request that may set new criteria for an ongoing scan process (¶[0081], Table 1).
Thus, Zhang expressly recognizes and addresses competing scanning-related activity arising while scanning is already underway. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Zhang’s disclosed scan-management techniques when the competing scanning activity originates from a request for a second scan while the first scan is being performed, because doing so would predictably permit multiple requested scanning operations to be managed while furthering Zhang’s stated objective of avoiding unnecessary Probe Request transmissions and accelerating active scanning (¶[0162]).
Applicant further argues that Zhang does not disclose “in response to detecting a conflict between the second scan and the first scan, determining a prioritization parameter for at least one of the first scan and the second scan.” This argument is likewise not persuasive. Zhang expressly recognizes competing scanning-related activity, including detection of another Probe Request having matching scanning parameters or a matching scanning target and determining how the pending scanning-related transmission should be handled (¶¶[0140]–[0142]). Zhang further teaches priority and access-control parameters for transmissions associated with scanning, including AC_FILS and local FILS EDCA parameters and access policies governing Probe Request transmissions and access to the wireless medium (¶¶[0252]–[0255]).
Although Zhang discusses these features in different embodiments, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply Zhang’s disclosed priority/access parameters when resolving Zhang’s disclosed competing scanning activities. Both teachings concern management of competing access to the wireless medium by scanning-related transmissions. Applying Zhang’s disclosed priority mechanism to such competing scanning operations would predictably permit determination of which scanning activity should receive preferential access while reducing contention and unnecessary Probe Request transmissions.
Applicant further argues that Zhang does not disclose “updating at least one of the first scan execution parameters and second scan execution parameters based on the prioritization parameter.” However, Zhang expressly teaches modifying an ongoing scan rather than necessarily terminating it. Zhang discloses that an MLME-SCAN-STOP.request may be used either to stop an ongoing scan process or to set new criteria for an ongoing scan process, with SET_CRITERIA permitting modification of scan criteria including BSSID, SSID, SSID List, HESSID, Mesh ID, and Filter List (¶[0081], Table 1). Zhang further teaches adapting EDCA/access parameters governing Probe Request transmissions and medium access (¶¶[0252]–[0255]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Zhang’s disclosed prioritization determination when modifying Zhang’s disclosed scan execution parameters in response to competing scanning activities. Doing so would predictably permit the prioritized scanning activity to obtain appropriate medium access while adjusting the competing scanning activity to reduce or avoid the detected conflict, consistent with Zhang’s expressly stated objective of avoiding unnecessary transmissions and accelerating active scanning (¶[0162]).
Applicant additionally argues that Zhang does not disclose “proceeding with the first scan according to the first scan execution parameters and proceeding with the second scan according to the second scan execution parameters,” because Zhang instead allegedly teaches stopping or cancelling scanning activity.
This argument does not account for Zhang’s disclosure as a whole. Zhang expressly teaches that an ongoing scan need not be terminated; instead, new criteria may be set for the ongoing scan using SET_CRITERIA (¶[0081], Table 1). Zhang also teaches a channel-by-channel active scanning procedure in which scanning proceeds to subsequent channels following completion of the applicable channel-specific operation (¶¶[0084]–[0090]). Further, following conflict-based cancellation of a Probe Request for a current channel, Zhang teaches that the scanning procedure may continue and the next channel may be scanned (¶[0138]).
The claim does not require the first and second scans to proceed simultaneously or without any intervening modification, suspension, or scheduling. Rather, the claim expressly contemplates first updating scan execution parameters and thereafter proceeding with the scans according to the resulting execution parameters. In view of Zhang’s teachings of modifying an ongoing scan by setting new criteria (¶[0081], Table 1), resolving competing scanning-related activity (¶¶[0140]–[0142]), applying priority/access parameters to scanning-related transmissions (¶¶[0252]–[0255]), and continuing scanning after resolution of competing channel-specific activity (¶¶[0084]–[0090], [0138]), it would have been obvious to retain and proceed with the requested scanning operations according to their resulting execution parameters. Such an implementation would permit completion of the requested scanning operations while avoiding conflicting access to the wireless medium.
Applicant also argues that the rejection improperly combines separate embodiments of Zhang and lacks sufficient rationale for doing so. The argument is not persuasive. A rejection under § 103 is not limited to the express arrangement of features within a single embodiment of a reference. Here, Zhang’s cited embodiments concern related aspects of the same technical problem—efficiently managing active scanning and associated wireless-medium access in the presence of competing scanning-related activity. Zhang teaches detecting overlapping scanning activity and determining whether a pending Probe Request should proceed (¶¶[0140]–[0142]); modifying an ongoing scan by setting new scan criteria (¶[0081], Table 1); employing priority/access parameters for scanning-related transmissions (¶¶[0252]–[0255]); and continuing active scanning following resolution of channel-specific competing activity (¶¶[0084]–[0090], [0138]).
Moreover, Zhang itself supplies a reason for applying these teachings together. Zhang expressly explains that its techniques are intended to avoid unnecessary Probe Request transmissions and accelerate the active scanning procedure (¶[0162]). Applying Zhang’s disclosed prioritization and scan-criteria modification techniques to its disclosed competing scanning activities would predictably further that stated objective by permitting conflicting scanning operations to be prioritized and adjusted rather than unnecessarily contending for the wireless medium or being permanently abandoned.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection. Although Zhang does not set forth the entire claimed sequence verbatim in a single embodiment, the claimed arrangement would have been obvious from Zhang’s related teachings concerning competing scanning activity, priority-based medium access, modification of ongoing scan criteria, and continuation of scanning following conflict resolution. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zhang is therefore maintained.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US Pub. 2013/0294353), as recited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses A method comprising: performing a first scan according to first scan execution parameters, as Zhang discloses active scanning according to scan parameters, including channel and scan criteria, and describes the channel-by-channel active scanning procedure (¶¶[0084]–[0090]).
Zhang does not expressly disclose in a single embodiment while performing the first scan, receiving a request for a second scan. However, Zhang expressly teaches the corresponding situation in which a scanning operation is underway and competing scanning-related activity is encountered. In particular, during active scanning, a STA may detect another Probe Request and determine whether its own pending Probe Request should be transmitted, suspended, or cancelled depending on whether the detected request has matching scanning parameters or a matching scanning target (¶¶[0140]–[0142]). Zhang further explains that these techniques avoid unnecessary Probe Request transmissions and accelerate active scanning, and describes one STA's scanning activity interacting with another STA's Probe Request directed to the same scanning target (¶¶[0162]–[0164]). Zhang also expressly contemplates requests affecting an already ongoing scan, including an MLME-SCAN-STOP.request that may set new criteria for an ongoing scan process (¶[0081], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Zhang's disclosed scan-management mechanism when the competing scanning activity originates from a request for a second scan while the first scan is being performed. Such an implementation would predictably permit multiple requested scanning operations to be managed using Zhang's disclosed mechanisms for overlapping scanning activity and would further Zhang's expressly stated objective of avoiding unnecessary Probe Request transmissions and accelerating active scanning (¶[0162]).
Regarding in response to detecting a conflict between the second scan and the first scan, determining a prioritization parameter for at least one of the first scan and the second scan, Zhang teaches detecting competing scanning-related activity, including another Probe Request having matching scanning parameters or a matching scanning target, and determining how the pending scanning-related transmission should be handled (¶¶[0140]–[0142]). Zhang further teaches priority and access-control parameters governing transmissions associated with scanning, including AC_FILS and local FILS EDCA parameters and access policies governing Probe Request transmissions and access to the wireless medium (¶¶[0252]–[0255]).
