throbber

`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`15/515,350
`
`03/29/2017
`
`Hiroshi Ogura
`
`WASHB-57360
`
`1269
`
`01/12/2018 —PEARNE&GORDON LLP m
`7590
`52054
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`MOONEY, JAMES K
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 14-3 108
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`2655
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/12/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdocket @ pearne.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 15/515,350 OGURA ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`JAMES MOONEY $2213 2655
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/29/17.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-16is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s)_1-16 is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 3/29/17is/are: a)IZI accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.IXI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180106
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETA TION
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element in a claim for a combination may be
`expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language
`
`creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that
`
`§ 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is
`
`recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform
`
`the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA
`
`§ 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites
`
`function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that
`
`function.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are
`
`presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed
`
`not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`Claim limitations “a sensitivity correction section that performs,
`
`noise removal
`
`section that removes,
`
`a beamformer section that performs,” and “an echo canceller
`
`section” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “section” coupled with functional
`
`language “performs/removes” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the
`
`function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
`
`Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
`
`sixth paragraph, claims 1-16 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure
`
`described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents
`
`thereof.
`
`A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the
`
`corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
`
`No corresponding structure for any of the above “sections” is found
`
`in the specification or the drawings. No structure is defined and there
`
`are is no clear language linking the sections to anything that would
`
`perform specific software functions.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s
`
`interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding
`
`structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the
`
`drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the
`
`claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
`
`sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
`
`Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U. S. C. 112 and for Treatment of
`
`Related Issues in PatentApp/ications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`IN GEN ERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the
`(a)
`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 orjoint 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first
`
`paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an in-vehicle processing
`
`apparatus with a microphone module, does not reasonably provide enablement for “a
`
`sensitivity correction section,
`
`a noise removal section,
`
`a beamformer section,” and
`
`“and echo canceller section.” The specification does not enable any person skilled in the
`
`art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make/use the
`
`invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
`
`As to claim 1, "a sensitivity correction section" is not disclosed in the
`
`specification to any extent besides the broad disclosure in 10027. It is unclear
`
`how the phase is corrected.
`
`As to claim 2, “a noise removal section” is not disclosed in the
`
`specification to any extent besides the broad disclosure in 10028. It is unclear
`
`what processing is done so that the noise is actually removed.
`
`As to claim 3, “a beamformer section” is not disclosed in the specification
`
`to any extent besides the broad disclosure in 10029. It is unclear how the
`
`adaptive beamformer functions.
`
`As to claim 4, “an echo canceller section” is not disclosed in the
`
`specification to any extent besides the broad disclosure in 10030. It is unclear
`
`what processing is performed to separate the echo from the voice.
`
`As to claim 16, it is unclear if “a process of inputting and outputting a
`
`signal between the microphone module and head unit” is different from "a signal
`
`exchanged between the microphone module and the head unit" in claim 14.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`Claims 9-11 are rejected for including similar limitations as claims 1-4
`
`above.
`
`Claims 5-8 and 12-15 are rejected for depending on the above claims.
`
`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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`As to claims 2-5, it is unclear if "a signal processed by..." is the same
`
`signal as "a signal processed by..." in claim 1.
`
`As to claim 1-4, the language used for “a sensitivity correction section,
`
`a
`
`noise removal section,
`
`a beamformer section,” and “and echo canceller section”
`
`is indefinite because the specification does not provide an adequate disclose of
`
`the corresponding structure to perform the functions (see 112a rejection above).
`
`Claims 9-11 are rejected for the same reasons as 1-4 above.
`
`Claims 5-8 and 12-16 are rejected for depending on the above claims.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Raya/a et al. (US 2003/0343571 A1), hereinafter “Raya/a,” in view of
`
`DeLine et al. (US 6,420,975 B1) hereinafter “DeLine.”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`As to claim 1, Raya/a discloses an in-vehicle acoustic processing
`
`apparatus (110002, Fig. 1) comprising:
`
`a microphone module installed in an interior of an vehicle (110002 and 110025, Fig.
`
`1); and
`
`wherein the microphone module includes a plurality of acoustic conversion
`
`devices that convert a received voice signal into an electric signal (110002 and
`
`110025, Fig. 1. Microphones M1-M5 receive speech.), and
`
`a sensitivity correction section that performs, on a signal received from the
`
`acoustic conversion devices, correction of non-uniformity in sensitivity among the
`
`acoustic conversion devices (110021, 110023 and 110049-0053. Gain mismatch of
`
`individual microphones is compensated. Implemented using a DSP.), and
`
`a signal processed by the sensitivity correction section is output (110002 and
`
`110026, Fig. 1. Processed speech output.).
`
`Raya/a does not expressly disclose a head unit disposed at a position
`
`separated from the microphone module in the interior of the vehicle.
`
`Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses a head unit disposed at a position
`
`separated from the microphone module in the interior of the vehicle (DeLine, Col.
`
`49, lines 18-35, Fig. 16. Audio system 16 located in dash area or instrument
`
`panel area, separate from microphone unit.).
`
`Raya/a and DeLine are analogous art because they are from the same
`
`field of endeavor with respect to speech enhancement.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an audio system in the
`
`dash area, as taught by DeLine. The motivation would have been that it is a
`
`standard feature in most automobiles.
`
`As to claim 2, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses a noise removal section
`
`that removes a noise component from the signal processed by the sensitivity
`
`correction section, and a signal processed by the noise removal section is output
`
`to the head unit (Raya/a, 10026-0027 and 110088, Fig. 1. Noise reduction
`
`postfilter 140.).
`
`As to claim 3, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses wherein the microphone
`
`module further includes an adaptive beamformer section that performs, on the
`
`signal processed by the noise removal section, a spatial separation of a sound by
`
`a directivity control, and a signal processed by the adaptive beamformer section
`
`is output to the head unit (Raya/a, 10026-0027 and Fig. 1. Beamformer 130.).
`
`As to claim 4, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses wherein the microphone
`
`module further includes an echo canceller section that performs a signal
`
`processed by the echo canceller section is output to the head unit (Raya/a,
`
`110019 and 110028. Acoustic echo cancelling. Implemented using a DSP).
`
`As to claim 6, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses wherein a connector for
`
`digital transmission output is mounted on a circuit board of the microphone
`
`module (Raya/a, 110027. Implemented with analog or digital hardware. Implicit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`that digital transmission connections could be used. USB connections are well-
`
`known for use with audio systems.).
`
`As to claim 7, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses wherein a line cable for
`
`digital transmission is mounted on a circuit board of the microphone module
`
`(Raya/a, 110027. Implemented with analog or digital hardware. lmplicit that digital
`
`transmission connections could be used. Line cables are well-known for use with
`
`audio systems.).
`
`As to claim 8, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses wherein the microphone
`
`module is mounted in an over-head console or on a ceiling in the interior of the
`
`vehicle (DeLine, Figs. 1-5. Microphone module 10 mounted to ceiling.).
`
`The motivation would have been to better pick up communication from the
`
`driver’s mouth (DeLine, Col. 2 lines 60-62).
`
`As to claim 13, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses wherein a signal
`
`exchanged between the microphone module and the head unit is an analog
`
`signal (Obvious that either an analog or digital signal is exchanged.).
`
`As to claim 14, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses wherein a signal
`
`exchanged between the microphone module and the head unit is a digital signal
`
`(Obvious that either an analog or digital signal is exchanged.).
`
`As to claim 15, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses wherein the signal
`
`exchanged between the microphone module and the head unit is transmitted by
`
`a multiplex transmission scheme (DeLine, Col. 17, lines 48-52. Communicate
`
`multiplex system.).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`The motivation would have been that it is a well-known way to
`
`communicate signals.
`
`Claims 5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Raya/a in view of DeLine, as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Akagi et
`
`al. (EP 1931169 A1), hereinafter “Akagi.”
`
`As to claim 5, Raya/a in view of DeLine does not expressly disclose
`
`wherein the microphone module further includes a full-time learning multichannel
`
`Wiener filter that performs linear or nonlinear computation on the signal
`
`processed by the echo canceller section, and a signal processed by the full-time
`
`learning multichannel Wiener filter is output to the head unit.
`
`Raya/a in view of DeLine as modified by Akagi discloses wherein the
`
`microphone module further includes a full-time learning multichannel Wiener filter
`
`that performs linear or nonlinear computation on the signal processed by the
`
`echo canceller section, and a signal processed by the full-time learning
`
`multichannel Wiener filter is output to the head unit (Akagi, 110057. Wiener post-
`
`filter.).
`
`Raya/a, DeLine and Akagi are analogous art because they are from the
`
`same field of endeavor with respect to microphone arrays.
`
`Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a Wiener filter, as taught by
`
`Akagi. The motivation would have been for further noise reduction.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`As to claim 9, Raya/a in view of DeLine discloses wherein the head unit
`
`includes: a noise removal section that removes a noise component from a signal
`
`received from the microphone module; an adaptive beamformer section that
`
`performs, on a signal processed by the noise removal section, a spatial
`
`separation of a sound by a directivity control; an echo canceller section that
`
`performs a separation of an echo and a voice on a signal processed by the
`
`adaptive beamformer section (Raya/a, 110018-0019 and 110026-0027, Fig. 1.
`
`Microphones, beamformer, noise reduction postfilter, and echo cancellation.
`
`DeLine, Col. 49, lines 18-35, Fig. 16. Signal processing in the microphone unit or
`
`the console would have been obvious to try due to limited possibilities. The audio
`
`is picked up at the mic unit and output at the console.) .
`
`Raya/a in view of DeLine does not expressly disclose a full-time learning
`
`multichannel Wiener filter that performs linear or nonlinear computation on a
`
`signal processed by the echo canceller section.
`
`Raya/a in view of DeLine as modified by Akagi discloses a full-time
`
`learning multichannel Wiener filter that performs linear or nonlinear computation
`
`on a signal processed by the echo canceller section (110057. Wiener post-filter.).
`
`The motivation is the same as claim 5 above.
`
`As to claim 10, it is rejected under claim 2 using the same motivation as
`
`claims 3-5 above. Signal processing in the microphone unit or the console would
`
`have been obvious to try due to limited possibilities. The audio is picked up at the
`
`mic unit and output at the console.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`As to claim 11, it is rejected under claim 3 using the same motivation as
`
`claims 4-5 above. Signal processing in the microphone unit or the console would
`
`have been obvious to try due to limited possibilities. The audio is picked up at the
`
`mic unit and output at the console.
`
`As to claim 12, it is rejected under claim 4 using the same motivation as
`
`claim 5 above. Signal processing in the microphone unit or the console would
`
`have been obvious to try due to limited possibilities. The audio is picked up at the
`
`mic unit and output at the console.
`
`Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raya/a in
`
`view of DeLine, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Domingo Yaguez et
`
`al. (US 2014/0086423 A1) hereinafter “Domingo.”
`
`As to claim 16, Raya/a in view of DeLine does not expressly disclose
`
`wherein, in a process of inputting and outputting a signal between the
`
`microphone module and the head unit, clock synchronization is performed, or,
`
`clock difference is compensated.
`
`Raya/a in view of DeLine as modified by Domingo discloses wherein, in a
`
`process of inputting and outputting a signal between the microphone module and
`
`the head unit, clock synchronization is performed, or, clock difference is
`
`compensated (Domingo, 110036 and 110038).
`
`Raya/a, DeLine and Domingo are analogous art because they are from
`
`the same field of endeavor with respect to microphone systems.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to sync the clocks, as taught by
`
`Domingo The motivation would have been to improve transmission quality.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JAMES MOONEY whose telephone number is
`
`(571 )272—241 2. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
`
`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.
`
`lf attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/515,350
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2655
`
`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—1 000.
`
`/JAMES MOONEY/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2655
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket