`“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
`
`