Although Zhang describes these teachings in different embodiments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Zhang's disclosed priority/access parameters when resolving Zhang's disclosed competing scanning activities. Both teachings concern managing competing access to the wireless medium by scanning-related transmissions. Applying the disclosed prioritization mechanism to competing scanning operations would predictably permit determination of which scanning activity should receive preferential access while reducing contention and unnecessary Probe Request transmissions.
Regarding updating at least one of the first scan execution parameters and second scan execution parameters based on the prioritization parameter, Zhang expressly teaches modifying an ongoing scan rather than necessarily terminating it. Zhang's MLME-SCAN-STOP.request may be used either to stop an ongoing scan process or to set new criteria for an ongoing scan process, with SET_CRITERIA permitting modification of scan criteria including BSSID, SSID, SSID List, HESSID, Mesh ID, and Filter List (¶[0081], Table 1). Zhang further teaches adapting EDCA/access parameters governing Probe Request transmissions and medium access (¶¶[0252]–[0255]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to update Zhang's disclosed scan execution parameters based on Zhang's disclosed prioritization determination when competing scanning activities are detected. Doing so would predictably permit the prioritized scanning activity to obtain appropriate medium access while adjusting the competing scanning activity to avoid or reduce the detected conflict, thereby furthering Zhang's stated objective of avoiding unnecessary transmissions and accelerating active scanning (¶[0162]).
Regarding proceeding with the first scan according to the first scan execution parameters and proceeding with the second scan according to the second scan execution parameters, Zhang teaches that modifying or selectively suspending scanning-related activity does not necessarily terminate the scanning operation. Zhang expressly permits new criteria to be set for an ongoing scan rather than stopping the scan (¶[0081], Table 1). Zhang further teaches a channel-by-channel active scanning procedure in which scanning proceeds to subsequent channels following the applicable channel-specific operations (¶¶[0084]–[0090]). Zhang also teaches that following conflict-based cancellation of a Probe Request for a current channel, the scanning procedure may continue and the next channel may be scanned (¶[0138]).
Zhang does not expressly disclose in a single embodiment proceeding with both requested scans according to their respective execution parameters. However, in view of Zhang's express teachings of modifying an ongoing scan by setting new criteria (¶[0081], Table 1), resolving competing scanning-related activity (¶¶[0140]–[0142]), applying priority/access parameters to scanning-related transmissions (¶¶[0252]–[0255]), and continuing scanning after resolution of the channel-specific competing activity (¶¶[0084]–[0090], [0138]), it would have been obvious to retain and proceed with the requested scanning operations according to their resulting execution parameters. Such an implementation would predictably permit completion of the requested scanning operations while avoiding conflicting access to the wireless medium and would further Zhang's expressly stated objective of avoiding unnecessary Probe Request transmissions and accelerating active scanning (¶[0162]).
Thus, although the claimed sequence is not expressly set forth in a single Zhang embodiment, Zhang's embodiments address the related technical problem of efficiently managing active scanning and associated transmissions when competing wireless activity is present. Zhang itself provides reason to apply these teachings together—namely, to avoid unnecessary Probe Request transmissions and accelerate the active scanning procedure (¶[0162]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises respective target media access control (MAC) chains for the first scan and the second scan.” Zhang teaches prioritization based on MAC-layer parameters including MAC addresses, SSIDs, and AC_FILS EDCA chains used to differentiate scan behaviors (¶0117; ¶0213; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254). It would have been obvious to treat these as respective target MAC chains.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further discloses “determining whether the respective target MAC chains for the first scan and the second scan conflict; and when the respective target MAC chains do not conflict, maintaining the first scan execution parameters and defining the second scan execution parameters to initiate the second scan.” Zhang teaches identifying MAC-layer conflicts and allowing additional scanning operations when no conflict is detected (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0253–¶0254). It would have been obvious to apply this logic to MAC chains of two scans.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises respective scan patterns for the first scan and the second scan.” Zhang describes different scanning patterns, including active-scan patterns and FILS-based scan timing patterns, used in prioritization (¶0077; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further discloses “when both the first scan and the second scan have regular scan patterns, offsetting respective start times of the first scan and the second scan.” Zhang teaches adjusting beacon intervals, sub-intervals, and timing offsets to avoid collisions between concurrent scan-related operations (¶0232; ¶0228; ¶0166). Offsetting start times would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang further discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises a collision counter for a scan type of the second scan.” Zhang teaches detecting collisions and maintaining metrics associated with prioritizing scan types based on collision conditions (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0232). A collision counter would have been an obvious implementation.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang further discloses “incrementing the collision counter; comparing the collision counter to a threshold collision value for the first scan; and when the collision counter exceeds the threshold collision value, updating the first scan execution parameters to terminate the first scan and defining the second scan execution parameters to initiate the second scan.” Zhang teaches updating scanning behavior or terminating scans when threshold collision conditions are met using MLME-Scan-STOP (¶0165–¶0166) and prioritizing FILS frames based on threshold conditions (¶0228; ¶0253). Using a counter and threshold comparison would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang further discloses “when additional prioritization criteria are detected, defining a further prioritization value; and further incrementing the collision counter to the threshold collision value prior to comparing the collision counter to the threshold collision value.” Zhang teaches multiple prioritization criteria—including EDCA parameters, AC_FILS, SSID/MAC-address targeting, and beacon-interval priority—that influence conflict resolution (¶0117; ¶0213; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254). It would have been obvious to incorporate these into an adjusted prioritization value affecting the collision counter.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang further discloses “when the collision counter does not exceed the threshold collision value, maintaining the first scan execution parameters and defining the second scan execution parameters to reject the second scan.” Zhang teaches that when collision conditions are below priority thresholds, ongoing scanning continues and lower-priority scanning requests are postponed or rejected (¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0253).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses “a computing device comprising: a communications interface configured to perform scans; a controller for the communications interface, the controller configured to: control the communications interface to perform a first scan according to first scan execution parameters; while performing the first scan, receive a request for a second scan; in response to detecting a conflict between the second scan and the first scan, determine a prioritization parameter for at least one of the first scan and the second scan; update at least one of the first scan execution parameters and second scan execution parameters based on the prioritization parameter; and proceed with the first scan according to the first scan execution parameters and proceeding with the second scan according to the second scan execution parameters.” Zhang teaches a WTRU or AP with a communications interface and control logic that performs scanning (¶0031–¶0032), performs a first scan (¶0003; ¶0028; ¶0077), receives additional scan requests (¶0003; ¶0077; ¶0193), determines prioritization parameters for resolving scanning conflicts (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254), and updates scan behavior using modified contention parameters or MLME-Scan-STOP messages (¶0165–¶0166; ¶0254). Although not all features appear in a single embodiment, combining these complementary mechanisms to manage conflicting scans would have been obvious under KSR.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises respective target media access control (MAC) chains for the first scan and the second scan.” As described in claim 2, Zhang teaches MAC-based prioritization including MAC-address targeting and AC_FILS chains (¶0117; ¶0213; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses “determine whether the respective target MAC chains for the first scan and the second scan conflict; and when the respective target MAC chains do not conflict, maintain the first scan execution parameters and define the second scan execution parameters to initiate the second scan.” As described in claim 3, Zhang teaches conflict detection and non-conflict continuation (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises respective scan patterns for the first scan and the second scan.” As described in claim 4, Zhang teaches distinct scan patterns used for prioritization (¶0077; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses “when both the first scan and the second scan have regular scan patterns, offsetting respective start times of the first scan and the second scan.” Zhang teaches offsetting timing to avoid collisions (¶0232; ¶0228; ¶0166).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises a collision counter for a scan type of the second scan.” As described in claim 6, collision-based prioritization is taught (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0232).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses “increment the collision counter; compare the collision counter to a threshold collision value for the first scan; and when the collision counter exceeds the threshold collision value, update the first scan execution parameters to terminate the first scan and defining the second scan execution parameters to initiate the second scan.” As described in claim 7, Zhang teaches threshold-based termination and initiation using MLME-Scan-STOP (¶0165–¶0166; ¶0228; ¶0253).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses “when additional prioritization criteria are detected, define a further prioritization value; and further increment the collision counter to the threshold collision value prior to comparing the collision counter to the threshold collision value.” As described in claim 8, Zhang shows additional prioritization criteria affecting threshold behavior (¶0117; ¶0213; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses “when the collision counter does not exceed the threshold collision value, maintain the first scan execution parameters and define the second scan execution parameters to reject the second scan.” As described in claim 9, Zhang teaches maintaining existing scan parameters and rejecting lower-priority scans when conditions do not exceed thresholds (¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0253).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2013/0294354 A1) (“Zhang”) in view of Bagur et al. (US 2025/0203495 A1) (“Bagur”).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above. Zhang does not expressly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the conflict between the second scan and the first scan is based on overlap of respective scan periods or inability to manage the first scan and the second scan simultaneously and the prioritization parameter for at least one of the first scan and the second scan is determined from a target MAC chain, a scan pattern, or a collision counter associated with the second scan.
Bagur discloses that when multiple scans collide or conflict, the conflict may occur when one scan is requested while another scan is ongoing, when the scheduled scan periods overlap, or when the scans cannot be managed simultaneously (¶[0159]). Bagur further expressly discloses detecting a collision when the respective scan periods overlap in time and/or when the scans cannot be handled simultaneously (¶[0186]). Bagur teaches dynamically prioritizing the scans based on prioritization parameters including a collision counter, respective scan patterns, and proposed target MAC chains (¶[0162]), and further expressly identifies the prioritization parameters as target MAC chains for the scans, respective scan patterns, or a collision counter for the scan type of the second scan (¶¶[0189], [0192]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Bagur's disclosed scan-conflict detection and prioritization parameters to Zhang's method of managing competing scans in order to identify conflicts between requested scanning operations and dynamically prioritize the scans based on characteristics associated with the scans, thereby reducing conflicting scanning activity while permitting efficient use of available scanning resources.
Regarding claim 20, Bagur further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the first scan execution parameters and second scan execution parameters are updated based on the prioritization parameter to define whether the second scan is initiated, rejected, or deferred and whether the first scan is maintained or terminated and the first scan proceeds according to the first scan execution parameters by executing the first scan on a designated target MAC chain and the second scan proceeds according to the second scan execution parameters by initiating or queueing the second scan on a different designated target MAC chain when the target MAC chains do not conflict.
Bagur expressly discloses determining scan execution parameters based on the prioritization parameters, including initiation or rejection of the incoming second scan, maintenance or termination of the ongoing first scan, deferral of the start time of the incoming scan, and designation of target MAC chains (¶[0165]). Bagur further teaches that both the ongoing and incoming scans may be managed by designating a different target MAC chain for the incoming scan (¶[0165]). Bagur explains that multiple MAC chains permit simultaneous scanning of multiple channels (¶[0171]) and expressly teaches updating first and second scan execution parameters to designate the MAC chain on which each respective scan is executed when both scans can be performed (¶[0198]).
Thus, Bagur teaches updating the scan execution parameters based on the prioritization determination so that the ongoing first scan is maintained on its designated MAC chain and the incoming second scan is initiated on a different designated MAC chain when the MAC chains permit the scans to be handled without conflict (¶¶[0165], [0198]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further implement the Zhang-Bagur method using Bagur's disclosed target-MAC-chain allocation so that non-conflicting scans are assigned to different available MAC chains and permitted to proceed, while conflicting scans are initiated, rejected, deferred, maintained, or terminated according to the determined prioritization. Such an implementation would predictably permit simultaneous or appropriately scheduled execution of multiple requested scans while efficiently utilizing the device's available MAC chains.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights