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
1. This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 07/21/2026. Claims 1-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicants arguments filed in the 07/21/2026 remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection which is deemed appropriate to address all of the needs at this time.
Pedersen and Khaleghimeybodi teach the features of filters of a feedforward and feedback filters. However Pedersen is not clear on “wherein the first filter at the feedback path and the third filter at the feedforward path are different and/or separate from each other.”
Reference Kontomichos teaches wherein the first filter at the feedback path and the third filter at the feedforward path are different and/or separate from each other. Kontomichos provides different or sperate filters for feedback and feedforward filters.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 9, 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0007995) in view of Khaleghimeybodi et al. (US 2019/0373357) in further view of Kontomichos et al. (US 2024/0071350).
Regarding claim 1, Pedersen teaches a hearing device comprising: an ambient microphone configured to detect ambient sound and to generate an ambient audio signal based on the detected ambient sound (see fig .3, 12A-12B, ¶ 0219. The hearing device having a microphone (12) for provision of an input transducer audio signal in response to external sound received at the microphone.); an in-canal microphone configured to detect sound in an ear canal of a user, and to generate an in-canal audio signal, wherein the sound in the ear canal comprises body-conducted sound (see fig. 3, ¶ 0053-0055, 0221. Body conducted sound is picked up by an ear canal microphone that is accommodated in a housing and is adapted to be positioned in an ear canal of the user whereby the ear canal microphone is positioned to sense the ear canal sound pressure in the ear canal space inside the fully or partly occluded ear canal between a distal portion of the housing and the ear drum.); a processing unit configured to process the ambient audio signal in accordance with a signal processing algorithm, wherein the processing unit is also configured to generate a processed audio signal (see ¶ 0256, 0312. Audio signal processors typically controlled by various selectable signal processing algorithms each of which having various parameters for adjustment of the actual signal processing performed.); a receiver configured to provide output sound into the ear canal based on a receiver input; a first filter at a feedback path, wherein the first filter is configured to supply a first compensation signal based on the in-canal audio signa (see fig .3, 36A-B, 48A-B, ¶ 0237, 0246, 0256, 0276, the signal processing attenuates the processed audio in the ear canal which is feedback through the filter 48 and second filter 36.); a second filter configured to model a transfer function associated with the receiver input and the in-canal audio signal (see fig. 3, ¶ 0268-0269. Second filters modeling the respective transfer functions form the input of the output transducer to the output of the ear canal microphone.); and a third filter at a feedforward path, wherein the third filter is configured to supply a second compensation signal based on the vibration signal (see fig. 3, 54A-B, 60A-B, 36A-B, ¶ 0264-0265, 0311-0312. The vibration signal from (54) are processed by 60A and 36A. This process can filter out the feedforward signal and attenuating the signal for adjustments.); a vibration sensor configured to sense mechanical vibration attributable to at least the body-conducted sound, and to generate a vibration signal (fig. 3, ¶ 0103, 0264-0265. The hearing device having a vibration sensor to generate a vibration signal).
Pedersen discloses features of the claim limitation and vibration sensor however, it is vague on the mechanical vibration and wherein the first filter at the feedback path and the third filter at the feedforward path are different and/or separate from each other.
Khaleghimeybodi teaches a vibration sensor where an mechanical vibration is generated (see fig. 4, ¶ 0028).
The combination of Khaleghimeybodi to Pedersen provide the vibration sensor where an mechanical vibration is generated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to incorporate the vibration sensor where an mechanical vibration is generated. The modification provides for mechanical vibration being generated.
Kontomichos teaches wherein the first filter at the feedback path and the third filter at the feedforward path are different and/or separate from each other (fig. 1B, 3, ¶ 0043-0044, 0055-0057, 0073-0074. The feedback and the feedforward filters are separate or different filters from each other. As far as defining a first filter and third filter, this can be arranged to accommodate Pendersen.).
The combination of Kontomichos to Pendersen and Khaleghimeybodi provide different filters as stated by Kontomichos.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pendersen and Khaleghimeybodi to incorporate optimization of the feedforward filter is dependent on the feedback filter to provided a more precise method of optimization compared with known methods. The modification provides for the feedforward path, that can apply stability criteria to the filter to prevent acoustic feedback on the hearing device and may also consider averaging for the angle of arrival of the external sound.
Regarding claim 20, Pedersen teaches a method performed by a hearing device, the method comprising: detecting ambient sound; generating an ambient audio signal based on the detected ambient sound; processing the ambient audio signal in accordance with a signal processing algorithm to generate a processed audio signal (see fig .3, 12A-12B, ¶ 0219, 0256, 0312. The hearing device having a microphone (12) for provision of an input transducer audio signal in response to external sound received at the microphone. Audio signal processors are controlled by various selectable signal processing algorithms each of which having various parameters for adjustment of the actual signal processing performed.); detecting sound in an ear canal of a user by an in-canal microphone of the hearing device; generating an in-canal audio signal based on the detected sound, wherein the sound comprises at least body-conducted sound (see fig. 3, ¶ 0053-0055, 0221. Body conducted sound is picked up by an ear canal microphone that is accommodated in a housing and is adapted to be positioned in an ear canal of the user whereby the ear canal microphone is positioned to sense the ear canal sound pressure in the ear canal space inside the fully or partly occluded ear canal between a distal portion of the housing and the ear drum.); emitting output sound by a receiver of the hearing device based on a receiver input; generating a first compensation signal by a first filter at a feedback path of the hearing device based on the in-canal audio signal (see fig .3, 36A-B, 48A-B, ¶ 0237, 0246, 0256, 0276, the signal processing attenuates the processed audio in the ear canal which is feedback through the filter 48 and second filter 36.); adjusting or adapting a second filter to model a transfer function associated with the receiver input and the in-canal audio signal (see fig. 3, ¶ 0268-0269. Second filters modeling the respective transfer functions form the input of the output transducer to the output of the ear canal microphone.); and generating a second compensation signal generated by a third filter at a feedforward signal path of the hearing device based on the vibration signal (see fig. 3, 54A-B, 60A-B, 36A-B, ¶ 0264-0265, 0311-0312. The vibration signal from (54) are processed by 60A and 36A. This process can filter out the feedforward signal and attenuating the signal for adjustments.); detecting, by a vibration sensor of the hearing device, mechanical vibration attributable to at least the body-conducted sound; generating a vibration signal based on the detected mechanical vibration (fig. 3, ¶ 0103, 0264-0265. The hearing device having a vibration sensor to generate a vibration signal).
Pedersen discloses features of the claim limitation and vibration sensor however, it is vague on the mechanical vibration and wherein the first filter at the feedback path and the third filter at the feedforward path are different and/or separate from each other.
Khaleghimeybodi teaches a vibration sensor where an mechanical vibration is generated (see fig. 4, ¶ 0028).
The combination of Khaleghimeybodi to Pedersen provide the vibration sensor where an mechanical vibration is generated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to incorporate the vibration sensor where an mechanical vibration is generated. The modification provides for mechanical vibration being generated.
Kontomichos teaches wherein the first filter at the feedback path and the third filter at the feedforward path are different and/or separate from each other (fig. 1B, 3, ¶ 0043-0044, 0050, 0055-0057, 0073-0074. The feedback and the feedforward filters are separate or different filters from each other. As far as defining a first filter and third filter, this can be arranged to accommodate Pendersen.).
The combination of Kontomichos to Pendersen and Khaleghimeybodi provide different filters as stated by Kontomichos.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pendersen and Khaleghimeybodi to incorporate optimization of the feedforward filter is dependent on the feedback filter to provide a more precise method of optimization compared with known methods. The modification provides for the feedforward path, that can apply stability criteria to the filter to prevent acoustic feedback on the hearing device and may also consider averaging for the angle of arrival of the external sound.
6. Claim(s) 2, 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0007995) in view of Khaleghimeybodi et al. (US 2019/0373357) in further view of Kontomichos et al. (US 2024/0071350).
Regarding claim 2, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising a fourth filter configured to supply a third compensation signal for cancelling noise sound transmitted into the ear canal of the user, wherein the third compensation signal is based on the ambient audio signal (see fig .3, ¶ 0304-0307. Wherein the obtained occlusion cancellation in each ear is the sum of reduction by acoustic leakage and the active occlusion cancellation provided by subtracting the respective processed ear canal audio signal 38A, 38B from the respective processed input transducer audio signal.).
Regarding claim 3, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit comprises a first subtractor configured to subtract the first compensation signal from the processed audio signal, and to subtract the second compensation signal from the processed audio signal; and wherein the processing unit is configured to apply an output of the first subtractor to the receiver input (see fig .3, ¶ 0129, 0140, 0221. Signal combiner is subtracted from the processed input transducer audio signal to reduce the occlusion effect by subtracting a signal that cancels undesired low frequency sound in the user's ear canal generated by low frequency amplification of body conducted sound.).
Regarding claim 10, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit comprises a fourth filter configured to supply a third compensation signal based on the ambient audio signal; and wherein the processing unit comprises a first subtractor configured to subtract the third compensation signal from the processed audio signal (see fig .3, ¶ 0129, 0140, 0221. Signal combiner is subtracted from the processed input transducer audio signal to reduce the occlusion effect by subtracting a signal that cancels undesired low frequency sound in the user's ear canal generated by low frequency amplification of body conducted sound.).
Regarding claim 13, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising a housing, wherein the housing comprises: an exteriorly oriented surface comprising a sound inlet for the ambient microphone; an interiorly oriented surface configured to face the ear canal of the user; and a side surface configured to cause a vibration sensitive section of the vibration sensor to physically contact the ear canal of the user during normal use of the hearing device (see fig .3, ¶ 0219, 0256, 0312. The hearing device having a microphone (12) for provision of an input transducer audio signal in response to external sound received at the microphone. Audio signal processors are controlled by various selectable signal processing algorithms each of which having various parameters for adjustment of the actual signal processing performed. The hearing device is an in-ear device wherein the device is in physical contact with the user ear.).
Regarding claim 14, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1 wherein the ambient microphone is configured to detect the ambient sound at an ear of the user (see fig .3, 12A-12B, ¶ 0219, 0256, 0312. The hearing device having a microphone (12) for provision of an input transducer audio signal in response to external sound received at the microphone. Audio signal processors are controlled by various selectable signal processing algorithms each of which having various parameters for adjustment of the actual signal processing performed.).
Regarding claim 15, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1 wherein the first compensation signal is configured to cancel at least the body-conducted sound (see fig .3, 36A-B, 48A-B, ¶ 0237, 0246, 0256, 0276 0305. The signal processing attenuates the processed audio in the ear canal which is feedback through the filter 48 and second filter 36.)
Regarding claim 16, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1 wherein the second filter is configured to model the transfer function from the receiver input to the in-canal audio signal (see fig. 3, ¶ 0268-0269. Second filters modeling the respective transfer functions form the input of the output transducer to the output of the ear canal microphone.)
Regarding claim 17, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1 wherein the second compensation signal is configured to cancel at least the body-conducted sound (see fig. 3, 54A-B, 60A-B, 36A-B, ¶ 0264-0265, 0311-0312. The vibration signal from (54) are processed by 60A and 36A. This process can filter out the feedforward signal and attenuating the signal for adjustments.)
Regarding claim 18, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the first compensation signal and/or the second compensation signal is for cancelling at least the body-conducted sound. (see fig. 3, 54A-B, 60A-B, 36A-B, ¶ 0264-0265, 0311-0312. The vibration signal from (54) are processed by 60A and 36A. This process can filter out the feedforward signal and attenuating the signal for adjustments.)
Regarding claim 19, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit comprises the first filter, the second filter, the second filter, or any combination of the foregoing (see fig. 3, 36A-B, 48A-B, ¶ 0237, 0246, 0256, 0276, the signal processing attenuates the processed audio in the ear canal which is feedback through the filter 48 and second filter 36.).
Regarding claim 21, Pedersen teaches the method according to claim 20, further comprising generating the receiver input by: subtracting the first compensation signal from the processed audio signal, and subtracting the second compensation signal from the processed audio signal (see fig .3, ¶ 0129, 0140, 0221. Signal combiner is subtracted from the processed input transducer audio signal to reduce the occlusion effect by subtracting a signal that cancels undesired low frequency sound in the user's ear canal generated by low frequency amplification of body conducted sound.).
Regarding claim 24, Pedersen teaches the method according to claim 20, wherein the ambient microphone is configured to detect the ambient sound at an ear of the user (see fig .3, 12A-12B, ¶ 0219, 0256, 0312. The hearing device having a microphone (12) for provision of an input transducer audio signal in response to external sound received at the microphone. Audio signal processors are controlled by various selectable signal processing algorithms each of which having various parameters for adjustment of the actual signal processing performed.).
Regarding claim 25, Pedersen teaches the method according to claim 20, wherein the first compensation signal is generated to cancel at least the body-conducted sound (see fig .3, 36A-B, 48A-B, ¶ 0237, 0246, 0276 0305. The signal processing attenuates the processed audio in the ear canal which is feedback through the filter 48 and second filter 36.)
Regarding claim 26, Pedersen teaches the method according to claim 20, wherein the second filter is adjusted or adapted to model the transfer function from the receiver input to the in-canal audio signal (see fig. 3, ¶ 0268-0269. Second filters modeling the respective transfer functions form the input of the output transducer to the output of the ear canal microphone.)
Regarding claim 27, Pedersen teaches the method according to claim 20, wherein the second compensation signal is generated to cancel at least the body-conducted sound (see fig. 3, 54A-B, 60A-B, 36A-B, ¶ 0264-0265, 0311-0312. The vibration signal from (54) are processed by 60A and 36A. This process can filter out the feedforward signal and attenuating the signal for adjustments.)
7. Claim(s) 4, 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0007995) in view of Khaleghimeybodi et al. (US 2019/0373357) in further view of Kontomichos et al. (US 2024/0071350) in further view of Sreepadarao et al. (US 2023/0074554).
Regarding claim 4, Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi and Kontomichos do not teach the hearing device according to claim 3, wherein the processing unit comprises a second subtractor configured to generate an error signal by subtracting an output of the second filter from the in-canal audio signal; and wherein the processing unit is configured to apply the error signal to an input of the first filter.
Sreepadarao teaches wherein the processing unit comprises a second subtractor configured to generate an error signal by subtracting an output of the second filter from the in-canal audio signal; and wherein the processing unit is configured to apply the error signal to an input of the first filter (see ¶ 0120. Hearing device includes an adaptive filter to update filters that have an error signal and attenuation or update the signal based on the error signal to process the signal.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi and Kontomichos to incorporate the error signals wherein filters are configured to adapt to the updated signals. The modification provides updating the signal for based on received errors of the hearing aid ear canal.
Regarding claim 7, Pedersen teaches the hearing device according to claim 4, wherein the processing unit is configured to minimize the energy or power of the error signal by: adapting or adjusting a first transfer function of the first filter to maximize a real part of (1 +B*R),adapting or adjusting a second transfer function of the second filter, adapting or adjusting a third transfer function of the third filter, or any combination of two or more of the foregoing; wherein B is the first transfer function of the first filter, and R is the transfer function associated with the receiver input and the in-canal audio signal (see ¶ 0221-0223. The ear canal microphone is adapted for provision of an ear canal microphone audio signal in response to the ear canal sound pressure. The ear canal microphone audio signal is sampled and digitized in an A/D converter and the samples are forwarded sequentially to the filter that inputs a filtered ear canal audio signal suitable for suppression of the occlusion effect at the second input of the signal combiner. B is the transfer function of the filter, R is the transfer function from the input of the output transducer to the output of the ear canal microphone.).
8. Claim(s) 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0007995) in view of Khaleghimeybodi et al. (US 2019/0373357) in further view of Kontomichos et al. (US 2024/0071350) in further view of Sreepadarao et al. (US 2023/0074554) in further view of Larsen et al. (US 2018/0124529).
Regarding claim 5, Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos, Sreepadarao do not teach the hearing device according to claim 4, wherein the processing unit is configured to minimize energy or power of the error signal over a predetermined frequency range.
Larsen teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to minimize energy or power of the error signal over a predetermined frequency range (see ¶ 0118. The power is reduced between a frequency range.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos, Sreepadarao to incorporate the error signals and reducing the power in a frequency range. The modification provides the error signals and reducing the power in a frequency range hearing aid device.
Regarding claim 6, Pedersen teaches hearing device according to claim 5, wherein the predetermined frequency range is above 50 Hz, between 20 Hz and 1 kHz, or between 100 Hz and 400 Hz (see ¶ 0119. Frequency range between 100 Hz and 700Hz).
9. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0007995) in view of Khaleghimeybodi et al. (US 2019/0373357) in further view of Kontomichos et al. (US 2024/0071350) in further view of Sreepadarao et al. (US 2023/0074554) in further view of Kristensen et al (US 2016/0249139).
Regarding claim 8, Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos, Sreepadarao do not teach the hearing device according to claim 4, wherein the processing unit is configured to minimize the energy or power of the error signal by minimizing a norm of the error signal.
Kristensen teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to minimize the energy or power of the error signal by minimizing a norm of the error signal (see ¶ 0093. Wherein the error signal is fed into the processor of the hearing device which then would detect the characterizes of the signal in order to determine to economize on the power consumption the device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos, Sreepadarao to incorporate the error signals and reducing the power. The modification provides the error signals and reducing the power of hearing aid device.
10. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0007995) in view of Khaleghimeybodi et al. (US 2019/0373357) in further view of Kontomichos et al. (US 2024/0071350) in further view of Van der werf (US 2018/0184219).
Regarding claim 11, Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos do not teach the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the hearing device is configured to adapt a transfer function of the first filter and adapt a transfer function of the third filter during normal operation of the hearing device.
Van teaches wherein the hearing device is configured to adapt a transfer function of the first filter and adapt a transfer function of the third filter during normal operation of the hearing device (see fig. 4a-b, 8, ¶ ¶ 0073, 0139, 0151-0152. The filters adapt during normal operations and filters are adapted to process the signals using a transfer function.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos, to incorporate filtering the out the signal during operations of the hearing device. The modification provides during operating function process the signal in order to correct any error signals.
11. Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0007995) in view of Khaleghimeybodi et al. (US 2019/0373357) in further view of Kontomichos et al. (US 2024/0071350) in further view of Kaulberg (US 2002/0057814).
Regarding claim 22, Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos do not teach the method according to claim 20, further comprising adapting a plurality of filter coefficients of the third filter, and adapting a plurality of filter coefficients of the first filter, during initialization of the hearing device and/or normal operation of the hearing device.
Kaulberg teaches adapting a plurality of filter coefficients of the third filter, and adapting a plurality of filter coefficients of the first filter, during initialization of the hearing device and/or normal operation of the hearing device (see fig.2, ¶ 0024-0026.The device having a set of adaptive filters and wherein a third filter is correlated to a first filter then processes the signal. The filter coefficients are fed to the processors that are then profiled to the adapted filters for adapting.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos, to incorporate filtering the out the signal during operations of the hearing device. The modification provides during operating function process the signal in order to correct any error signals.
12. Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0007995) in view of Khaleghimeybodi et al. (US 2019/0373357) in further view of Kontomichos et al. (US 2024/0071350) in further view of Pandey et al. (US 2011/0206226).
Regarding claim 23, Pedersen teaches the method according to claim 20, wherein the act of processing the ambient audio signal is performed when the hearing device is in normal operation when the hearing device is worn in or at an ear of the user, and wherein the emitted output sound is based on the processed ambient audio signal (see fig .3, 12A-12B, ¶ 0174, 0194, 0219. The hearing device having a microphone (12) for provision of an input transducer audio signal in response to external sound received at the microphone. The signal then is processed and processed as output sound.).
Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos do not teach wherein the method further comprises simultaneously or parallelly adapting the respective transfer functions of the first filter and the third filter.
Pandy teaches wherein the method further comprises simultaneously or parallelly adapting the respective transfer functions of the first filter and the third filter (fig. 3, ¶ 0022-0024. The hearing aid, having adapted filters operate in simultaneously with transfer function.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen, Khaleghimeybodi, Kontomichos, to incorporate filtering and adapting the signal simultaneously. The modification provides during operating function process the signal simultaneously with adapted filters transfer function.
Conclusion
13. 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 ASSAD MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-7253. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/ASSAD MOHAMMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights