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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 13, 15–21, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim 1 recites: “performing bandwidth allocation to each of a plurality of designated allocation objects across different transmission channels … such that the bandwidths … meet a preset bandwidth allocation condition,” where the condition is one of non-overlap, partial overlap, or complete overlap.
This limitation, considered in its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses determining and applying a rule for allocating or scheduling bandwidth resources. Such activity is a form of organizing human activity and/or managing relationships between resources. The claim does not require a particular algorithm for generating bandwidth grants, a particular frame structure, a particular signaling format, or a specific hardware operation by which the allocation is implemented.
The additional limitations directed to ONUs, PONs, ODNs, uplink wavelengths, and transmission channels merely identify the technological environment in which the allocation rule is used. These limitations do not materially change the character of the claimed subject matter from a resource-allocation rule into a specific technological process. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements of claim 1, including the ONUs, PONs, ODN, transmission channels, and uplink wavelengths, do not integrate the abstract allocation rule into a practical application. Although the specification describes possible benefits relating to out-of-band interference and receiving sensitivity, claim 1 does not require that the allocation reduce interference, reduce bit errors, improve receiving sensitivity, or achieve another specified technical result. The claim therefore recites the desired allocation result without requiring a specific technical implementation that achieves the result.
The recitation of a processor, memory, OLT, ONU, PON, ODN, or transmission wavelength, without specifying how those components are specially configured or operated to achieve a technical improvement, amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer and telecommunications components.
Claim 1 is therefore directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate that exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor, memory, OLT, ONUs, PONs, ODN, transmission channels, and wavelength-based communications are recited at a high level and perform their known, conventional functions.
The claim does not identify an unconventional arrangement of PON equipment or an unconventional bandwidth-granting protocol. The specification itself describes the use of conventional OLTs, ONUs, ranging, optical-power measurements, test signals, and network-management systems.
Accordingly, claim 1 lacks an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 2–4, 6–9, 11, 13, 15–21 depend from claim 1 and do not add limitations sufficient to overcome the rejection.
Claim 2 recites bandwidth allocation by an OLT according to a ranging result, received optical power, or a determined signal conflict. These are generic data-gathering and decision-making operations and do not require a specific technical mechanism for correcting interference.
Claim 3 recites sending the allocation result to a network-management system for verification or display. These are insignificant post-solution activities.
Claim 4 recites allocation and display by a network-management system. Allocation and display remain the same abstract resource-management concept.
Claims 6 and 8–9 recite selecting a target bandwidth area or adjusting fiber length, optical power, or line loss. These limitations do not specify a particular technological mechanism for achieving the claimed result and, in claim 8, may merely use a test or diagnostic condition to apply the allocation rule.
Claim 11 recites dispersing bandwidths in temporal sequence. Temporal scheduling is itself a form of resource allocation and does not, without more, provide a technical improvement.
Claims 13 and 15–20 recite conflict detection based on overlap, ranging, optical power, test signals, or bit-error increments. These limitations recite collecting and evaluating information. The claims do not require a specific receiver architecture, signal-processing operation, error-correction technique, or grant-generation mechanism.
Claim 21 recites allocating different bandwidths to avoid overlap. This merely states the desired result of applying the allocation rule.
Claims 33 and 34 recite generic processor and memory components configured to perform the method of claim 1. These claims are not patent-eligible for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 13, 15–21, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description and enablement requirements.
The present specification does not demonstrate possession of the full scope of the claims as presently drafted. The claims broadly recite bandwidth allocation across different transmission channels for a plurality of designated allocation objects, where the bandwidths may be non-overlapping, partially overlapping, or completely overlapping. The disclosure, however, primarily describes specific examples involving passive optical networks, optical line terminals, optical network units, ranging results, optical power, and test signals. The claims extend beyond those particular examples to cover a broad genus of allocation, overlap, and conflict-detection techniques across multiple network scenarios and object types. The written description therefore does not reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
The claims are also not enabled commensurate in scope with their breadth. The specification does not provide sufficient technical detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full range of claimed embodiments without undue experimentation. In particular, the disclosure does not adequately explain how to determine the claimed thresholds, how to objectively measure or distinguish non-overlapping, partial overlapping, and complete overlapping bandwidth conditions, how to consistently implement conflict detection across ranging, optical power, and test-signal embodiments, or how to apply the claimed scheme across the breadth of “designated allocation objects” and transmission channel configurations recited in the claims.
For at least these reasons, claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 13, 15–21, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 13, 15–21, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that “the bandwidths are associated with transmission wavelengths,” while also reciting allocation of “bandwidths” across different transmission channels having different uplink wavelengths. It is unclear from the claim language whether the claimed allocation concerns bandwidth in the frequency domain, logical bandwidth allocation, time-based allocation, wavelength assignment, or some combination thereof. The claim thus fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claim 1 further recites that the preset bandwidth allocation condition comprises one of “non-overlapping, partial overlapping, or complete overlapping” of the bandwidths obtained by the plurality of designated allocation objects. The terms “non-overlapping,” “partial overlapping,” and “complete overlapping” are not defined with sufficient precision in the claims. The claim does not specify the dimension in which overlap is measured, the reference point against which overlap is assessed, or the objective boundaries that distinguish one condition from another. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
The term “transmission conflict,” as used throughout the claims, is likewise indefinite. The specification appears to use the term in varying contexts, including bandwidth overlap, interference, bit errors, conflict detection based on ranging results, conflict detection based on optical power, and conflict detection based on test signals. Because the term is used inconsistently and without a clear objective definition, the scope of the claims is uncertain.
Claims 13, 16, 18, and 20 recite threshold-based determinations, including “second threshold,” “preset distance threshold,” “preset power threshold,” “third threshold,” “ranging result array,” and “optical power array.” These limitations are unclear because the relationships among the various thresholds are not defined, and the claims do not explain the structure or content of the referenced arrays with sufficient clarity. For example, it is unclear whether the arrays are stored lookup tables, input data structures, or result sets of a comparison operation. Likewise, the phrases “presence of a ranging result array indicating a distance difference greater than or equal to a preset distance threshold” and “presence of the optical power array indicating a power difference greater than or equal to a preset power threshold” are grammatically and structurally ambiguous.
Claim 13 further states that “partial overlapping means that different designated allocation objects have a same bandwidth part but do not have entirely same bandwidth allocation.” This explanation does not provide sufficiently objective criteria for determining what constitutes “the same bandwidth part,” how large the overlap must be, or how partial overlapping is distinguished from complete overlapping in a manner that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
Claim 33 and claim 34 are apparatus and storage medium claims that recite the same functional limitations as claim 1. Because those claims depend on and inherit the same unclear terminology and functional breadth, they are likewise indefinite for the reasons stated above.
Accordingly, claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 13, 15–21, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim 21 is rejected as an improper dependent claim because it depends from cancelled claim 14.
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, 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, 6–9, 11, 13, 15–21, and 33–34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (US 2009/0214206 A1) in view of Tamai et al. (US 2012/0051752 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ozaki discloses a bandwidth-allocation method for a PON system including an optical line terminator and a plurality of subscriber stations or ONUs. The method includes determining bandwidth allocation based on a predetermined allocation condition and transmitting bandwidth-allocation information to the optical line terminator. The optical line terminator transmits the allocation information to subscriber stations to be allocated bandwidth. See Ozaki, paragraphs [0003], [0007]–[0013], and [0028]–[0033]. Ozaki further discloses allocating uplink bandwidth by time slots, determining transmission start times and transmission durations, and using propagation-delay or distance information to determine signal arrival times at the OLT. See paragraphs [0009]–[0012], [0084]–[0095], and [0100]–[0102]. The subscriber stations and the OLT thereby constitute designated allocation objects and allocation nodes across transmission paths or channels. Ozaki does not expressly disclose that the transmission channels have different uplink wavelengths or that the allocation condition includes non-overlapping, partially overlapping, or completely overlapping bandwidth allocations. Tamai et al. discloses a bandwidth allocator for a TDMA telecommunications network, including a PON, in which bandwidth is allocated using time-based allocation grants. Tamai et al. teaches scheduling adjacent allocation grants so that one allocation grant partially overlaps another allocation grant, thereby creating a shared grant. See Tamai et al., paragraphs [0002], [0004]–[0017], [0037]–[0050], and [0053]–[0061]. Tamai et al. further teaches transmitting shared-grant information to communication terminals in a GATE message and arranging data within the grants based on the location of the shared grant. See paragraphs [0046]–[0050], [0060]–[0061], and [0074]–[0085]. It would have been obvious to modify the bandwidth-allocation method of the Ozaki to use the adjacent, partially overlapping allocation grants of the Tamai et al.. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve bandwidth utilization and reduce allocation loss, which the Tamai et al. expressly identifies as objectives. The modification would have involved applying a known grant-scheduling technique to the known PON bandwidth-allocation system of the Ozaki, with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of different uplink wavelengths for different PON channels or PON systems would also have been an obvious implementation of the PON system. Ozaki recognizes wavelength-multiplexed upstream and downstream PON communication at paragraph [0008], and the use of wavelength-separated channels in PON systems was known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the bandwidth-allocation techniques of the ’206 and Tamai et al.s could be applied to wavelength-separated PON channels sharing an ODN. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests performing bandwidth allocation for a plurality of ONUs associated with different transmission channels having different uplink wavelengths, such that the bandwidth allocations may be non-overlapping or partially overlapping. Complete overlap is an obvious selectable allocation condition when the same allocation period is assigned to multiple transmission channels or allocation objects. Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Ozaki and Tamai et al..
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the OLT performs bandwidth allocation according to at least one of a received ranging result, received optical power, and a determined signal conflict. Ozaki discloses determining transmission timing based on propagation delay, distance, and signal arrival time. See paragraphs [0009]–[0011] and [0084]–[0095]. Such propagation-delay and distance information corresponds to ranging information used by an OLT to schedule uplink transmissions. Tamai et al. discloses an OLT or bandwidth allocator that receives transmission-related information, schedules allocation grants, and provides grant information to communication terminals. See paragraphs [0041]–[0050] and [0060]–[0061]. It would have been obvious to use additional received signal information, including received optical power or detected transmission conflict, as an input for selecting or modifying allocation grants. Such information is a conventional indicator of optical-link condition or upstream collision, and its use would have been a predictable implementation of the disclosed bandwidth-allocation systems. Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites sending a bandwidth-allocation result to a network-management system for determining whether the result satisfies a preset requirement or for displaying the result. Ozaki discloses transmitting allocation information and allocation results through the OLT and communicating the results to the subscriber stations. See paragraphs [0028]–[0033] and [0091]–[0096]. It would have been obvious to provide the allocation result to a network-management system for monitoring, verification, configuration, or display. A network-management system is a conventional supervisory component of a telecommunications network, and receiving or displaying allocation information would have been an expected use of the allocation result. Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites performing bandwidth allocation through a network-management system and displaying the bandwidth-allocation result. Ozaki discloses coordinated bandwidth allocation and distribution of allocation information through an OLT. Tamai et al. discloses centralized scheduling of allocation grants and communication of grant information to terminals. Using a network-management system as the entity that configures or supervises the allocation, and displaying the resulting allocation, would have been a predictable implementation of the disclosed systems. The display of the result does not alter the underlying bandwidth-allocation operation. Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites performing bandwidth allocation within a target bandwidth area, preventing allocation within a target bandwidth area, or specifying a position of bandwidth allocation. Ozaki discloses allocating bandwidth within predetermined service-cycle and subscriber-station bandwidth limits. See paragraphs [0087], [0095], and [0100]–[0102]. Tamai et al. discloses specifying the start time, duration, and position of each allocation grant, including positioning a shared grant at a beginning or ending portion of an allocation grant. See paragraphs [0053]–[0061] and [0074]–[0085]. Accordingly, selecting an allocation area, excluding an area from allocation, or specifying the temporal position of an allocation grant would have been an obvious implementation of the cited teachings. Therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites transmitting the bandwidth-allocation result to the designated allocation objects so that each object obtains an allocated bandwidth and transmits uplink data within that bandwidth. Ozaki expressly discloses transmitting allocation results from the OLT to subscriber stations and transmitting uplink data according to an assigned transmission start time and transmission duration. See paragraphs [0009]–[0012], [0030]–[0033], and [0091]–[0098]. Tamai et al. similarly discloses transmitting GATE messages containing allocation-grant information to communication terminals. See paragraphs [0046]–[0050] and [0060]–[0061]. Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites performing an external adjustment operation to generate a signal conflict and then performing bandwidth allocation so that the signal conflict does not occur. Claim 9 specifies that the external adjustment includes changing fiber length, optical power, or line loss. Ozaki discloses determining signal arrival times based on propagation delay and distance and allocating transmission slots to avoid collision. See paragraphs [0009]–[0011] and [0084]–[0095]. Tamai et al. discloses intentionally providing partially overlapping allocation grants and recognizes that data may collide in the shared grant. See paragraphs [0057]–[0059], [0079]–[0085], and [0116]–[0117]. It would have been obvious to test or calibrate the bandwidth-allocation system by varying propagation delay, received signal power, or line-loss conditions and then modifying grant timing based on an observed collision or conflict. Increasing or decreasing fiber length, optical power, or line loss represents a predictable way of changing transmission conditions in an optical network. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the allocation techniques of the cited references could be used to avoid a detected conflict by assigning different or non-overlapping grant intervals. Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites that, when bandwidths do not overlap, the bandwidths are dispersed in temporal sequence. Ozaki discloses allocating uplink transmissions in separate time slots to prevent collisions. See paragraphs [0009]–[0012]. Tamai et al. discloses arranging allocation grants along a time axis and controlling the temporal relationship between adjacent grants. See paragraphs [0053]–[0061]. Dispersing non-overlapping bandwidth allocations in time is therefore taught by, or at least an obvious implementation of, the time-division bandwidth-allocation systems of the cited references. Accordingly, claim 11 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and recites, in response to partial overlap exceeding a threshold or complete overlap, performing conflict detection among the designated allocation objects. Tamai et al. teaches partial overlap between adjacent allocation grants and recognizes that data may collide in the overlapping shared grant. See paragraphs [0057]–[0059], [0091]–[0098], and [0116]–[0117]. Ozaki teaches determining transmission relationships among multiple subscriber stations and allocating time slots based on those relationships to avoid collisions. See paragraphs [0009]–[0012] and [0084]–[0098]. It would have been obvious to detect a transmission conflict when the amount of overlap exceeds a selected threshold or when the allocations completely overlap. Selecting a threshold to distinguish acceptable overlap from overlap likely to produce a collision would have been a routine optimization based on transmission duration, guard time, propagation delay, and receiver characteristics. Accordingly, claim 13 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 15 depends from claim 13 and recites performing ranging to obtain ranging results and determining whether a transmission conflict occurs according to the ranging results. Ozaki expressly teaches measuring distance or propagation delay between subscriber stations and the OLT and using that information to calculate signal-arrival times and allocation timing. See paragraphs [0009]–[0011], [0084]–[0085], and [0090]–[0095]. Determining whether scheduled transmissions will conflict based on the measured distance or propagation-delay relationship would have been an expected use of the disclosed ranging information. Accordingly, claim 15 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and recites determining that a transmission conflict occurs when a distance difference is greater than or equal to a preset distance threshold and determining that no conflict occurs when the distance difference is less than the threshold. Ozaki teaches using propagation-delay and distance information to calculate transmission arrival times and arrange allocations. Tamai et al. teaches scheduling adjacent grants based on timing relationships between terminals. Using a preset threshold to classify distance differences would have been a routine implementation. The threshold would have been selected according to known system parameters, including guard time, transmission duration, propagation delay, and acceptable collision probability. Such selection represents optimization of a result-effective variable. Therefore, claim 16 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 17 depends from claim 13 and recites receiving optical powers from the designated allocation objects and determining whether a transmission conflict occurs according to the optical powers. The cited references disclose an optical PON system including ONUs, optical transmission paths, an optical splitter, and an OLT. See Ozaki, paragraphs [0007]–[0011]; Tamai et al., paragraphs [0037]–[0045]. It would have been obvious to use received optical power as an indicator of optical-link condition when selecting or modifying upstream allocation grants. Received optical power is a conventional parameter in an optical communication system, and using the parameter in bandwidth scheduling would have been a predictable application of known system-monitoring information. Accordingly, claim 17 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and recites determining a transmission conflict based on whether a difference between received optical powers is greater than or equal to a preset power threshold. As discussed with respect to claim 17, received optical power is a known measure of optical-link condition. Comparing a power difference with a selected threshold to determine whether a conflict or adverse transmission condition exists would have been a routine implementation. The threshold could have been selected based on receiver sensitivity, expected path loss, or an acceptable interference level. Such selection would have been a predictable optimization and would not have required inventive skill. Therefore, claim 18 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 19 depends from claim 13 and recites receiving test signals from designated allocation objects over overlapping bandwidths and determining whether a transmission conflict occurs according to the test signals. Tamai et al. teaches overlapping allocation grants and recognizes that transmission collisions may occur in the shared grant. See paragraphs [0057]–[0059] and [0116]–[0117]. Ozaki teaches using allocation and transmission information from multiple subscriber stations to control subsequent allocations. See paragraphs [0080]–[0098]. It would have been obvious to use test signals in overlapping grants to evaluate whether the overlap causes a transmission conflict. Such testing would have been a conventional diagnostic and calibration technique for a communication system. Accordingly, claim 19 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and recites determining that a conflict occurs when a bit-error increment is greater than or equal to a third threshold and determining that no conflict occurs when the increment is less than the threshold. Tamai et al. recognizes that collision in a shared grant can result in loss of transmitted data and retransmission. See paragraphs [0059] and [0116]–[0117]. Ozaki teaches controlling and adjusting transmission timing among subscriber stations to improve reliable bandwidth use. A bit-error increase is a conventional indicator of transmission interference or collision. It would therefore have been obvious to compare a measured bit-error increase with a selected threshold and to modify the allocation when the threshold is exceeded. The selection of the third threshold would have been a routine design choice based on desired communication reliability and receiver performance. Accordingly, claim 20 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 21 depends from cancelled claim 14 and is therefore not in proper dependent-claim form. Notwithstanding the dependency defect, the subject matter of claim 21 would have been unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination.
Claim 21 recites allocating different bandwidths to different designated allocation objects to avoid overlap. Ozaki teaches allocating different uplink time slots to different subscriber stations to avoid signal collision. See paragraphs [0009]–[0012]. Tamai et al. teaches scheduling and modifying adjacent allocation grants, including managing the effects of shared-grant overlap. See paragraphs [0053]–[0061] and [0091]–[0106]. It would have been obvious, after detecting a conflict, to assign different or non-overlapping allocation grants to the affected terminals. Accordingly, claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claim 33 recites an apparatus including a processor and memory configured to perform the method of claim 1. Claim 34 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a processor to perform the method of claim 1. Ozaki discloses an optical line terminator, subscriber stations, control units, communication units, allocation modules, and recording media storing programs for performing bandwidth allocation. See paragraphs [0028]–[0033], [0078]–[0081], and [0118]–[0120]. Tamai et al. discloses a bandwidth allocator including a controller and scheduler and communication terminals receiving grant information and arranging data according to the grant information. See paragraphs [0041]–[0050], [0066]–[0075], and [0088]–[0098]. It would have been obvious to implement the combined bandwidth-allocation method using the processor-and-memory arrangement of claim 33 and to store corresponding instructions on the computer-readable medium of claim 34. The generic processor, memory, and computer-readable-medium limitations do not distinguish the claims from the disclosed systems and recording media. Accordingly, claims 33 and 34 are unpatentable over the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 13, 15–21, and 33–34 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN ZHEN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
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.
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights