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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/19/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Amendment
Rejection to claims 1-15 and 19 presented under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in response to amended claims submitted on 05/18/2026.
Terminal Disclaimer
Terminal disclaimer filed on 05/15/2026 has been approved and nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 16-20 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claim 1, applicant stated:
Artes at least fails to disclose or suggest the following feature of pending claim 1:
a) determining whether a position of a robot when the robot is hijacked and a position when the robot is released from being hijacked belong to different rooms; and when the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked belong to different rooms, executing a task within a room including the position when the robot is released from being hijacked
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Artes that robot is prohibited to enter certain rooms during certain hours ([0105], disclosing robot does not autonomously travel to bedroom from 9pm to 9am). And robot executes a task until completion and does not exit a room ([0048], disclosing robot stays within a sub region to carry out a specific task until completion. [0066], disclosing a sub-region corresponds to a room). And robot determines its position through aid of sensors and map data ([0115], disclosing moves about the surrounding area to collect information about it with the aid of its sensors and then compares the data with the existing map data). Therefore, robot utilized map data to determine which room it is in.
Furthermore, a user can carry robot to a room that needs to be cleaned/treated ([0118], disclosing user places robot in virtual exclusion region if user wants the region to be cleaned. Starting from the position at which the user puts down the robot, the robot begins (as described above) a global self-localization. Based on the travelled path recorded while carrying out the global self-localization, the starting position of the robot can be determined and it can thus be established whether the user had started the robot 100 in a virtual exclusion region S).
Furthermore, robot map has multiple rooms designated ([0038], disclosing designation of the rooms (e.g. “room 1”. “room 2”, “corridor”, “kitchen”, “living room”, “bedroom”, etc.) may also form part of the map data).
Therefore, robot determines which room it is in when it is released by a user. When user released it in a virtual exclusion region e.g., bedroom, it is necessarily has to be in a different room prior to user picking it up (because it cannot enter the bedroom autonomously). And when it is released, through localization, it determines it is in a different room. And [0004-0118], disclosing when robot determines it has been released in virtual exclusion region intentionally i.e., a different room, it executes task in the different room. Therefore, limitations argued by applicant are taught by Artes.
With respect to claim 16, applicant stated: Artes at least fails to disclose or suggest the following feature or currently amended claim 16:
a determination is done according to a difference between the position when the robot is released from being hijacked and a position when the robot is hijacked. More specification, the difference between the position when the robot is released from being hijacked and a position when the robot is hijacked comprises at least one of: the position when the robot is hijacked being located in a robot running difficulty area and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked being located outside the robot running difficulty area, and the position when the robot is hijacked being a charging station position and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked being not a charging station position
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Artes teaches a determination is done according to a difference between the position when the robot is released from being hijacked and a position when the robot is hijacked ([0114-0128], disclosing robot may get physically stuck and would require used intervention to liberate itself. [0116], disclosing recognizing, while navigating through the area of robot deployment, risk areas in which the functioning of the robot is endangered or restricted and automatically defining a exclusion region that includes the recognized risk area, as well as storing the exclusion region in the map). the difference between the position when the robot is released from being hijacked and a position when the robot is hijacked comprises at least one of: the position when the robot is hijacked being located in a robot running difficulty area and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked being located outside the robot running difficulty area ([0114-0128], disclosing robot may get physically stuck and would require used intervention to liberate itself. [0116], disclosing recognizing, while navigating through the area of robot deployment, risk areas in which the functioning of the robot is endangered or restricted and automatically defining a exclusion region that includes the recognized risk area, as well as storing the exclusion region in the map), and the position when the robot is hijacked being a charging station position and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked being not a charging station position
As robot of Artes learns areas of difficulty, when it is stuck at position A, it learns that is it a difficulty area. And as robot requires user intervention, it will necessarily determine that there is a difference between the position it is released at and the position it was stuck at. Therefore, Claim 16 is anticipated by Artes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Artes (US 20200150655, disclosed in IDS submitted on 11/27/2024).
For claim 1, Artes teaches: A robot control method (abstract, disclosing a method for controlling a robot), comprising:
determining whether a position of a robot when the robot is hijacked and a position when the robot is released from being hijacked belong to different rooms ([0118], disclosing starting from the position at which the user puts down the robot, the robot begins a global self-localization. Based on the travelled path recorded while carrying out the global self-localization, the starting position of the robot can be determined and it can thus be established whether the user had started the robot 100 in a virtual exclusion region S. Afterwards, the robot can carry out a task in the virtual exclusion region S as specified by the user. As robot itself does not enter virtual exclusion region, when it detects that it has been hijacked from non-exclusion region and placed in exclusion region, it determines that it needs to execute a task in this region. As it cannot autonomously enter the exclusion region, it determines that user has placed it to work in the region. [0105], disclosing exclusion region being a room);
when the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked belong to different rooms, executing a task within a room including the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0004-0118], disclosing when robot determines it has been released in a different room, it executes task in the different room).
For claim 2, Artes teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the task executed in the room including the position when the robot is released from being hijacked is same with a task executed in a room including the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked ([0118], disclosing a cleaning robot hence it performs cleaning task before and after release).
For claim 3, Artes teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the task executed in the room including the position when the robot is released from being hijacked is different with a task executed in a room including the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked ([0028], disclosing robot performs one or more tasks such as, for example, the cleaning or monitoring of the area of robot deployment or the transport of objects within the area of robot deployment. [0030], disclosing robot can charge at base station. Charging its batteries is also executing a task and when it is hijacked from base station and released in exclusion region, a different task i.e., cleaning/vacuuming is performed).
For claim 4, Artes teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the robot is a sweeping robot ([0042], disclosing a sweeping robot), and the executing a task within a room including the position when the robot is released from being hijacked, comprises:
adopting a sweeping mode same with a sweeping mode when the robot being hijacked to execute the task at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0028], disclosing robot performs one or more tasks such as, for example, the cleaning or monitoring of the area of robot deployment or the transport of objects within the area of robot deployment).
For claim 9, Artes teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein, prior to determining whether a position of a robot when the robot is hijacked and a position when the robot is released from being hijacked belong to different rooms, further comprises:
determining the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked ([0036], disclosing robot performs localization. And [0115], disclosing robot loses its position when manually moved. Hence robot’s position is known i.e., determined when it is hijacked); and
determining the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0115], disclosing deployment scenario of an autonomous mobile robot 100 can include it being manually moved, which normally results in the robot losing the information about its own position on the electronic map. After being moved, the robot can once again determine its position by means of global self-localization).
For claim 10, Artes teaches: The method according to claim 9, wherein, the determining the position when the robot is released from being hijacked, comprises:
determining the position when the robot is released from being hijacked based on a relocalization operation ([0115], disclosing . After being moved, the robot can once again determine its position by means of global self-localization).
For claim 11. Artes teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the determining the position when the robot is released from being hijacked based on a relocalization operation, comprises:
moving to a position different from a position when the robot is released from being hijacked;
executing the relocalization operation during the moving process, to determine the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0115], disclosing After being moved, the robot can once again determine its position by means of global self-localization. To do so the robot 100 moves about the surrounding area to collect information about it with the aid of its sensors and then compares the data with the existing map data).
For claim 14, Atres teaches: A robot, comprising: a mechanical body (figure 1 A and [0029], disclosing a mobile robot), wherein the mechanical body is provided with one or more sensors ([0035], disclosing autonomous mobile robot 100 includes a sensor unit 120 that has various sensors), one or more processors and one or more memories for storing computer instructions ([0036], disclosing control unit 150 can be configured to provide all functionalities needed for the autonomous mobile robot 100 to be able to move autonomously through its area of deployment and carry out its tasks. For this purpose, for example, the control unit 150 includes, for example, a processor 155 and a memory 156 for executing a control software); and
the one or more processors for executing the computer instructions for achieving the method according to claim 1 ([0036], disclosing control unit 150 can be configured to provide all functionalities needed for the autonomous mobile robot 100 to be able to move autonomously through its area of deployment and carry out its tasks. For this purpose, for example, the control unit 150 includes, for example, a processor 155 and a memory 156 for executing a control software).
For claim 16, Artes teaches: A robot control method, comprising:
determining, by a robot, a position when the robot is released from being hijacked based on relocalization operation ([0115], disclosing deployment scenario of an autonomous mobile robot 100 can include it being manually moved, which normally results in the robot losing the information about its own position on the electronic map. After being moved, the robot can once again determine its position by means of global self-localization);
determining, by the robot, a task execution area according to environmental information around the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0115], disclosing After being moved, the robot can once again determine its position by means of global self-localization. To do so the robot 100 moves about the surrounding area to collect information about it with the aid of its sensors and then compares the data with the existing map data); and
executing, by the robot, a task within the task execution area ([0114-0128], disclosing robot unintentionally enters virtual exclusion region, is confined in a room by user by closing the door or is entangled in cables and being unable to liberate itself. And requires user intervention. When a user liberates robot from entanglement, it is necessarily released in a different area i.e., away from cables etc. And as robot performs localization when it is released, it necessarily performs the task where released),
wherein,
prior to the determining, by the robot, the task execution area according to the environmental information around the position when the robot is released from being hijacked, the robot control method further comprises:
determining that the robot needs to execute the task at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked according to a difference between the position when the robot is released from being hijacked and a position when the robot is hijacked ([0114-0128], disclosing robot gets entangled or stuck and that prevents it from returning to charging base or continue its task. And requires user intervention. When it is liberated, it necessarily executes the task at the position it is released.).
the difference between the position when the robot is released from being hijacked and a position when the robot is hijacked comprises at least one of: the position when the robot is hijacked being located in a robot running difficulty area and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked being located outside the robot running difficulty area ([0127], disclosing robot requires user’s intervention when it gets stuck),
EXAMINER’s NOTE: Under BRI, strike through limitation is optional.
For claim 17, Artes teaches: The robot control method according to claim 16, wherein the determining, by the robot, the position when the robot is released from being hijacked based on the relocalization operation, comprises:
obtaining the environmental information around a current position when the robot recognizes that the robot is released from being hijacked ([0015], disclosing after being moved, the robot can once again determine its position by means of global self-localization. To do so the robot 100 moves about the surrounding area to collect information about it with the aid of its sensors and then compares the data with the existing map data. [0035], disclosing robot has one or more sensors for gathering information about the environment of the robot such as, e.g. the location of obstacles in the area of robot deployment. Therefore robot obtains environmental information around current position); and
locating a pose of the robot in a stored environmental map according to the environmental information around the current position, and taking a position in the pose as the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0115], disclosing after being moved, the robot can once again determine its position by means of global self-localization. disclosing robot moves about the surrounding area to collect information about it with the aid of its sensors and then compares the data with the existing map data. [0036], disclosing self-localization of the robot on the map is performed through SLAM algorithm, therefore pose of robot is located in the stored map; [0081] disclosing determining the pose of the robot).
For claim 18, Artes teaches: The robot control method according to claim 16, wherein the determining, by the robot, the position when the robot is released from being hijacked based on the relocalization operation, comprises:
moving from the current position to a second position when the robot recognizes that the robot is released from being hijacked, and locating the pose of the robot in the stored environmental map in a moving process ([0115], disclosing after the robot has been moved, for self-localization it moves about the surrounding area to collect information about it with the aid of its sensors and then compares the data with the existing map data. As it moves for self-localization, it moves from current position to a second position); and
determining a position where the robot starts moving as the position when the robot is released from being hijacked, according to a position in the pose and data acquired in the moving process ([0118], disclosing starting from the position at which the user puts down the robot, the robot begins a global self-localization. Based on the travelled path recorded while carrying out the global self-localization, the starting position of the robot can be determined and it can thus be established whether the user had started the robot 100 in a virtual exclusion region S. Afterwards, the robot can carry out a task in the virtual exclusion region S as specified by the user).
l. For claim 19 Artes teaches: The robot control method according to claim 16, wherein the determining that the robot needs to execute the task at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked according to the difference between the position when the robot is released from being hijacked and the position when the robot is hijacked comprises at least one of situations as follows:
when the position when the robot is released from being hijacked and the position when the robot is hijacked belong to different environmental areas, determining that the robot needs to execute the task at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0118], disclosing starting from the position at which the user puts down the robot, the robot begins a global self-localization. Based on the travelled path recorded while carrying out the global self-localization, the starting position of the robot can be determined and it can thus be established whether the user had started the robot 100 in a virtual exclusion region S. Afterwards, the robot can carry out a task in the virtual exclusion region S as specified by the user. As robot itself does not enter virtual exclusion region, when it detects that it has been hijacked from non-exclusion region and placed in exclusion region, it determines that it needs to execute a task in this region. As it cannot autonomously enter the exclusion region, it determines that user has placed it to work in the region);
when the position when the robot is hijacked is located in a robot running difficulty area and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked is located outside the robot running difficulty area, determining that the robot needs to execute the task at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0127], disclosing if robot unintentionally enters a virtual exclusion region S. and none of the possible ways of exiting the exclusion region S described above are given, it stands still (emergency stop) and awaits user intervention in order to avoid any undesired behavior. The same applies to situations in which the robot cannot liberate itself on its own or in which the robot can no longer move. Virtual exclusion region is a robot difficulty area as it is not allowed to autonomously navigate in it. Thus it will not exit the region itself and user will pick it up and place it outside the exclusion region and robot will determine that it has to perform task at present location); and
if the position when the robot is hijacked is a charging station position and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked is not a charging station position, determining that the robot needs to execute the task at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0030], disclosing robot automatically returns to base station to charge its batteries. [0118], disclosing starting from the position at which the user puts down the robot, the robot begins a global self-localization. Based on the travelled path recorded while carrying out the global self-localization, the starting position of the robot can be determined and it can thus be established whether the user had started the robot 100 in a virtual exclusion region S. Afterwards, the robot can carry out a task in the virtual exclusion region S as specified by the user. Therefore user may hijack it from charging station position and put in exclusion region to work).
m. For claim 20, Artes teaches: The robot control method according to claim 16, wherein the robot is a sweeping robot ([0002] robot is a vacuum and/or sweeping robot), and the determining, by the robot, the task execution area according to the environmental information around the position when the robot is released from being hijacked, comprises:
determining, by the sweeping robot, the to-be-swept area according to the environmental information around the position when the sweeping robot is released from being hijacked ([0010-0013], disclosing robot determines if exclusion region is active or inactive and when exclusion region is active, robot does not move into it. [0115], disclosing robot can be manually moved and after being moved it determines position. Robot is hijacked when it is manually moved. And it performs self localization to determine its position and confirms if it is in exclusion region or not. [0118], disclosing starting from the position at which the user puts down the robot, the robot begins a global self-localization. Based on the travelled path recorded while carrying out the global self-localization, the starting position of the robot can be determined and it can thus be established whether the user had started the robot 100 in a virtual exclusion region S. Afterwards, the robot can carry out a task in the virtual exclusion region S as specified by the user.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gutmann (US 20130138247, disclosed in IDS submitted on 11/27/2024).
For claim 13, Gutmann teaches: A robot control method (abstract, disclosing robot rontrol method), comprising:
when a position of a robot when a robot is hijacked and a position when a robot is released from being hijacked belong to same environmental area, returning to the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked ([0316], disclosing a user may pick up an autonomous floor cleaner to resupply the cleaner with cleaning fluid, to change a cloth or wiper, to empty out a receptable, etc. It would be desirable to have the autonomous floor cleaner restart where it had left off (resume) rather than start all over again); and
executing a task within the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked ([0316], disclosing resuming its task at position when it was hijacked).
For claim 15, Gutmann teaches: A robot, comprising: a mechanical body (figure 1 and [0070], disclosing a robot with mechanical body), wherein the mechanical body is provided with one or more sensors ([0073], disclosing mobile body has sensor 170), one or more processors and one or more memories for storing computer instructions ([0085], disclosing mobile device 100 has processor executing software. Software for implementing aspects of what is disclosed would typically be stored in ROM, flash memory, or some other form of persistent storage, although volatile storage may be used as well); and
the one or more processors for executing the computer instructions for achieving the method according to claim 13 ([0085], disclosing processor executing software to control mobile device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artes in view of Santini (US 20160235270).
For claim 5, Artes teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the robot is a sweeping robot ([0042], disclosing a sweeping robot), and the executing a task within a room including the position when the robot is released from being hijacked, comprises:
Artes does not explicitly teach: adopting a sweeping mode different from a sweeping mode when the robot being hijacked to execute the task at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked.
Santini teaches adopting a sweeping mode different from a sweeping mode when the robot being hijacked to execute the task at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked ([0033], disclosing w hen the floor cleaning robot detects a change from a hard floor surface to a soft floor surface, it automatically increases its vacuum suction to maintain consistent cleaning effectiveness. In the opposite case—a detected change from a soft floor surface to a hard floor surface—the floor cleaning robot may automatically decrease its vacuum suction to optimize mission duration and improving user experience on sound reflective surfaces. By selectively increasing/decreasing vacuum power, the robot can extend battery life and therefore perform longer cleaning missions. Changing vacuum suction is adopting a different sweeping mode)
Santini and Artes are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., autonomous robots. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Artes to adopting a sweeping mode different from a sweeping mode when the robot being hijacked to execute the task at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked as taught by Santini to optimize mission duration and improve user experience.
Claims 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artes in view of Gutmann.
For claim 6, Artes teaches: The method according to claim 1,
Although resuming task after robot is released from being hijacked is necessary for any autonomous cleaner/vacuum, Artes does not explicitly disclose: wherein when the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked belong to same room, executing a task within a room including the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked.
Gutmann teaches: when the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked belong to same room, executing a task within a room including the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked (abstract, disclosing robot resumed operation after it has been kidnapped of paused. Embodiments of the invention can comprise commercial low-cost products including robots for the autonomous cleaning of floors. [0258], disclosing for a cleaning robot it is desirable for the user to have an option for pausing and resuming the robot, e.g. for emptying the dust bin or changing the cleaning pad. Once resumed, the robot should quickly find its position in the area already explored and continue with its navigation. [0316], disclosing a user may pick up an autonomous floor cleaner to resupply the cleaner with cleaning fluid, to change a cloth or wiper, to empty out a receptable, etc. It would be desirable to have the autonomous floor cleaner restart where it had left off (resume) rather than start all over again)
Gutmann and Artes are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., autonomous cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing data of claimed invention to modify art of Artes to when the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked and the position when the robot is released from being hijacked belong to same room, executing a task within a room including the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked as taught by Gutmann to allow robot to restart where it left off rather that start all over again.
For claim 7, modified Artes teaches: The method according claim 6, wherein the executing a task within a room including the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked, comprises:
returning to the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked; and continuing a task not completed before the robot being hijacked at the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked (modification through Gutmann teaches returning to position when the robot is hijacked and continuing task not completed. See claim 6 for modification).
For claim 8, modified Artes teaches: The method according claim 6, wherein the executing a task within a room including the position of the robot when the robot is hijacked, comprises:
continuing a task not completed before the robot being hijacked at the position when the robot is released from being hijacked (modification through Gutmann teaches robot resumes its operation when user releases it. Resuming the task after robot is released is continuing a task not completed before the robot being hijacked at the position when the robot is released).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner interprets the claim as “robot is released at position A, it moves away from A to determine its pose in stored environmental map, it acquires the path it has moved. And it returns to position A after the pose has been determined”.
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 ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights