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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed 6/16/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments been fully considered but they are not all persuasive. The applicant argues the following issues.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Issue: The applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the current 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments are considered convincing in light of the amended claim limitations. The 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
(B) Double Patenting Rejection
Issue: The applicant argues that the Terminal Disclaimer filed overcomes the Double Patenting rejections.
Applicant’s arguments are considered convincing in light of the approved Terminal Dislaimer. The Double Patenting rejections are therefore withdrawn.
(C) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Issue: The applicant argues that the amended limitations overcome the current rejection and that the application is in condition for an allowance.
This argument is moot in light of the new ground of rejections set forth below.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/16/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 10277944, US Patent 10560744, US Patent 11089365, US Patent 11405690, US Patent 11716511, US Patent 12170818, has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended claim 1 recites “determine a first panelist rating for the media provided in a second geographic area based on first panel tuning information obtained from first metering devices in a first subset of panelist households in the second geographic area, wherein the first subset of the panelist households do not subscribe to the content provider, wherein the first panel tuning information comprises an indication that a respective RPD device of the RPD devices is capable of reporting a portion of the first panel tuning information” which does not find support in the originally filed application. Applicant in his Remarks filed on 6/16/2026 points the specification paragraphs 28, 32, 33, and 38 of the originally filed application, however, none of these cited paragraphs supports the claimed limitations.
Specifically, paragraphs [0028] [0032] [0033] and [0038] of the originally filed application discloses:
[0028] Additionally, in the illustrated example, the communications interface 202 of the media ratings module 132 receives RPD tuning information from the content provider 102. The content provider 102 collects the RPD tuning information reported from RPD devices (e.g., the RPD devices 116, 120) accessing media content provided by the content provider 102. In some examples, the communications interface 202 may receive the RPD tuning information directly from the RPD devices 116, 120 independent of communications between the AME 104 and the content provider 102. The RPD tuning information may be stored in the RPD tuning information database 214. Similar to the panel tuning information, the RPD tuning information includes a media identifier (e.g., a unique identifier, a station ID with an associated timestamp, etc.) to identify the media accessed by the RPD devices.
[0032] The example media ratings module 132 is provided with the example ratings calculator 208 to calculate ratings for media in a particular region of interest (e.g., a local market). In some examples, the ratings calculator 208 calculates ratings at a quarter-hour granularity. However, the ratings may be based on any other suitable time period. In some examples, the ratings calculator 208 may calculate an initial estimate for a rating of media provide in a local market area based exclusively on exposure to media indicated by collected RPD tuning information from within the local market area. For purposes of explanation, this initial estimate is referred to herein as the initial RPD-based local rating. As with the panelist households and subscriber households in the surrounding regional area, the subscriber households 110, 114 within the local market area may not be demographically representative of the entire population of the local market area. Accordingly, in some examples, the demographic comparator 206 assigns weights to the subscriber households 112, 114 within the local market area to better represent the total population. In some such examples, the initial RPD-based local rating is based on weighted RPD tuning information corresponding to the weights assigned to the subscriber households 112, 114 in the local market area from which the RPD tuning information was collected.
[0033] As a specific example, for purposes of explanation, assume that all households are equally weighted. In such an example, if a particular content provider 102 located in a local market area includes 10,000 subscriber households and 300 of the subscriber households reported RPD tuning information indicative of exposure to particular media, the initial RPD-based local rating for the media would be (300/10,000) × 100 = 3. This initial RPD-based local rating is unlikely to be reflective of the actual percentage of all households in the local market area that accessed the media because it fails to account for when the media is accessed via non-RPD devices (in either subscriber households or nonsubscriber households). Accordingly, in some examples, the ratings calculator 208 may calibrate the initial estimate to a final local rating that accounts for such households based on calculated calibration factors.
[0038] After the ratings calculator 208 has calculated an initial estimate of a rating for media provided in the local market area based exclusively on the locally collected RPD tuning information (e.g., the initial RPD-based local rating) and the calibration factor calculator 210 has calculated the calibration factors, the ratings calculator 208 may calculate a final local rating for the local market. The final local rating is based on a weighted sum of a total subscriber local rating and a total nonsubscriber local rating. In some examples, the total nonsubscriber local rating is calculated as the product of the initial RPD-based local rating and the nonsubscriber calibration factor. Using the above example, an initial RPD-based local rating of 3 and a nonsubscriber calibration factor of 2 results in a total nonsubscriber local rating of 3 × 2 = 6. In some examples, the total subscriber local rating is calculated as the initial RPD-based local rating plus the product of the initial RPD-based local rating and the non-RPD subscriber calibration factor. Expressed differently, the total subscriber local rating is calculated as the initial RPD-based local rating multiplied by one plus the non-RPD subscriber calibration factor. Again, using the above example, an initial RPD-based local rating of 3 and a non-RPD subscriber calibration factor of 0.5 results in a total subscriber local rating of 3 × (1 + 0.5) = 4.5.
However, on the contrary to the Applicant’s statement, none of the above cited paragraphs supports the amended limitation as listed above.
Examiner reviewed other paragraphs contained in the originally filed applicant but did not find support for the amended limitation either. The closest paragraph is paragraph [0027] which recites “the panel tuning information includes an identifier of the particular media device used to access the media and/or an indication of whether the media device is capable of reporting RPD tuning information (i.e., whether the media device is an RPD device”. However, this disclosure does not support the claimed limitation that requires “determine a first panelist rating for the media provided in a second geographic area based on first panel tuning information obtained from first metering devices in a first subset of panelist households in the second geographic area, wherein the first subset of the panelist households do not subscribe to the content provider, wherein the first panel tuning information comprises an indication that a respective RPD device of the RPD devices is capable of reporting a portion of the first panel tuning information.”
Specifically, the disclosure in the originally filed application does not support a panel tuning information obtained from a non-subscriber household comprises an indication that a respective RPD device of the RPD device is capable of reporting a portion of the panel information. As a matter of fact, the claimed limitation directly contradicts with the disclosure in the specification, e.g., [0020]. “That is, as used herein, the designation of subscriber household versus nonsubscriber household is based on whether the household includes an RPD device that reports RPD tuning information available to the AME 104. If so, the household is a subscriber household. If not, the household is a nonsubscriber household”, indicating that a non-subscriber household doe not include an RPD device that reports RPD turning information available to the AME.
Claims 2-29 are similarly rejected. All new matters shall be deleted from the claims.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) The amended claim 1 recites “determine a first panelist rating for the media provided in a second geographic area based on first panel tuning information obtained from first metering devices in a first subset of panelist households in the second geographic area, wherein the first subset of the panelist households do not subscribe to the content provider, wherein the first panel tuning information comprises an indication that a respective RPD device of the RPD devices is capable of reporting a portion of the first panel tuning information.”
First of all, the scope of the recited “a respective RPD device of the RPD devices” cannot be definitely determined, because “the RPD devices” refers to the earlier recited “RPD devices in subscriber households in the first geographic area”, while the instant limitation recites that the first panel tuning information is obtained from “panelist households in the second geographic area”. Since the limitations recite the same “RPD devices” in both types of households in both geographic areas, it is unclear how “the subscriber households in the first geographic area” relates to “panelist households in the second geographic area”. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets an any relationship between the RPD devices recited in the instant limitation and in the preceding limitation, interprets as any relationship between the recited households and between the recited geographic areas.
Secondly, the amended limitation conflicts with the disclosure of the specification, therefore the scope of which cannot be definitely determined. Specifically, the disclosure in the specification does not describe a panel tuning information obtained from a non-subscriber household comprises an indication that a respective RPD device of the RPD device is capable of reporting a portion of the panel information, and on the contrary, discloses instead, e.g., [0020]. “That is, as used herein, the designation of subscriber household versus nonsubscriber household is based on whether the household includes an RPD device that reports RPD tuning information available to the AME 104. If so, the household is a subscriber household. If not, the household is a nonsubscriber household”, indicating that a non-subscriber household does not include an RPD device that reports RPD turning information available to the AME. Due to the conflict, the scope of the claimed limitation cannot be definitely determined. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any indication.
b) Claim 2 recites “the first and second panel tuning information associated with the media delivered to the corresponding first and second subsets of the panelist households via media devices for which RPD tuning information is not available” which conflicts with its parent claim 1, which has been amended to recite that “the first panel tuning information comprises an indication that a respective RPD device of the RPD devices is capable of reporting a portion of the first panel tuning information”. The scope of claim 2 due to the amended parent claim 1 can no longer be interpreted definitely due to the conflict. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as any possibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doe (U.S 2012/0254911 A1) in view of BARB (“The Viewing Report May 2015”).
Regarding claim 1, Doe discloses an apparatus (figure 9) for calculating ratings for media, the apparatus comprising:
a processor (e.g., processor 912 or circuitry – figures 1,5, 9, paragraphs 0036-0037, 0051-0057);
memory including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: (memory 918, 920, 914 and/or 932 including instructions that, when executed, cause processor 912/circuitry to: – see figure 9, paragraphs 0036-0042, 0057-0058):
determine an initial rating for the media provided in a first geographic area based on return path data (RPD) tuning information obtained from RPD devices in subscriber households in the first geographic area, wherein the subscriber households subscribe to a content provider that provides the media through the RPD devices (determine an initial rating for media provided in a first geographic area such as particular local market based on return path (RPD) tuning data obtained from local set top box (STB) return path tuning data in subscriber households in the particular local market, the subscriber households subscribe to a content provider of a particular digital service that provides the media/digital service through the STB return path data – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 3, 6, paragraphs 0014, 0017, 0021, 0024-26, 0033, abstract).;
determine a first panelist rating for the media provided in a second geographic area based on first panel tuning information obtained from first metering devices in a first subset of panelist households in the second geographic area, wherein at least some of the first subset of the panelist households do not subscribe to the content provider (determine a first panel rating for media provided in a second geographic area such as national and/or other market area based on first panel tuning information obtaining from first people meters in a selected panel of households containing the meters that provide the national audience measurement data, wherein the first subset of panelist household are selected panel – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-3, 6, paragraphs 0014, 0016-0017, 0022, 0033. See [0014], “With respect to incompleteness, return path data may, for example, exclude sections of the population (e.g., such as excluding non-subscribers to a particular digital service providing the return path data), lack demographic attributes, lack on/off indicators for the media presentation device coupled with the set-top box providing the return path data”, implying that at least some of the panelist households in the national audience measurement data are non-subscriber households. See also [0022], “to produce a data subset that is relevant to the local market. For example, the statistically selected panel of households containing the people meters that provide the national audience measurement data 115A”), wherein the first panel tuning information comprises an indication that the respective RPD device of the RPD devices is capable of reporting a portion of the first panel tuning information (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that due to the ambiguities, the RPD device is interpreted as any device, and the indication is interpreted as any indication. See Fig. 4, “Weight national audience measurement data based on local population data”, wherein an indicator matching at least a portion of the local population data is implied. Alterntiavely, see [0027], “the cutback indicator appender 320 appends cutback indicators to the weighted national audience data 215 to indicate the type of STB equipment or set of STB characteristics associated with entries in the weighted national audience data 215”);
determine a calibration factor based on the first panelist rating (determine a scaling factor based on the first panelist rating of selected panel of household in the national measurement data – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 4, 6, 7b, 8b, paragraphs 0021-0026);
determining a second panelist rating for the media provided in the second geographic area based on second panel tuning information obtained from second metering devices in a second subset of panelist households in the second geographic area, wherein the second subset of the panelist households subscribe to the content provider (determine a second selected panel rating/selection for the media provided to second geographic area based on the tuning information obtained from meters associated with devices with a same type of equipment such as same type of set top boxes as used in the local return path data, pursuant to a cutback step – see include, but are not limited to, Doe: figures 1-7B, paragraphs 0012-0014, 0016, 0025, 0027-0028. For example, 0027], “to determine a factor for adjusting the initial demographic audience metric, D,, based on the STB audience metric S,, the cutback indicator appender 320 and the cutback audience estimator 325 determine a cutback audience metric from only those portion(s) the weighted national audience data 215 associated with type(s) of STB equipment substantially similar to that associated with the local SIB return path data 115B”; [0028], “The cutback audience estimator 325 of FIG. 3 determines ( e.g., computes) a cutback audience metric from the weighted national audience data 215 for a particular demographic stratification and particular cutback category associated with the local return path data 115B. For example, for a particular demographic stratification, i, the corresponding cutback audience metric, C,, determined by the cutback audience estimator 325 can correspond to an audience population estimate estimating a number of households among the households in the weighted national audience data 215 having the same type of STB equipment or set of STB characteristics as the local return path data 115B”, wherein “the same type of STB equipment or set of STB characteristics as the local return path data” indicates that these households also have RPD-capable devices, therefore are subscribers to the content provider. It is to be noted that the scope of “subscriber households” is interpreted in light of the specification paragraph [0020], “the designation of subscriber household versus nonsubscriber household is based on whether the household includes an RPD device that reports RPD tuning information available to the AME 104. If so, the household is a subscriber household. If not, the household is a nonsubscriber household”); and
determine a final rating for the media in the first geographic area by modifying then initial rating based on the calibration factor and a subscriber calibration factor associated with the second panelist rating (determining a final rating associated with local market audience metrics 105 for the media in the particular local market by modifying the initial rating based on the scaling factor, and also the cutback metrics – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 4, 6, 7b, 8b, paragraphs 0012, 0021-0028, 0033. For example, see Fig. 6, “DETERMINE THE LOCAL MARKET AUDIENCE FOR EACH DEMOGRAPHIC BY COMBINING THE LOCALLY WEIGHTED NATIONAL AUDIENCE, THE CUTBACK AUDIENCE AND THE LOCAL TUNING DATA AUDIENCE”; and also [0029], “for a particular demographic stratification, the local audience factored 135 scales the initial demographic audience metric, D,, by a factor that is a ratio of the STB audience metric, S,, and the cutback audience metric, C, to determine a local market audience metric for this particular demographic stratification, i.”).
Doe discloses with respect to incompleteness, return path data may, for example, exclude sections of the population (e.g., such as excluding non-subscribers to a particular digital service provided the return path data). Doe also discloses examples of leverage the strengths of return path data and sample-based research (e.g., unbiases and complete) to obtain unbiased, detail and continuous estimate of local market audiences using statistical combination of national sample-based audience measurement data, local return path data, and local population and/or demographic data (paragraphs 0014-0015). Thus, it is obvious to one of ordinary in the art that Doe discloses first subset of panel households do not subscribe to the content provider (i.e., non-subscribers),determine a nonsubscriber calibration factor based on the first panelist rating (factor for non-subscriber based on panelist rating), and determine final rating based on nonsubscriber calibration factor (for example, obtained in national sample-based audience measurement data and/or demographic data, factor of non-subscriber that was excluded with respect to incomplete and/or biased of return path data/feedback) in order to obtain unbiased and complete, detail and continuous estimate of local market audience as described in for example, paragraphs 0014-0015. However, Doe does not expressly disclose that the entire first subset of the panelist households used for the first calibration factor do not subscribe to the content provider (hence the calibration factor is a nonsubscriber calibration factor).
BARB discloses a concept for an entire first subset of panelist households used for generating a calibration factor do not subscribe to a content provider (hence the calibration factor is a nonsubscriber calibration factor (See page 21, right column, “How is viewing by platform identified? The set meter is connected to the TV set and all peripheral devices, to identify which device is the source of the content shown on the screen. Every piece of viewing is currently assigned to one of four viewing platforms. Digital Terrestrial: viewing where the source of the content is identified as a TV set or set-top box able to receive DTT Digital Satellite: viewing where the source of the content is identified as a satellite box Digital Cable: viewing where the source of the content is identified as a cable box Other: viewing where the source of the content is a device without a means of broadcast reception (e.g. games console, streaming TV device); or, viewing to content via an internet-connected set top box that is not able to be received via broadcast”, wherein other devices such as games console are non-STB devices and not capable of providing return path data therefore the respective households are considered non-subscribers in light of the specification. See page 11, “We could potentially fuse return path data with the BARB panel”, wherein fusing the platform-specific BARB panel with return path data indicates a calibration factor).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Doe with BARB. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide a platform specific panel data to fuse with the return path data (BARB, page 21 and page 11).
As to claim 8, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Doe in view of BARB discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the first and second panel tuning information associated with the media delivered to the corresponding first and second subsets of the panelist households via media devices for which RPD tuning information is not available (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., BARB, page 21, disclosing that a first panel tuning information reflects non-RPD enabled devices such as games console. For the second panel tuning information, see Doe, e.g., [0014], “return path data may, for example…lack on/off indicators for the media presentation device coupled with the set-top box providing the return path data, lack information pertaining to which persons are in the viewing area and/or lack information regarding media content viewing/consumption on devices in a subscriber's households not associated with the set-top box. In contrast, traditional sample-based audience measurement techniques (e.g., diaries and/or automated people meters) have comparatively higher costs and/or comparatively smaller sample sizes, but are substantially less biased and provide substantially more complete data”, implying that the national measurement data solves these problems including that the subscriber household’s additional devices that are not associated with the set-top box enabled for RPD), wherein the instructions further cause the processor to;
determine the subscriber calibration factor based on the second panelist rating; and determine the final rating for the media in the first geographic area by modifying the initial rating based on the subscriber calibration factor (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Doe, Fig. 6).
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Doe in view of BARB discloses the apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to assign weights to the panelist households in the second geographic area to be demographically representative of a population of the first geographic area (see include, but are not limited to, Doe: figures 1, 3, 4, 6, paragraphs 0012-0013).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Doe in view of BARB discloses the apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the second geographic area corresponds to a region that is larger than the first geographic area and contains the first geographic area (second geographic area such as national is larger than local designated market area – see include, but are not limited to, Doe; figures 1-6, abstract, claims 1-5).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Doe in view of BARB discloses the apparatus as defined in claim 4, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: determine a regional RPD-based rating for the media provided in the second geographic area based on RPD tuning information obtained from RPD devices associated with subscriber households in the second geographic area (determine region/local RPD based rating for media provided in the national area which encompasses local area based on RPD tuning data obtained from the RPD devices such as set top boxes associated with subscriber household in the national area – see include, but are not limited to, Doe: figures 1-6, paragraphs 0014, 0021, 0027); and
determine the nonsubscriber calibration factor based on the regional RPD-based rating (determine the non-subscriber scaling factor based on the local RPD based rating –see include, but are not limited to, Doe: figures 1-6, paragraphs 0014, 0021, 0027; BARB, page 21).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Doe in view of BARB discloses the apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine the final rating based on a nonsubscriber penetration, the nonsubscriber penetration corresponding to a proportion of the subscriber households in the first geographic area relative to all households in the first geographic area (determining the final rating based on nonsubscriber ratio/percentage corresponding to proportion/percentage/ratio of subscriber household in a particular local area relative to all household in the first area which includes subscribers and non-subscribers – see include, but are not limited to, Doe: figures 3, 6-8D, paragraphs 0011-0012, 0014, 0024, 0026-0029).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Doe in view of BARB discloses the apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: determine an adjusted rating for the media in the first geographic area based on a partial coverage of the media in the first geographic area; and determine the final rating based on the adjusted rating (determine an adjusting rating/factor for the media in the first geographic area based on a particular coverage/samples of the media in the first geographic area, and determining the final rating based on the adjusted rating – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 5-6, 8a-8b, paragraphs 0012-0015, 0020, 0022).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 7.
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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, Nasser Goodarzi, can be reached at (571) 272-4195. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights