DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/1/2026. Claims 1, 4, 13, 17 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-18, 20-21 are pending in the application of which Claims 1, 17, and 20 are independent and have been examined.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submission in the amendment filed 6/1/2026 (herein “Amendment”) with respect to the claim objection raised in the previous office action have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. Therefore, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments in the Amendment with respect to the specification objection invoked in the previous Office Action are acknowledged. The previous objection is withdrawn in view of amendment.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC §103 raised in the previous office action have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant set forth on page 8:” Bareis' teachings seem to relate to audio enhancement by frequency-based amplitude adjustment, and not by sound types”.
The Examiner finds the Applicant's arguments unpersuasive. The rejection is properly based on a combination of prior art under 35 U.S.C. §103. Each claim limitation is mapped to specific features of the applied respective references, demonstrating that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of invention. Because the rejection relies on the combined teachings of these references, the Applicant's attempt to attack the references individually is misplaced. Furthermore, an Examiner's mapping does not require that the entire body or every disclosure within a prior art reference align with the Applicant’s disclosed invention—only that the specific combined teachings render the claims obvious.
Please see prior art section below for more detail including updated citations and obviousness rationale.
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 1-9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de la Rey (US 20230131788 A1), and in further view of Bareis (US20070189497A1).
de la Rey and Bareis were applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claims 1, and 20, de la Rey teaches [A method for processing audio signals, the method comprising: - claim 1], [An audio system comprising:– claim 20] (de la Rey, Par. 0002:” … systems and methods for audio source separation and more particularly to systems and methods for separating and enhancing audio source signals from a single-track audio mixture.”
[receiving a digital audio signal; - claim 1], [an input circuit configured to receive a digital audio signal; and – claim 20] (de la Rey, Par. 0011:" … a method includes receiving a single-track audio input [digital audio] sample comprising an unknown mixture of audio signals generated from …").
[separating the digital audio signal into a first audio component and a second audio component such that the first and second audio components have different types of sound; - claim 1], [an audio processor including a splitter configured to separate the digital audio signal into a first audio component and a second audio component such that the first and second audio components have different types of sound, and – claim 20] (de la Rey, Par. 0006:" … processing an audio mixture is to separate the audio mixture into a set of separate audio source components [first and second audio], producing a separate audio stem for each component of the audio mixture. ", and Par. 0016:” The at least one source separation process of the method may further include separating and outputting a mixture of speech sources and a remaining complement comprising music and noise.) Note: separating audio into different components reads on having different types of sound i.e. voice vs noise, or voice vs. music.
[combining the first and second gain adjusted audio components to provide a processed audio signal, - claim 1], [the audio processor further including a combiner configured to combine the first and second gain adjusted audio components to provide a processed audio signal, - claim 20] (de la Rey, Par. 0006:" … For example, a music recording may be separated into a vocal component, a guitar component, a bass component, and a drum component. Each of the separate components may then be enhanced [gain adjusted] and mixed [combined] to optimize playback.")
de la Rey does not teach, however, Bareis teaches [providing a gain for each of the first and second audio components to result in a respective gain adjusted audio component; and – claim 1], [a gain circuit configured to provide a gain for each of the first and second audio components to result in a respective gain adjusted audio component, - claim 20] (Bareis, Par. 0097:” … audio can be enhanced by increasing or decreasing the amplitude [gain] across portions of audio in various frequency spectrums for the purpose of clarifying the intelligibility of voice or for making music sound more pleasing.")
[the gains of the first and second audio components configured so that a selected one of the first and second audio components has improved intelligibility by a listener when the processed audio signal is converted into sound by a speaker. – claim 1], [the gains of the first and second audio components configured so that a selected one of the first and second audio components has improved intelligibility by a listener when the processed audio signal is converted into sound. – claim 20] (Bareis, Par. 0097:” … audio can be enhanced by increasing or decreasing the amplitude [gain] across portions of audio in various frequency spectrums for the purpose of clarifying the intelligibility of voice or for making music sound more pleasing.")
Bareis is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey further in view of Bareis to provide a gain for each of the first and second audio components to result in a respective gain adjusted audio component; and the gains of the first and second audio components configured so that a selected one of the first and second audio components has improved intelligibility by a listener when the processed audio signal is converted into sound by a speaker. Motivation to do so would improve and optimize audio which end up with enhancing audio quality (Bareis, Par. 0097).
Regarding claim 2, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
de la Rey, as modified above, further teaches wherein the selected audio component includes a speech component. (de la Rey, Par. 0010:” In some implementations, the audio source separation system includes a first machine learning model trained to separate the single-track audio recording into stems, including speech, compliment sounds, and …”).
Regarding claim 3, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 2.
de la Rey, as modified above, further teaches wherein the other audio component includes a non-speech component. (de la Rey, Par. 0006:” One approach for processing an audio mixture is to separate the audio mixture into a set of separate audio source components, producing a separate audio stem for each component of the audio mixture. For example, a music recording may be separated into a vocal component, a guitar component, a bass component, and a drum component.”)
Regarding claim 4, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 3.
de la Rey, as modified above, further teaches wherein the non-speech component includes substantially all of the audio signal except the speech component. (de la Rey, Par. 0006:” One approach for processing an audio mixture is to separate the audio mixture into a set of separate audio source components, producing a separate audio stem for each component of the audio mixture. For example, a music recording may be separated into a vocal component, a guitar component, a bass component, and a drum component. “, and Par. 0009:” … audio source separation system which is configured to separate out various audio components, such as speech and individual musical instruments, into high fidelity stems (e.g., a discrete or grouped collection of audio sources mixed together).”) Note: The separation technique as disclosed here implies the non-speech includes substantially all of the audio signal except the speech component.
Regarding claim 5, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
de la Rey, as modified above, further teaches wherein the selected audio component includes a non-speech component. (de la Rey, Par. 0006:” One approach for processing an audio mixture is to separate the audio mixture into a set of separate audio source components, producing a separate audio stem for each component of the audio mixture. “, and Par. 0009:” … audio source separation system which is configured to separate out various audio components, such as speech and individual musical instruments, into high fidelity stems (e.g., a discrete or grouped collection of audio sources mixed together).”) Note: The separation technique as disclosed here implies the selected audio component includes a non-speech component.
Regarding claim 6, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 5.
de la Rey, as modified above, further teaches wherein the non-speech component includes music. ( de la Rey, Par. 0009:” … audio source separation system which is configured to separate out various audio components, such as speech and individual musical instruments, into high fidelity stems (e.g., a discrete or grouped collection of audio sources mixed together).”) Note: The separation technique as disclosed here implies the non-speech component includes music.
Regarding claim 7, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 5.
de la Rey, as modified above, further teaches wherein the other audio component includes a speech component. (de la Rey, Par. 0009:” … audio source separation system which is configured to separate out various audio components, such as speech and individual musical instruments, into high fidelity stems (e.g., a discrete or grouped collection of audio sources mixed together).”) Note: The separation technique as disclosed here implies the other audio component includes a speech component.
Regarding claim 8, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
de la Rey, as modified above, further teaches wherein the separating of the audio signal includes processing the audio signal with at least some artificial intelligence (AI) functionality. (de la Rey, Par. 0020:” … and wherein the general source separation model comprises a plurality of neural network models, each neural network model configured to receive a single channel audio input sample and output one or more source separated audio stems comprising a source class and a remaining complement signal mixture.”)
Regarding claim 9, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Bareis further teaches wherein the providing of the gain for each of the first and second audio components includes providing suppression or no suppression of the respective audio component. (Bareis, Par. 0097:” … audio can be enhanced by increasing or decreasing the amplitude [gain] across portions of audio in various frequency spectrums for the purpose of clarifying the intelligibility of voice or for making music sound more pleasing.”) Note: The gain enhancement technique as disclosed here includes providing suppression or no suppression of the respective audio component, since suppression dependents on the magnitude of the adjustment applied.
Claims 10-12, 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de la Rey, and Bareis , and in further view of Spittle (US20230300532A1).
Spittle was applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 10, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 9.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Spittle teaches wherein the providing of the suppression includes a suppression range such that the suppressed audio component has a level in a range between first and second levels, the first level being less than a level associated with no suppression, the second level being greater than or equal to a level associated with complete suppression. (Spittle, Par. 0480:” … For example, the user may adjust the output gain stage of the mixer because they are struggling to hear the audio from a first sound source A that is providing a first audio stream A. … This allows the output gain stage to return to “passthrough” and the new second audio stream B may not be amplified. If the user requires the second audio stream to be amplified as well, a second compressor is applied at the input to the mixer for the second audio stream B, creating now two independent gain control stages feeding the output that is still at “passthrough” gain of 1 or unity or no gain. The user can create a new separate output gain control stage, in some embodiments.”) Note: gain setting of 1 reads on “no suppression”, while zero gain reads on “complete suppression”.
Spittle is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey, as modified above, further in view of Spittle to wherein the providing of the suppression includes a suppression range such that the suppressed audio component has a level in a range between first and second levels, the first level being less than a level associated with no suppression, the second level being greater than or equal to a level associated with complete suppression. Motivation to do so would process efficiency of the audio systems to facilitate more advanced customization of audio processing (Spittle, Par. 0010).
Regarding claim 11, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Spittle teaches wherein the providing of the gain for each of the first and second audio components includes providing suppression, no change or enhancement of the respective audio component. (Spittle, Par. 0480:” … For example, the user may adjust the output gain stage of the mixer because they are struggling to hear the audio from a first sound source A that is providing a first audio stream A. … This allows the output gain stage to return to “passthrough” and the new second audio stream B may not be amplified. If the user requires the second audio stream to be amplified as well, a second compressor is applied at the input to the mixer for the second audio stream B, creating now two independent gain control stages feeding the output that is still at “passthrough” gain of 1 or unity or no gain. The user can create a new separate output gain control stage, in some embodiments.”) Note: gain setting of 1 reads on “no change”, while zero gain reads on “complete suppression”, and anything in between reads on “providing suppression” commensurate on the gain setting.
Spittle is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey, as modified above, further in view of Spittle to wherein the providing of the gain for each of the first and second audio components includes providing suppression, no change or enhancement of the respective audio component. Motivation to do so would process efficiency of the audio systems to facilitate more advanced customization of audio processing (Spittle, Par. 0010).
Regarding claim 12, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Spittle teaches wherein the providing of the gain for each of the first and second audio components includes receiving gain information from a user interface. (Spittle, Par. 0459:” As shown in FIG. 15, the system provides control of the gain of an audio stream. This can be through a standard user interface, such as buttons, sliders, GUI etc.”).
Spittle is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey, as modified above, further in view of Spittle to wherein the providing of the gain for each of the first and second audio components includes receiving gain information from a user interface. Motivation to do so would process efficiency of the audio systems to facilitate more advanced customization of audio processing (Spittle, Par. 0010).
Regarding claim 15, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Spittle teaches wherein the audio signal is a digital signal. (Spittle, Par. 0553:” … In some embodiments, the sound signals may be analog signals, digital signals, or both.”, and Par. 0662:” … Digital signals are used in many different audio systems and have the flexibility of being capable of being used in different audio path configurations.”)
Spittle is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey, as modified above, further in view of Spittle to wherein the audio signal is a digital signal. Motivation to do so would process efficiency of the audio systems to facilitate more advanced customization of audio processing (Spittle, Par. 0010).
Regarding claim 16, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Spittle teaches wherein the processed audio signal is a digital signal. (Spittle, Par. 0624:” … This system architecture also allows multichannel audio to be passed to and from the electronic device using the high data rate of the digital data connection. … The signals may be processed and a single output channel of audio data may be sent to the electronic device 406. For example, the audio samples may have a sample rate of 8 kHz (narrowband), 16 kHz (wideband), or 48 kHz (full band) or higher.”) Note: audio samples with a specified sample rate (8, 16, or 48 kHz) can be considered a digital signal because the sample rate defines the frequency at which an analog waveform is sampled and converted into a series of discrete digital values. This process creates a digital representation of the original analog sound.
Spittle is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey, as modified above, further in view of Spittle to wherein the processed audio signal is a digital signal. Motivation to do so would process efficiency of the audio systems to facilitate more advanced customization of audio processing (Spittle, Par. 0010).
Regarding claim 21, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the system of claim 20.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Spittle teaches a speaker configured to provide the sound based on the processed audio signal. (Spittle, Par. 0450:” … The output streams for the music could be connected to the digital to analogue convertors (DAC) to play sound to the speakers.”)
Spittle is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey, as modified above, further in view of Spittle to have a speaker configured to provide the sound based on the processed audio signal. Motivation to do so would process efficiency of the audio systems to facilitate more advanced customization of audio processing (Spittle, Par. 0010).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de la Rey, Bareis, and Spittle, and in further view of Hamallainen (US20210248990A).
Hamallainen was applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 13, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 12.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Hamallainen teaches wherein the gain information is configured to provide a range of values in a continuous manner or in fine steps. (Hamalainen, Par. 0076:” Each section 632, 633 comprises a slider 634 for varying the audio signal. Each slider can be independently moved between three main settings (+1, 0, and −1). The “+1” setting makes the headset acoustically transparent by turning the ARA functionality on and the ANC functionality off, the “0” setting turns both the ARA and the ANC functionality off, whilst the “−1” setting isolates the user from the acoustic environment by turning the ARA functionality off and the ANC functionality on. Advantageously, the sliders 634 may allow discrete or continuous selection. In FIG. 6, each slider 634 can be positioned arbitrarily between the three main settings (i.e. continuous selection).”)
Hamalainen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey, as modified above, further in view of Hamalainen to wherein the gain information is configured to provide a continuous or finely-adjustable range of values. Motivation to do so would allow reproduction of the primary audio without the background ambient noise (Hamalainen, Par. 0060).
Regarding claim 14, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 12.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Hamallainen teaches wherein the gain information is selected from a set of suggested gain values. (Hamalainen, Par. 0076:” Each section 632, 633 comprises a slider 634 for varying the audio signal. Each slider can be independently moved between three main settings (+1, 0, and −1). The “+1” setting makes the headset acoustically transparent by turning the ARA functionality on and the ANC functionality off, the “0” setting turns both the ARA and the ANC functionality off, whilst the “−1” setting isolates the user from the acoustic environment by turning the ARA functionality off and the ANC functionality on. Advantageously, the sliders 634 may allow discrete or continuous selection. In FIG. 6, each slider 634 can be positioned arbitrarily between the three main settings (i.e. continuous selection).”)
Hamalainen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey, as modified above, further in view of Hamalainen to wherein the gain information is selected from a set of suggested gain values. Motivation to do so would allow reproduction of the primary audio without the background ambient noise (Hamalainen, Par. 0060).
Claims 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de la Rey (US 20230131788 A1), and in further view of Bareis (US20070189497A1), and Pang (US 9560319 B1).
Pang was applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 17, de la Rey teaches A method for processing audio/video (AV) signals, the method comprising: (de la Rey, Par. 0002:” … systems and methods for audio source separation and more particularly to systems and methods for separating and enhancing audio source signals from a single-track audio mixture.”
processing the audio signal, the processing including separating the audio signal into a first audio component and a second audio component such that the first and second audio components have different types of sound, and (de la Rey, Par. 0006:" … processing an audio mixture is to separate the audio mixture into a set of separate audio source components [first and second audio], producing a separate audio stem for each component of the audio mixture. ", and Par. 0016:” The at least one source separation process of the method may further include separating and outputting a mixture of speech sources and a remaining complement comprising music and noise.) Note: separating audio into different components reads on having different types of sound i.e. voice vs noise, or voice vs. music.
the processing further including combining the first and second gain adjusted audio components to provide a processed audio signal, (de la Rey, Par. 0006:" … For example, a music recording may be separated into a vocal component, a guitar component, a bass component, and a drum component. Each of the separate components may then be enhanced [gain adjusted] and mixed [combined] to optimize playback.")
de la Rey, does not teach, however, Pang teaches receiving a digital AV signal having an audio signal and a video signal; and (Pang, Col. 7, line 64 – Col. 8, line 3:” … device 500 includes audio/video decomposer 510 which receives audiovisual streams from endpoints 210 and decomposes each of the audiovisual streams into an audio component and video component. The audio and video components are then fed into audio processor 520 and video processor 530, respectively.”)
Pang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey further in view of Pang to receive a digital AV signal having an audio signal and a video signal. Motivation to do so would process the videoconference in real time and/or to record the videoconference (Pang, Col. 6, ll. 27-28).
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Bareis teaches providing a gain for each of the first and second audio components to result in a respective gain adjusted audio component, (Bareis, Par. 0097:” … audio can be enhanced by increasing or decreasing the amplitude [gain] across portions of audio in various frequency spectrums for the purpose of clarifying the intelligibility of voice or for making music sound more pleasing.")
the gains of the first and second audio components configured so that a selected one of the first and second audio components has improved intelligibility by a listener when the processed audio signal is converted into sound by a speaker. (Bareis, Par. 0097:” … audio can be enhanced by increasing or decreasing the amplitude [gain] across portions of audio in various frequency spectrums for the purpose of clarifying the intelligibility of voice or for making music sound more pleasing.")
Bareis is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified de la Rey, as modified above, further in view of Bareis to provide a gain for each of the first and second audio components to result in a respective gain adjusted audio component, the gains of the first and second audio components configured so that a selected one of the first and second audio components has improved intelligibility by a listener when the processed audio signal is converted into sound by a speaker. Motivation to do so would improve and optimize audio which end up with enhancing audio quality (Bareis, Par. 0097).
Regarding claim 18, de la Rey, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 17.
de la Rey, as modified above, does not teach, however, Pang further teaches merging the processed audio signal with the video signal to provide a processed AV signal. (Pang, Col. 8, ll. 50-55:” The processed audio and video signals are provided by audio superimposition unit 540 and video combination unit 550, respectively, to audio/video composer 560. Audio/video composer 560 composes [merge] the processed audio and video components into an audiovisual stream for display to the user.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Zheng et al. (US20230306943A1) teaches in Par. 0022:” Because the energy of the human voice and the instrumental music have different distributions on the spectrogram, it is possible to separate the human voice from the accompaniment in music or songs. In order to accomplish this task, the machine learning and the deep neural network models are used to efficiently separate the vocal and the accompaniment in real time.”
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E. whose telephone number is (408)918-7689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E.
Primary Examiner
/DARIOUSH AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights