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 .
Drawings
Eight (8) sheets drawings were filed on March 21, 2024. Three (3) sheets of replacement drawings were filed on June 24, 2026.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become
aware in the specification.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims
the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is
advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of
each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in
order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35
U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreeda et al (US8376628B2), Koreeda.
Regarding claim 1, Koreeda discloses a connector assembly for a telecommunication system (FIG. 2), the connector assembly comprising: a shroud (Housing 20) forming an outer body configured to dispose around an optical cable (FIG. 7. Optical connector 10), the shroud forming a slot (See annotated FIG. 8) ; an alignment collar (stopper 50) forming an arcuate sector (Arcuate in this case is interpreted to be an arc shaped structured consistent with the shape housing 20) within the shroud (FIG.8), the alignment collar comprising a collar wall (front surface 55) extending into the slot at the shroud (FIG. 8) , wherein the alignment collar forms a receiving area (grooves 51) configured to receive a telecommunications connector (Optical connector 10) , and wherein the alignment collar is configured to move within the slot at the shroud (Abstract. Stopper 50 is biased by spring 40 therefore moves within housing 20); and a latch actuator (concave section 23) coupled to the shroud (FIG. 3) , the latch actuator comprising a latch cam (inclination surface 23a) , wherein the latch cam is configured to bias a latch (latch piece 14) at the telecommunications connector to an unlock position (Abstract) , wherein the shroud forms an external sleeve that encloses the alignment collar and the latch actuator (FIG. 3) . Koreeda fails to discloses a rotating shroud.
Koreeda discloses a prior example of a connector plug (FIG.1) that teaches the shroud (collar section 3) rotates (Column 1 lines 21-22), wherein the latch cam (Cam 8) is configured to bias a latch (latch piece 4) at the telecommunications connector to an unlock position, when rotated by the shroud (Column 1 lines 48-52).
While Koreeda notes a disadvantage of this configuration, this disclosure does not teach away from the use of a rotating shroud. A teaching away occurs when a reference indicates that the combining structural components will not function together or will produce an inoperative result. Here, Koreeda merely identifies a known engineering trade-off and failure mechanism (creep stress) inherent to that specific latch-and-cam geometry.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking the mechanical advantages of a rotating shroud interface, to adopt the rotating shroud configuration of Koreeda while modifying the latch or cam profiles to relieve stress when in the fully connected state. The modification represents the predictable application of known mechanical principles to solve a known problem, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 1, wherein the shroud is rotated as discussed above. Koreeda further discloses the latch cam (inclination surface 23a) forms a ramp (FIG. 3. It is known that an inclination surface acts as a ramp) , wherein the ramp at the latch cam is configured to gradually depress the latch (latch piece 14) at the telecommunications connector(Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Koreeda discloses the device of claim 1. Koreeda further discloses the alignment collar (stopper 50) and the latch actuator (concave section 23) form separate components from one another (FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Koreeda discloses a connector assembly for a telecommunication system (FIG.2) , the connector assembly comprising: a first shroud (Housing 20) forming an
configured to dispose around the optical cable (FIG. 7. Optical connector 10) the first shroud forming an interior slot extending substantially along a circumferential direction along an interior wall of the first shroud (See annotated FIG. 8); an alignment collar (stopper 50) comprising an arcuate sector within the shroud (FIG. 8. Arcuate in this case is interpreted to be an arc shaped structured consistent with the shape housing 20) and a collar wall (front surface 55) , wherein the collar wall extends radially outward into the interior slot at the first shroud (FIG 6A and 8) , and wherein the alignment collar comprises a receiving area (grooves 51) configured to receive a first fiber optic connector (Optical connector 10) at which an optical cable is received, wherein the alignment collar is configured to move within the slot at the first shroud (Abstract. Stopper 50 is biased by spring 40 therefore moves within housing 20); and a latch actuator (inclination surface 23a) coupled to the first shroud (FIG. 8), the latch actuator comprising a latch cam (inclination surface 23a) configured to bias a latch at the fiber optic connector to an unlock position (Abstract). Koreeda fails to discloses a rotating shroud.
Koreeda discloses a prior example of a connector plug (FIG.1) that teaches the shroud (collar section 3) rotates (Column 1 lines 21-22), wherein the latch cam (Cam 8) is configured to bias a latch (latch piece 4) at the telecommunications connector to an unlock position, when rotated by the shroud (Column 1 lines 48-52).
While Koreeda notes a disadvantage of this configuration, this disclosure does not teach away from the use of a rotating shroud. A teaching away occurs when a reference indicates that the combining structural components will not function together or will produce an inoperative result. Here, Koreeda merely identifies a known engineering trade-off and failure mechanism (creep stress) inherent to that specific latch-and-cam geometry.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking the mechanical advantages of a rotating shroud interface, to adopt the rotating shroud configuration of Koreeda while modifying the latch or cam profiles to relieve stress when in the fully connected state. The modification represents the predictable application of known mechanical principles to solve a known problem, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 8 as applied above. Koreeda further discloses the latch cam (inclination surface 23a) forms a ramp (FIG. 3. It is known that an inclination surface acts as a ramp), and wherein the ramp at the latch cam is configured to gradually depress the latch (latch piece 14) at the fiber optic connector (Abstract). ).
Regarding claim 10, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 8. Koreeda further discloses the alignment collar (stopper 50) and the latch actuator (concave section 23) form separate components from one another (FIG. 4).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreeda et al (US8376628B2), Koreeda, and in view of Cheng (US10890722B2).
Regarding claim 16, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the connector assembly of claim 8, comprising: the first fiber optic connector (fiber optic connector 10) configured to receive the optical cable (Optical fiber 210) , wherein the first shroud is configured to dispose around the first fiber optic connector (FIG.8) ; a second fiber optic connector (Receptable 300) . Koreeda fails to disclose a second fiber optic connector configured to output one or more optical fibers; a second shroud configured to dispose around the second fiber optic connector; and a fiber optic coupler configured to operably couple the first fiber optic connector and the second fiber optic connector.
Cheng teaches first and second fiber shrouded optic cable connectors (Figure 4. 202 and 204. Column 2 lines 22-31). The first fiber optic cable connector (202) configured to output an optical fiber (172). The second fiber optic cable connector (204) configured to receive the optical cable (139). A fiber optic coupler (230A and 230B) configured to operably couple the first (202) and second (204) fiber optic connector (Column 9 lines 10-15).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector assembly of Koreeda to include a second fiber optic connector as taught by Cheng as a matter of predictable use of known elements to permit interconnection of two fiber optic connectors without altering the underlying rotational cam actuation mechanism.
Regarding claim 17, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 8. Koreeda further discloses a fiber optic connector (Connector 10). Koreeda fails to disclose a bulkhead disposed between the first fiber optic connector and a second fiber optic connector.
Cheng teaches a bulkhead (Bulkhead adapter 250) disposed between the first fiber optic connector (202) and a second fiber optic connector (204. Figure 4).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector assembly of Koreeda with a bulkhead and first and second fiber optic connector of Cheng. Such modification merely applies a known fiber optic bulkhead coupling arrangement to Koreeda connector system without altering the rotational cam or latch actuation mechanism, yielding predictable results.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreeda et al (US8376628B2), Koreeda, and in view of Barthes et al (US11927810B2), hereafter Barthes.
Regarding claim 19, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 8. Koreeda fails to disclose an enclosure.
Barthes discloses an enclosure (Figure 1. Closure 200) for a telecommunication system (Column 1 lines 23-25), the enclosure comprising: a housing forming ports configured to receive one or more connector assemblies (Column 5 lines 53-55).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Koreeda within the enclosure taught by Barthes. Incorporating the two elements represents predictable use of known elements according to their established functions to provide mechanical protection and organization of fiber optic connections, without alter the operation of Koreeda's connector assembly.
Regarding claim 20, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 19. Koreeda/Barthes fail to disclose the enclosure comprising a connection density of connector assemblies at the housing greater than 0.25 connector assemblies per square inch.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the enclosure with such connector density as a matter of routine design choice, since connection density in telecommunications enclosures is a result-effective variable determined by available house area and desired port capacity. Selecting a density greater than 0.25 connector assemblies per square inch represents an obvious optimization of a known parameter to accommodate increase connector count, yielding predictable results.
Claims 4-7, 11-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koreeda et al (US8376628B2), Koreeda, and in view of Pepe (US20050215101A1), hereafter Pepe.
Regarding claim 4, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 3. Koreeda further discloses a latch actuator(concave section 23) and a shroud (housing 20). Koreeda fails to disclose the latch actuator and the shroud form separate components from one another.
Pepe discloses the latch actuator (cam member 60) and the shroud (Outer housing portion 8) form separate components from one another.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Koreeda to make the claim components separate from on another since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 5, Koreeda/Pepe teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 4, but Koreeda fails to disclose the latch actuator comprising an anti-rotation wall configured to fix the latch actuator relative to the shroud as the shroud is rotated.
Pepe teaches an anti-rotation feature (locking latch portion (38) and locking stop surface (42)) configure to fix the latch actuator relative to the shroud (outer housing portion 8) as the shroud is rotated. The locking latch portion and the locking stop surface function to restrict rotational movement and define a rotational limit relative to the shroud (8). Accordingly, the locking latch portion and the locking stop surface constitute an anti-rotation wall configured to fix the latch actuator (60) relative to the shroud during rotation.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Koreeda by incorporation an anti-rotation feature as taught by Pepe into the latch actuator of Koreeda. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to restrict unwanted rotational movement and establish a reliable rotational limit for the latch actuator relative to the shroud during operation. Utilizing Pepe’s structural approach provides structural stability and prevents over-rotation or mechanical wear between moving components, which is a known and predictable solution to alignment and structural stability problems in the field of mechanical latching mechanisms. The combination of these known elements according to established methods would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 1, Koreeda discloses the latch actuator (Concave section 23) comprising an actuator wall (step section 24) in the shroud (housing 20). Koreeda fails to disclose the latch actuator comprises an actuator wall extending into the slot at the shroud.
Pepe teaches the latch actuator (cam member 60) comprises an actuator wall extending (outer cylindrical ring portion 50) into the slot at the shroud (Key-way opening 32).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Koreeda by providing an actuator wall extending into the slot at the first shroud, as taught by Pepe. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings because Pepe discloses an outer cylindrical ring portion (actuator wall) extending into a key-way opening (slot) at the shroud to provide structural reinforcement, reduce mechanical play, and ensure precise guiding alignment of the moving parts during operation. Applying Pepe’s structural arrangement to Koreeda's latch actuator (concave section 23) and shroud (housing 20) would predictably improve the mechanical stability of Koreeda's latch mechanism, preventing unwanted displacement without altering the core functional behavior of the device. The modification represents a predictable combination of known prior art elements according to established structural principles to yield expected results.
Regarding claim 7, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose the shroud forming a bayonet slot, wherein an angular extension of the bayonet slot corresponds to the latch cam relative to the latch cam depressing the latch at the telecommunications connector when the shroud is rotated.
Pepe teaches the shroud (8) forming a bayonet slot (34), wherein an angular extension of the bayonet slot (34) corresponds to the latch cam (66) relative to the latch cam depressing the latch (114) at the telecommunications connector (6) when the shroud is rotated. A bayonet slot is interpreted as a circumferential slot with angular travel limits and engagement features. Pepe discloses a slot (34) extending circumferentially around the shroud (8), a key-way opening (32) with leading ramp (40) and a locking stop surface (42). The angular length of the slot (34) defines the rotational travel of collar (10). The same rotation travel defines how the latch cam (66) depresses the latch (114). So, the angular extend of the slot corresponds directly to the angular movement needed to actuate the latch.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector device of Koreeda by incorporating the shroud forming a bayonet slot as taught by Pepe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a reliable, rotational locking mechanism that ensures predictable, simultaneous actuation of the latch cam. Using Pepe's teaching of a circumferential slot with defined angular travel limits, leading ramps, and a locking stop surface directly solves the problem of ensuring the shroud's rotational travel precisely corresponds to the displacement needed for the latch cam to depress the telecommunications connector latch. This modification represents a predictable combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the expected result of a secure, cam-actuated bayonet connection.
Regarding claim 11, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 8, but Koreeda fails to disclose the latch actuator comprising an anti-rotation wall extending substantially co-directional to an extension of the optical cable into the connector assembly, wherein the anti-rotation wall is configured to fix the latch actuator relative to the first shroud as the first shroud is rotated.
Pepe teaches an anti-rotation feature (locking latch portion (38) and locking stop surface (42)) extending substantially co-directional to an extension of the optical cable into the connector assembly (Figure 3), wherein the anti-rotation wall is configured to fix the latch actuator relative to the first shroud as the first shroud is rotated. The locking latch portion and the locking stop surface function to restrict rotational movement and define a rotational limit relative to the shroud (8). Accordingly, the locking latch portion and the locking stop surface constitute an anti-rotation wall configured to fix the latch actuator (60) relative to the shroud during rotation.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Koreeda by incorporation an anti-rotation feature as taught by Pepe into the latch actuator of Koreeda. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to restrict unwanted rotational movement and establish a reliable rotational limit for the latch actuator relative to the shroud during operation. Utilizing Pepe’s structural approach provides structural stability and prevents over-rotation or mechanical wear between moving components, which is a known and predictable solution to alignment and structural stability problems in the field of mechanical latching mechanisms. The combination of these known elements according to established methods would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 8, Koreeda discloses the latch actuator (Concave section 23) comprising an actuator wall (step section 24) in the shroud (housing 20). Koreeda fails to disclose the latch actuator comprises an actuator wall extending into the slot at the first shroud (housing 20).
Pepe teaches the latch actuator (cam member 60) comprises an actuator wall extending (outer cylindrical ring portion 50) into the slot (Key-way opening 32) at the shroud (outer housing portion 8) .
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Koreeda by providing an actuator wall extending into the slot at the first shroud, as taught by Pepe. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings because Pepe discloses an outer cylindrical ring portion (actuator wall) extending into a key-way opening (slot) at the shroud to provide structural reinforcement, reduce mechanical play, and ensure precise guiding alignment of the moving parts during operation. Applying Pepe’s structural arrangement to Koreeda's latch actuator (concave section 23) and shroud (housing 20) would predictably improve the mechanical stability of Koreeda's latch mechanism, preventing unwanted displacement without altering the core functional behavior of the device. The modification represents a predictable combination of known prior art elements according to established structural principles to yield expected results.
Regarding claim 13, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 12, Koreeda discloses the collar wall (front surface 55) extends radially outward into the slot (annotated FIG. 8) in the first shroud (housing 20) and an actuator wall (shallow step 24) within the first shroud (housing 20) . Koreeda fails to discloses the actuator wall extends radially outward into the slot at the first shroud.
Pepe teaches the actuator wall (outer cylindrical ring portion 50) extends radially outward into the slot (Key-way opening 32) at the first shroud (Outer housing portion 8).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Koreeda and Pepe, and modify Koreeda’s device by implementing the actuator wall structure taught by Pepe. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to design the actuator wall (outer cylindrical ring portion 50) to extend radially outward into the slot (Key-way opening 32) at the first shroud (housing 20) as taught by Pepe. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to Pepe because both references operate in the same field of endeavor and address similar mechanical alignment and retention mechanisms within shroud housings. Implementation of Pepe's structural arrangement provides a predictable modification that improves structural stability and ensures proper keyway tracking during operational engagement. The combination requires no more than the predictable application of known mechanical elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding claim 14, Koreeda/Pepe teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 13, but fails to disclose the actuator wall and the collar wall each extend into the same slot at the first shroud.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art make the actuator wall (step section 24) separable from the shroud (housing 20) to allow the actuator wall and the collar wall ( front surface 55) extend to the same slot in the first shroud (housing 20). It has been long held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art when no unexpected result is achieved. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (CCPA 1971); see also In re Howard, 394 F.2d 869, 870, 157 USPQ 615, 616 (CCPA 1968) (stating that providing a multi-piece construction instead of a unitary one is generally a matter of obvious engineering choice).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the actuator wall separable from the housing to facilitate easier manufacturing, assembly, and maintenance of the device. Forming the components separately allows for modular replacement of worn parts (such as the shifting actuator wall) without requiring disposal of the entire shroud structure. Furthermore, separating these pieces provides the necessary clearance and structural flexibility to allow both the actuator wall and the collar wall to extend into and align within the exact same slot of the housing, thereby streamlining the mechanical interface and reducing the overall footprint of the shroud assembly. The modification represents nothing more than the predictable application of known mechanical principles to a known device to achieve a predictable result. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 8 but fails to disclose an opening is formed along a direction of rotation between the latch actuator and the alignment collar.
Pepe teaches an opening is formed along a direction of rotation between the latch actuator (cam member 60) and the alignment collar (front housing portion 12. FIG. 2) .
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Koreeda by incorporating an opening formed along a direction of rotation between the latch actuator and the alignment collar as taught by Pepe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for smoother rotational clearance and to prevent mechanical interference between moving parts, thereby improving the structural durability and functional reliability of the latch mechanism. The combination represents predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding claim 18, Koreeda teaches and/or suggests the device of claim 8, but fails to disclose the first shroud forming a bayonet slot, wherein an angular extension of the bayonet slot corresponds to the latch cam relative to the latch cam depressing the latch at the first fiber optic connector when the first shroud is rotated.
Pepe teaches the shroud (8) forming a bayonet slot (34), wherein an angular extension of the bayonet slot (34) corresponds to the latch cam (66) relative to the latch cam depressing the latch (114) at the fiber optic connector (6) when the shroud is rotated. A bayonet slot is interpreted as a circumferential slot with angular travel limits and engagement features. Pepe discloses a slot (34) extending circumferentially around the shroud (8), a key-way opening (32) with leading ramp (40) and a locking stop surface (42). The angular length of the slot (34) defines the rotational travel of collar (10). The same rotation travel defines how the latch cam (66) depresses the latch (114). So, the angular extend of the slot corresponds directly to the angular movement needed to actuate the latch.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector device of Koreeda by incorporating the shroud forming a bayonet slot as taught by Pepe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a reliable, rotational locking mechanism that ensures predictable, simultaneous actuation of the latch cam. Using Pepe's teaching of a circumferential slot with defined angular travel limits, leading ramps, and a locking stop surface directly solves the problem of ensuring the shroud's rotational travel precisely corresponds to the displacement needed for the latch cam to depress the telecommunications connector latch. This modification represents a predictable combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the expected result of a secure, cam-actuated bayonet connection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights