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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 5/15/2026, where claims 1, 11, 12, and 17 are amended, claims 9 and 10 are canceled, claims 21 and 22 are added, and claims 1-8 and 11-22 are currently pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed on 5/15/2026, are persuasive in view of the amendment.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed on 5/15/2026, with respect to previous rejections of claims 1-14, 16, and 17 under non-statutory double patenting, have been fully considered. However, the arguments do not address the rejections of claims 12-14, 16, and 17. As such, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-9, with respect to previous rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, with respect to previous rejection of independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the instant claims is currently rejected under new grounds.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-10, with respect to previous rejection of independent claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the instant claims is currently rejected under new grounds.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-11, that all dependent claims are patentably distinguished over the cited prior art at least in view of the dependency from their respective independent claims, and requests that the rejections for all dependent claims be reconsidered and withdrew for the reasons argued above. However, their respective independent claims are now rejected under new grounds in view of the amendment and thus the dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 16 of the US Patent No. 12,001,641 (hereinafter the ‘641 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim 12 of the instant application and claims 13 and 16 the ‘641 Patent are disclosing system for identifying incident situation based on detecting abnormal condition, obtaining and integrating life safety system data and on-site information to generate incident situation information. Claim 12 of the instant application includes the additional limitation of the on-site information identifies one or more emergency response team members based upon the personnel information and the incident situation. However, the US Patent Application Pub. No. 2024/0339026 (Kelly) teaches such limitation. The ‘641 Patent and Kelly are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for presenting abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having the ‘641 Patent and Kelly before them to modify the emergency response system of the ‘641 Patent to incorporate the function of identifying one or more emergency response team members as taught by Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Kelly (¶ [0066]-[0068]), because the function of identifying one or more emergency response team members does not depend on the emergency response system. That is the function of identifying one or more emergency response team members performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to help identify distribution of resources in an abnormal event as suggested by Kelly (¶ [0066]).
Claim 12 of the instant application further includes the additional limitation of a semiconductor fabrication facility. The US Patent No. 7,259,656 (Wright) teaches such limitation. The ‘641 Patent, Kelly, and Wright are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for presenting abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the ‘641 Patent in view of Kelly and Wright before them to substitute the semiconductor fabrication facility as taught by Wright for the generic facility of the ‘641 Patent in view of Kelly. Because both the ‘641 Patent in view of Kelly and Wright teach methods of detecting abnormal condition of a facility, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one known method for the other to achieve the predictable result of identifying emergency condition in facility technology. The motivation would have been to increase usability of the system by allowing to be used in different types of facilities. For the above reason(s), the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claims 13 and 16 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claim 13 of the ‘641 Patent as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent.
Claim 14 of the instant application is also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claim 14 of the ‘641 Patent as the claim of the instant application discloses substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of the ‘641 Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 17 of the instant application and claim 18 of the ‘641 Patent are disclosing non-transitory machine readable medium including instructions when executed, identify incident situation based on detecting abnormal condition, obtain and integrate life safety system data and on-site information to generate incident situation information, and display such information on an electronic display. Claim 17 of the instant application includes the additional limitation of displaying progress. The Korean Patent Doc. No. 20190061974 (Lee) teaches such limitation. The ‘641 Patent and Lee are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for identifying abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having the ‘641 Patent and Lee before them to modify the emergency response system of the ’641 Patent to incorporate the function of displaying progress as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Lee (pg. 4 line 41-pg. 13 line 53), because the function of displaying progress does not depend on the emergency response system. That is the function of displaying progress performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to provide an interface in an emergency that can help to evacuate more accurately and quickly as suggested by Lee (pg. 3 lines 18-29). Therefore, the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly, (US 20240339026 A1) (hereinafter Kelly) in view of Wright, (US 7,259,656 B1) (hereinafter Wright).
Referring to claim 12, Kelly teaches a system, comprising:
a sensor module that identifies an incident situation…based upon receiving an indication from a sensor…that an abnormal condition has been detected by the sensor (¶ [0276], fig. 10B, “At step S110, data relating to the presence or risk of fire (“fire data”) is obtained”);
a life safety system connector that obtains life safety system data (¶ [0276], “Supplementary data may be obtained from one or more additional sensors, for example sensors configured to detect the presence of smoke, carbon monoxide, other toxic gases, airflow, oxygen, RFID tags.”);
an electronic card reader system that records personnel information (¶ [0066], RFID sensors); and
a module that integrates the life safety system data and on-site information about the…facility (¶ [0265], fig. 10A, “At step S101, the Responsible Authority for the building will prepare alert, evacuation and privacy policies based on different fire hazard classifications and on certain key metrics of a fire hazard”. ¶ [0280], fig. 10B, “At step S113, the processing unit calculates an assessed “Threat Level” of the Fire Models of step S112 and takes the following two steps simultaneously; firstly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the alert and evacuation policies of step S101, so as to determine the appropriate policy response for alert and evacuation of the occupants”) to generate incident situation information (¶ [0279], fig. 10B, “At step S112, the processing unit incorporates the tools, resources and data of step S111 with the fire data and occupant data of step S110 to create a current-state model and probabilistic model (collectively, the “Fire Models”) of the likely development of the fire and the location and likely behaviour of the occupants; furthermore, the central processor calculates the optimal escape route for the occupants, taking the output of the Fire Models into account.”), wherein the on-site information identifies one or more emergency response team members based upon the personnel information and the incident situation (¶ [0067], “n some embodiments, the RFID tags may be wearable items issued to firefighters and in preferred embodiments, the RFID “tag” may be a downloaded app on a smartphone issued to and carried by firefighters.”)
Kelly teaches the limitations above. However, Kelly does not explicitly teach the facility is a semiconductor fabrication facility.
Wright teaches a semiconductor fabrication facility (5:21-30, “The present invention may be used to display safe routes to multiple destinations, for example, alternating between the above described destinations or allowing selection thereof, thereby allowing the present invention to address a variety of needs. Thus, the person or machine receiving the safe route or safe routes may include rescue personnel or machinery or may include non-rescue personnel or machinery, such as workers in a semiconductor fabrication facility who may wish to simply escape the facility at some time after a hazardous condition is detected.”)
Kelly and Wright are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for identifying abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Kelly and Wright before them to substitute the semiconductor fabrication facility as taught by Wright for the generic facility of Kelly. Because both Kelly and Wright teach methods of detecting abnormal condition of a facility, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one known method for the other to achieve the predictable result of identifying emergency condition in facility technology. The motivation would have been to increase usability of the system by allowing to be used in different types of facilities.
Referring to claim 13, Kelly further teaches the system of claim 12, comprising:
an electronic display through which the incident situation information is displayed (¶ [0280], fig. 10B, “At step S113, the processing unit calculates an assessed “Threat Level” of the Fire Models of step S112 and takes the following two steps simultaneously; firstly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the alert and evacuation policies of step S101, so as to determine the appropriate policy response for alert and evacuation of the occupants (such a policy may also include a range of pre-determined firefighting interventions which the central processor may then be instructed to incorporate into the Fire Models); secondly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the privacy policy of step S108 to determine the extent and scope of what information may be displayed on remote or other user devices for the duration of the emergency.” ¶ [0283], fig. 10B, “For the purposes of step S114, the Fire Models are most likely to be displayed on a remote device (such as a laptop, tablet or smart phone)”.)
Referring to claim 14, Kelly further teaches the system of claim 13, comprising:
a messaging system that transmits a message to a communication device of at least one of the one or more emergency response team members, wherein the message comprises a task assignment for the at least one of the one or more emergency response team members to perform as a response to the incident situation (¶ [0246], “displayed on appropriate remote devices. This information will be constantly updated with real-time information from the fire and occupant safety devices, so will be dynamic information and the fire and rescue authorities can proceed to evacuate and fight the fire as they determine is most appropriate.”)
Referring to claim 15, Kelly further teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the personnel information identifies a last known location of the one or more emergency response team members within a facility (¶ [0066], “in the case of the RFID sensors particularly, enables the detection and visual representation in the models of firefighters wearing or carrying appropriate RFID tags, which is helpful to the command centres in the event of a fire as it identifies the physical distribution of their fire-fighting resources within the building, in real-time.”)
Referring to claim 16, Kelly further teaches the system of claim 13, comprising:
a database connector that queries one or more databases, comprising at least one of equipment information, chemical information, personnel information, or emergency response contingency procedures, to obtain the on-site information (¶ [0051], “the processing unit has access to a stored memory of pre-determined policies in relation to the building which define actions to be taken in response to different fire hazard scenarios and references these policies against the said current-state and probabilistic fire models, so as to determine the appropriate policy-based response.”)
Referring to claim 21, Kelly further teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the sensor module compares a measurement signal from the sensor with a database of measurements corresponding to different types of incident situations, and the sensor modules identifies the incident situation as occurring based upon the measurement signal matching one of the measurements within the database (¶ [0242], “During a non-emergency situation the location of one or more people will be constantly monitored by means of thermal sensors and carbon dioxide sensors in devices 100, 200, 300 and communicated to the processing unit 500; the information from both sensor types will be cross-referenced with each other and further with a memory 501 storing the layout of the building by the processing unit 500, so that the carbon dioxide levels appropriate to a given number of identified body heat signatures in a given location, with possibly varying airflows, can be established and used as a “baseline” value, to compare with later on in the event of a fire when, for example, individuals may hide or be rendered unconscious and their body heat signals may be hidden or impaired.” Examiner recognized the unconscious individual and fire as the different types of incident situations.)
Claims 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly, (US 20240339026 A1) (hereinafter Kelly) in view of Lee et al., (KR 20190061974 A) (hereinafter Lee).
Referring to claim 17, Kelly teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium comprising instructions for performing a method, which when executed by a machine, causes the machine to:
identify an incident situation based upon a sensor detecting an abnormal condition (¶ [0276], fig. 10B, “At step S110, data relating to the presence or risk of fire (“fire data”) is obtained”);
query one or more life safety systems to obtain life safety system data (¶ [0276], “Supplementary data may be obtained from one or more additional sensors, for example sensors configured to detect the presence of smoke, carbon monoxide, other toxic gases, airflow, oxygen, RFID tags.”);
query one or more databases to obtain on-site information (¶ [0265], fig. 10A, “At step S101, the Responsible Authority for the building will prepare alert, evacuation and privacy policies based on different fire hazard classifications and on certain key metrics of a fire hazard”. ¶ [0280], fig. 10B, “At step S113, the processing unit calculates an assessed “Threat Level” of the Fire Models of step S112 and takes the following two steps simultaneously; firstly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the alert and evacuation policies of step S101, so as to determine the appropriate policy response for alert and evacuation of the occupants”);
integrate the life safety system data and the on-site information to generate incident situation information (¶ [0279], fig. 10B, “At step S112, the processing unit incorporates the tools, resources and data of step S111 with the fire data and occupant data of step S110 to create a current-state model and probabilistic model (collectively, the “Fire Models”) of the likely development of the fire and the location and likely behaviour of the occupants; furthermore, the central processor calculates the optimal escape route for the occupants, taking the output of the Fire Models into account.”), wherein the incident situation information comprises a task to be performed (¶ [0246], plotted escape routes) by one or more personnel;
issue a first communication to the one or more personnel to perform the task (¶ [0246], “Once the alert and evacuation policy appropriate to the perceived fire risk has been identified, the appropriate information on the location and nature of the fire, the location of the occupants and the plotted escape routes will be calculated by the processing unit 500 and displayed on appropriate remote devices.” Examiner recognizes the one or more personnel as the user with the appropriate remote devices.);
display the incident situation information through an electronic display (¶ [0280], fig. 10B, “At step S113, the processing unit calculates an assessed “Threat Level” of the Fire Models of step S112 and takes the following two steps simultaneously; firstly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the alert and evacuation policies of step S101, so as to determine the appropriate policy response for alert and evacuation of the occupants (such a policy may also include a range of pre-determined firefighting interventions which the central processor may then be instructed to incorporate into the Fire Models); secondly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the privacy policy of step S108 to determine the extent and scope of what information may be displayed on remote or other user devices for the duration of the emergency.” ¶ [0283], fig. 10B, “For the purposes of step S114, the Fire Models are most likely to be displayed on a remote device (such as a laptop, tablet or smart phone)”.)
Kelly teaches the limitations above. However, Kelly does not explicitly teach receive a second communication corresponding to progress of the task and the electronic display comprises a graphic user interface element corresponding to the progress of the task.
Lee teaches receive a second communication corresponding to progress of the task and the electronic display comprises a graphic user interface element corresponding to the progress of the task (Pg. 12 lines 56-66, “the operation server can transmit the escape information such as the evacuation route and the moving distance to the specified emergency stairs according to the calculated result, and the escape terminal device can apply the escape information received using the facility drawing image through the application Thereby generating and displaying an image on the display. Meanwhile, the evacuation route providing system of the present invention is displayed through the management monitoring unit 150 of the central disaster prevention center to monitor the progress phase in real time.”)
Kelly and Lee are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for identifying abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Kelly and Lee before them to modify the intelligent fire and occupant safety system of Kelly to incorporate the function of displaying progress as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Lee (pg. 4 line 41-pg. 13 line 53), because the function of displaying progress does not depend on the intelligent fire and occupant safety system. That is the function of displaying progress performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to provide an interface in an emergency that can help to evacuate more accurately and quickly as suggested by Lee (pg. 3 lines 18-29).
Referring to claim 18, Kelly further teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more databases comprises at least one of equipment information, chemical information, personnel information, or emergency response contingency procedures (¶ [0051], “the processing unit has access to a stored memory of pre-determined policies in relation to the building which define actions to be taken in response to different fire hazard scenarios and references these policies against the said current-state and probabilistic fire models, so as to determine the appropriate policy-based response.”)
Referring to claim 19, Kelly further teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 17, wherein the method, when executed by a machine, causes the machine to:
populate a map, displayed through the electronic display, with a plurality of location representations (¶ [0127], fig. 7, “As shown in FIG. 7, the location of…a plurality of occupants (20) are clearly visualised throughout the building.”); and
evaluate the incident situation information to identify a location of the incident situation corresponding to one of the plurality of location representations (¶ [0127], fig. 7, “As shown in FIG. 7, the location of the fire hazard (10)…are clearly visualised throughout the building.”)
Referring to claim 22, Kelly further teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 17, wherein identifying the incident situation comprises:
comparing a measurement signal from the sensor with a database of measurements corresponding to different types of incident situations; and
identifying the incident situation as occurring based upon the measurement signal matching one of the measurements within the database (¶ [0242], “During a non-emergency situation the location of one or more people will be constantly monitored by means of thermal sensors and carbon dioxide sensors in devices 100, 200, 300 and communicated to the processing unit 500; the information from both sensor types will be cross-referenced with each other and further with a memory 501 storing the layout of the building by the processing unit 500, so that the carbon dioxide levels appropriate to a given number of identified body heat signatures in a given location, with possibly varying airflows, can be established and used as a “baseline” value, to compare with later on in the event of a fire when, for example, individuals may hide or be rendered unconscious and their body heat signals may be hidden or impaired.” Examiner recognized the unconscious individual and fire as the different types of incident situations.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Lee as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Masterlark, (US 20140344002 A1) (hereinafter Masterlark).
Referring to claim 20, Kelly in view of Lee teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 19. However, Kelly in view of Lee do not explicitly teach modify a display property of a location representation, of the location, within the map; and
in response to receiving user input with respect to the location representation, displaying a subset of the incident situation information related to the location.
Masterlark teaches modify a display property of a location representation, of the location, within the map (¶ [0035], fig. 2, “the menus 202, 204 may further include interface controls allowing a user to manually select a status for the room. For example, upon selecting a "smoke" or "fire" interface control, the respective room may be identified as containing smoke or fire for use in generation or modification of the event response plan.”); and
in response to receiving user input with respect to the location representation, displaying a subset of the incident situation information related to the location (¶ [0035], fig. 2, “The menus 202, 204 may further include an icon 216 that, upon selection, provides the user with a detailed checklist and/or procedures for responding to the emergency based on the status of the particular room.”)
Kelly, Lee, and Masterlark are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for presenting abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Kelly in view of Lee and Masterlark before them to modify the intelligent fire and occupant safety system of Kelly in view of Lee to incorporate the function of modify display property of a location as taught by Masterlark. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Masterlark (¶ [0033]-[0036]), because the function of modify display property of a location does not depend on the intelligent fire and occupant safety system. That is the function of modify display property of a location performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to provide procedures that is more relevant to the specific situation of the specific area as suggested by Masterlark (¶ [0035]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 10,276,010 (Lee) – discloses sensor network for alarm service.
US 2013/0282280 (Patterson) – discloses route guidance system for emergency first-responders.
US 2017/0103491 (Bora) – discloses integrated building evacuation system.
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 MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights