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’ amendment filed on 01/08/26 has been entered. Claims 18-19 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No new claim has been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 8, 10 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 (now depends on claim 8) recites the limitation "the first audio data" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 (now depends on claim 8) recites the limitation "the first audio data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 (now depends on claim 8) recites the limitation "the acoustic signals" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 (now depends on claim 8) recites the limitation "the first microphone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220415333 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”).
As to claim 1, Zhu discloses a method implemented by a first client terminal during a communication session in cooperation with an audio and/or video conference server managing exchanges of audio data streams between the first client terminal and at least one second client terminal during an audio and/or video conference [Abstract, Figs 1-19, pages 1-16], the method comprising: sending, to the audio and/or video conference server, a marked audio data stream, the audio data being marked by integrating a code assigned to said first terminal into a first audio data stream [Fig. 2, paragraphs 0040-0043, 0052-0056, 0076-83, 0094]; receiving audio capability data (DTA) representative of whether said at least one second client terminal has detected the code assigned to said first terminal in an audio data stream received from the audio and/or video conference server [Fig. 9:902-904, Fig. 12:1201-1203, paragraphs 0071-0072, 082-0083, 0091-92]; and triggering at least one action of managing the audio and/or video conference based on the received audio capability data, said at least one management action comprising rendering, via a user interface of the first client terminal, information, dependent on the received audio capability data, indicating whether said at least one second client terminal is able to receive an audio data stream from the first client terminal [Fig. 9, 11-14, paragraphs 0081-0083, 0091-0115].
As to claim 2, Zhu discloses receiving, from a mediation server, the code assigned to the first client terminal [Fig. 2, paragraphs 0043, 0052-0056, 0076-81, 0094].
As to claim 3, Zhu discloses wherein said code assigned to said first client terminal is received in response to a request to said mediation server comprising an identifier of the first client terminal [paragraphs 0008, 0038, 0044, 0050, 0052-53].
As to claims 4 and 18, Zhu discloses wherein the first audio data stream is generated from acoustic signals acquired by a first microphone coupled to the first client terminal [paragraph 0047].
As to claims 5 and 19, Zhu discloses wherein the acoustic signals from which the first audio data stream is generated represent background noise acquired by the first microphone, the intensity of the background noise being less than a first intensity value [paragraphs 0088, 0140, 0161].
As to claim 8, Zhu discloses a method implemented by a second client terminal during a communication session in cooperation with an audio and/or video conference server managing exchanges of audio data streams between a first client terminal and the second client terminal during an audio and/or video conference [Abstract, Figs 1-19, pages 1-16], the method comprising: receiving, from the audio and/or video conference server, an audio data stream [Fig. 2, paragraphs 0040-0043, 0052-0056, 0076-83, 0094-0099]; and sending a notification comprising a code integrated into said received audio data stream, in association with an identifier of the second client terminal [Fig. 9:902-904, Fig. 12:1201-1203, paragraphs 0071-0072, 082-0083, 0091-99].
As to claim 10, Zhu discloses a mediation method implemented by a mediation server in cooperation with a plurality of client terminals participating in an audio and/or video conference during which audio data streams are exchanged via an audio and/or video conference server [Abstract, Figs 1-19, pages 1-16], the method comprising: sending, to a first client terminal of the plurality of terminals, a code assigned to the first client terminal and recorded, in association with an identifier of the first client terminal [Fig. 2, paragraphs 0043, 0044, 0050, 0052-0056, 0076-81, 0094]; and upon receipt, from a second client terminal of the plurality of terminals, of a notification comprising the code assigned to said first client terminal in association with an identifier of the second client terminal: determining audio capability data indicating whether the second client terminal is able to receive an audio data stream from the first client terminal [Fig. 9:902-904, Fig. 12:1201-1205, paragraphs 0071-0072, 082-0083, 0091-100, 0108]; and sending said audio capability data to the first client terminal [Fig. 9, 11-14, paragraphs 0081, 0091-115].
As to claim 12, Zhu discloses a client terminal comprising at least one processor configured to implement the method of claim 1 [Fig. 18, paragraphs 0153-0155].
As to claim 13, Zhu discloses a system comprising: a first client terminal comprising at least one first processor configured to implement the method of claim 1 [Fig. 18, paragraphs 0153-0155]; and at least one second client terminal comprising at least one second processor configured to implement a method [Fig. 18, paragraphs 0153-0155] during the communication session in cooperation with the audio and/or video conference server managing exchanges of audio data streams between the first client terminal and the second client terminal during the audio and/or video conference, the method comprising: receiving, from the audio and/or video conference server, said audio data stream; and sending a notification comprising said code integrated into said received audio data stream, in association with an identifier of the second client terminal said information rendered by the first client terminal indicating that the second client terminal is able to receive an audio data stream transmitted by the first client terminal [See rejection of claims 1 and 8].
As to claim 14, Zhu discloses a mediation server comprising at least one processor configured to implement the method of claim 1 [Fig. 19, paragraphs 0184-188].
As to claim 15, Zhu discloses obtaining the marked audio data stream, the audio data being marked by integrating a digital marking code into a first audio data stream by watermarking [paragraphs 0043, 0052-0056, 0076-81, 0094], wherein the audio capability audio capability data representative of whether said at least one second client terminal has detected the digital marking code in an audio data stream received from the audio and/or video conference server is received from a mediation server [Fig. 9:902-904, Fig. 12:1201-1203, paragraphs 0071-0072, 082-0083, 0091-92].
As to claim 20, Zhu discloses a client terminal comprising at least one processor configured to implement the method of claim 8 [Fig. 18, paragraphs 0153-0155].
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220415333 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180367868 to Banger (“Banger”).
As to claim 6, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1.
Zhu does not expressly disclose wherein the first audio data stream is generated by emulating random noise.
In the same or similar field of invention, Banger discloses the feature of wherein the first audio data stream is generated by emulating random noise [[Banger paragraph 0011, 0021].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhu to have wherein the first audio data stream is generated by emulating random noise as taught by Banger. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a system for reliable and robust detection of audio-video (AV) clips, using a combination of watermarking and fingerprinting, with improved accuracy at low latencies [Banger paragraph 0003].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220415333 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180048542 to Still (“Still”).
As to claim 11, Zhu discloses the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10). Further, Zhu discloses determination of the second client terminal has detected the code assigned to said first terminal [Fig. 9, 12, paragraphs 0071-0072, 082-0083, 0091-92].
Zhu does not expressly disclose wherein absence of reception of said notification is determined if no said notification is received within a first period starting from a reference time. Even though, it is extremely obvious and well known in the art to wait for certain time period to be able to determined that the notification is received or not.
In the same or similar field of invention, Still discloses the feature of wherein absence of reception of said notification is determined if no said notification is received within a first period starting from a reference time [Still paragraph 0050: “absence of ARQ packets from the passenger terminal 130 within a threshold timeframe of the corresponding content packet transmission…”].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhu to have wherein absence of reception of said notification is determined if no said notification is received within a first period starting from a reference time as taught by Still. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide automatic request (ARQ) retransmission of content packets by the content server responsive to absence of ARQ packets from the passenger terminal within a threshold timeframe of the corresponding content packet transmission [Still paragraph 0050].
Claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220415333 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130166742 to Wiener et al. (“Wiener”).
As to claim 16, Zhu discloses the method of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15).
Zhu does not expressly disclose wherein obtaining the marked audio data stream, further comprises: sending, to a mediation server, a digital marking code request, said request comprising an identifier of the first client terminal; and receiving, in response to said request, the digital marking code assigned to the first client terminal.
In the same or similar field of invention, Wiener discloses the feature of obtaining the marked audio data stream, further comprises: sending, to a mediation server, a digital marking code request, said request comprising an identifier of the first client terminal; and receiving, in response to said request, the digital marking code assigned to the first client terminal [Wiener Figs. 3-4, paragraphs 0060: “server 120… can transmit an embedded code in response to receiving an identification request from a particular device 130…”, also see paragraphs 0053-0064].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhu to have wherein obtaining the marked audio data stream, further comprises: sending, to a mediation server, a digital marking code request, said request comprising an identifier of the first client terminal; and receiving, in response to said request, the digital marking code assigned to the first client terminal as taught by Wiener. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a conference server that uses media cues (e.g., audio cues and/or video cues) to identify a device and allow that device to access particular controls, such as conference controls, on the serve [Wiener paragraph 0026].
As to claim 17, Wiener discloses determining, when establishing the communication session, an identifier of the audio and/or video conference; and inserting, into the digital marking code request, the identifier of the audio conference before sending to the mediation server, so as to enable said mediation server to record the digital marking code in association with the identifier of the first client terminal and the identifier of the audio and/or video conference [Wiener paragraph 0041, 0057, also see paragraphs 0053-0064]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12-13 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following:
“Claim 1 recites, among other features, the feature of "sending, to the audio and/or video conference server, a marked audio data stream..." Applicant respectfully submits that this feature defines a network-based transmission in which the first client terminal sends the marked data stream directly to the conference server. The server is therefore an active intermediary in the distribution path of the test signal”
“This is a fundamentally different system than the method of Claim 1, due at least to the following distinction. In the method of Claim 1, the test signal path is a network path, from the first terminal, to the conference server, to the second terminal. In the system of Zhu, the test signal path is an acoustic path, from the first terminal, through the physical space defined by the air, to the second terminal.”
“In the method of Zhu, the server never receives a "marked audio data stream" from the first terminal for the purpose of the detection test, as recited in Claim 1. Rather, the server of Zhu only receives a result from the second terminal. Applicant respectfully notes that Zhu's specific method for proximity detection relies exclusively on acoustic transmission between the terminals. The claimed method, in contrast, uses the network path through the server as the very medium for the test. Therefore, Zhu does not disclose this feature of Claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: Zhu clearly discloses “sending, to the audio and/or video conference server, a marked audio data stream..." [see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0040-0041, 0043, 0082-0083]. As per Zhu, the server is configured to receive the watermark detection result and the audio data transmitted by the second terminal [paragraphs 0040-0041]. Further, the watermark detection result and the audio data after data processing are transmitted to a server (network path). The watermark detection result includes a session identifier and a device identifier in the audio watermark, so as to inform the server which conference the second terminal is participating in and which terminal is in the same space as the second terminal [paragraphs 0082-0083]. Thus, Zhu clearly discloses “sending, to the audio and/or video conference server, a marked audio data stream” as required by claim 1. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “this feature defines a network-based transmission in which the first client terminal sends the marked data stream directly to the conference server”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 13-14 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following:
“In addition, as a direct consequence of the difference above, Zhu fails to disclose the rendering of information "indicating whether said at least one second client terminal is able to receive an audio data stream from the first client terminal." Because Zhu does not describe the same path being used for the test, the resulting information is necessarily different.”
“The method of Claim 1 tests the integrity of the network communication path. The logical result of this test is knowing whether the second terminal successfully received the data transmitted over the network. The information rendered to the user thus answers whether the network communication successfully reached its target. This is consistent with an aim of the disclosed technology, which enables a user to know if they "will be, heard well by other participants." Specification, at para. [0003].”
“Thus, Zhu teaches the detection of physical proximity via acoustic transmission to solve an acoustic problem. The method of Claim 1 relates to a test of network reception capability via network transmission to solve a communication integrity problem. These are distinct technical solutions for distinct technical problems.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: As explained above, Zhu clearly discloses “sending, to the audio and/or video conference server, a marked audio data stream..." [see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0040-0041, 0043, 0082-0083]. Zhu also to disclose the rendering of information "indicating whether said at least one second client terminal is able to receive an audio data stream from the first client terminal." [see Figs. 9, 11-14, paragraphs 0081-0083, 0091-1115]. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The method of Claim 1 tests the integrity of the network communication path… The logical result of this test is knowing whether the second terminal successfully received the data transmitted over the network... The information rendered to the user thus answers whether the network communication successfully reached its target. This is consistent with an aim of the disclosed technology, which enables a user to know if they "will be, heard well by other participants." Specification, at para. [0003]”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 14 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following:
“Since Zhu discloses neither the sending of the marked audio data stream to the server by the first terminal as part of the test, nor the rendering of information indicating the network reception capability of the second terminal, Zhu cannot anticipate Claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: As explained above, Zhu discloses “sending of the marked audio data stream to the server by the first terminal..." [see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0040-0041, 0043, 0082-0083]. Zhu also to disclose the rendering of information "indicating whether said at least one second client terminal is able to receive an audio data stream from the first client terminal." [see Figs. 9, 11-14, paragraphs 0081-0083, 0091-1115]. Thus, Zhu clearly discloses all the limitation of claim 1 including “the sending of the marked audio data stream to the server by the first terminal as part of the test and the rendering of information indicating the network reception capability of the second terminal”.
On page 14-15 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following:
“Similarly, Claim 8 recites a method implemented by a second client terminal, including the feature of "receiving, from the audio and/or video conference server, an audio data stream" that contains the integrated code. The language of Claim 8 explicitly defines that the test signal (the marked audio data stream) is delivered to the second terminal via a network path from the server.”
“In the system of Zhu, the microphone of the second terminal picks up the sound that the first terminal played through its speaker. The stream that the second terminal of Zhu receives from the server is the standard, unmarked conference audio. The specific watermarked stream that it analyzes for the co-location test is acquired acoustically, not received from the server. “
“Therefore, Zhu does not and cannot disclose the claimed feature of the second terminal "receiving, from the audio and/or video conference server, an audio data stream" containing the code. As such, Applicant respectfully notes that Zhu cannot anticipate Claim 8.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: Claim 8 requires “receiving, from the audio and/or video conference server, an audio data stream... and sending a notification comprising a code integrated into said received audio data stream, in association with an identifier of the second terminal". Claim doesn’t clarify which terminal is receiving and sending to the server. Zhu clearly discloses “receiving, from the audio and/or video conference server, an audio data stream…” [see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0040-0041, 0043, 0076-81, 0082-0083, 0094-99] and “sending a notification comprising a code integrated into said received audio data stream, in association with an identifier of the second terminal [Fig. 9:902-904, Fig. 12:1201-1203, paragraphs 0071-0072, 0082-0083, 0091-0098]. As per Zhu, the server is configured to receive the watermark detection result and the audio data transmitted by the second terminal [paragraphs 0040-0041, 0093-0096]. Further, the watermark detection result and the audio data after data processing are transmitted to a server. The watermark detection result includes a session identifier and a device identifier in the audio watermark, so as to inform the server which conference the second terminal is participating in and which terminal is in the same space as the second terminal [paragraphs 0082-0083, 0093-99]. Thus, Zhu clearly discloses “receiving, from the audio and/or video conference server, an audio data stream... and sending a notification comprising a code integrated into said received audio data stream, in association with an identifier of the second terminal” as required by claim 8. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the test signal (the marked audio data stream) is delivered to the second terminal via a network path from the server”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On pages 15-16 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following:
“Similarly, Claim 10 recites a method, performed by a mediation server, that includes a step of "determining audio capability data indicating whether the second client terminal is able to receive an audio data stream from the first client terminal." As described in this present application, this determination can be performed to test the integrity of the network communication channel and provide feedback to the first user about their audibility to remote participants. See Specification, at paras. [0003] and [0011]. The data determined is "reception capability data" - confirming whether the data packet successfully travelled over the network from the first terminal to the second terminal.”
“The Office Action mistakenly equates "determining physical co-location" with "determining the ability to receive a stream." These are not the same. The "audio capability data" of the disclosed technology answers the question of whether the network transmission was successful. In comparison, the determination of Zhu simply answers the question of whether the two devices are co-located within the same room. A network transmission can fail even if devices are in the same room, such as due to a software error or network partition, and it can succeed when devices are thousands of miles apart. The data types, and the problems they solve, are technically distinct, and cannot be considered equivalent.”
“Since the data determined by Zhu's server is fundamentally different in nature and purpose from the "audio capability data" recited in Claim 10, Zhu cannot be considered to disclose this feature, and Claim 10 is therefore not anticipated by Zhu.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: Claim 10 requires “the code assigned to said first client terminal….determining audio capability data indicating whether the second client terminal is able to receive audio data stream from the first client terminal…". Applicant’s specification (Abstract) clearly states “receiving audio capability data representative of whether a second client terminal has detected the digital tag code in an audio data stream…” Zhu clearly discloses “the code assigned to said first client terminal….determining audio capability data indicating whether the second client terminal is able to receive audio data stream from the first client terminal …” [see Fig. 9: 902-904, Fig. 12: 1201-1205 and paragraphs 0071-0072, 0082-0083, 0091-92, 0108]. As per Zhu, it is determined, by the server based on the watermark detection result, that a target terminal (first terminal) exists in participating terminals of the target session (group communication session), the target terminal and the second terminal being in a same physical space [paragraph 0096]. The server obtains the session identifier in the watermark detection result [based on the code assigned to the first terminal], determines, in response to that the session identifier is the same as a session identifier of a current target session, that a terminal exists in the same space as the second terminal in the participating terminals of the target session, and determines a specific terminal based on the device identifier in the watermark detection result [ paragraph 0098]. Zhu further discloses the audio data is forwarded by the server to other participating terminals of the target session, the other participating terminals being configured to play the audio data, and the other participating terminals being terminals other than the second terminal and the target terminal [paragraph 0099]. Zhu also discloses that the audio data acquired by a plurality of terminals in a same space is not forwarded among the plurality of terminals. That is, audio data acquired by the second terminal is not forwarded to the target terminal, and audio data acquired by the target terminal is not forwarded to the second terminal. The data forwarding mechanism can prevent a terminal from repeatedly playing a voice inputted by a user in a current space, and avoid generating echo and howling [paragraph 0100]. Zhu discloses when it is determined that an audio mixing channel between the target terminal and the second terminal is removed by the server in an audio mixing topology structure based on the watermark detection result, and a subsequent audio data forwarding step is performed based on an updated audio mixing topology structure [paragraph 0108]. This is similar to determining audio capability data (if the audio data needs to be forwarded to a terminal) based on code assigned (watermarking results). Thus, Zhu clearly discloses “determining audio capability data indicating whether the second client terminal is able to receive audio data stream from the first client terminal” as required by claim 10. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “to test the integrity of the network communication channel and provide feedback to the first user about their audibility to remote participants” and “confirming whether the data packet successfully travelled over the network from the first terminal to the second terminal”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights