DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 13, 15-18, 20, and 29-30 are pending in this application with claim 20 the
only independent claim
Claims 15-18, 20, 29 and 30 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 12, 14, 19, and 22-28 are newly cancelled.
No claims are presented as original claims.
No claims are newly presented.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “position determination unit” and “ a computing unit” in claim 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13, 15-18, 20, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite ascertain. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the implementation is a generic application of an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well known and conventional in the art.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of claim 1 (see MPEP 2106.03):
Step 1: As a method, the claim is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to:
use the database road dataset and a vehicle road dataset generated in the vehicle and to be positionally assigned to said database road dataset as a basis for ascertaining a confidence index that is representative of how high a level of confidence in at least one further database road dataset relating to predefinable positions of the vehicle is; and wherein the confidence index is ascertained by means of a predefined filtering.
These limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. (1) using a database road dataset and a vehicle road dataset generated in the vehicle and to be positionally assigned to said database road dataset and (2) ascertaining a confidence index that is representative of how high a level of confidence in at least one further database road dataset relating to predefinable positions of the vehicle is; and wherein the confidence index is ascertained by means of a predefined filtering can be done in the human mind or with the use of pen and paper
An akin example would be a driver looking at a map and determining if a landmark visually outside of the vehicle is where it is expected to be and assessing the accuracy of the map based on that observation.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The Applicant does recite additional elements which are not mental processes such as (1) a communication interface designed to interchange data with a database arranged externally to the vehicle, (2) - a position determination unit designed to ascertain a vehicle position value that is representative of a current position of the vehicle, and (3) a computing unit disposed within or supported by the vehicle, the computing unit configured to, receive (4) a database road dataset by the communication interface, said database road dataset being provided by the database arranged externally to the vehicle and said database road dataset being representative of the position-dependent road-related property
But a generic computer or phone device could be used for implementation and this does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Applicant has recited a claim in which a vehicle (1 and 3) downloads and uploads data over a communications unit from a (4) database to be correlated by a (2) positioning device. These limitations do not integrate the claim into a practical application beyond a general effort to monopolize the exception of generating representative sample data of observed vehicle travel data.
First, a generic computer or phone device could be used for (1 and 3) downloading and uploading data and (4) to provide a remote database and (2) provide position-dependent road-related property selection capability. Transmission of data can occur over any number of generalized technologies including WiFi, 5G, or 802.11(p) (V2V communication) and therefore, transmission of a command to perform a mental process is not a control step capable of integration into a practical application.
Second, the (1 and 3) downloads and uploads data over a communications unit from a (4) database are claimed generally and do not recite “improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)) and therefore, these elements does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The (1 and 3) downloads and uploads data over a communications unit from a (4) remote database and (2) acquiring positional data are claimed in such a way as to be generally linking to a particular technological environment without integration into a practical application. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to a judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Third, downloading or uploading data from a database is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept . . ..” MPEP § 2106.05(g) (citing: Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).)
Step 2B: The claim does not recite an element or combination of elements that is unconventional or significantly more than its individual elements.
“[A]n ‘inventive concept’ is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. (MPEP § 2106.05 citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, at 72-73)). “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” . (MPEP § 2106.05). The claim recites the additional elements including:
The additional elements of (1 and 3) downloading and uploading data over a communications unit from a (4) database and (2) position determination are recited such that the Applicant is merely adding well understood and conventional in the art on how to apply the judicial exception. A (1 and 3) communications unit configured to allow data communications, a (2) GPS and (4) a database are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. See MPEEP ¶ 2106.05(I)(B). These limitations do not claim, recite or detail behavior beyond general description of these well know behaviors but rather are claimed at an “apply it” level of detail that does not meet the test for “significantly more” (MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into significantly more than abstract idea but rather would monopolize the abstract idea.
Similarly, the additional elements of (1) downloading and uploading data over a communications unit from a (2) database are recited such are claimed generally and present no positive control step sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding the further claims:
Claim 13 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 20 because claim 13 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely refines the abstract idea by claiming testing the confidence level and does not add additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 20 because claim 15 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely refines post solution activity and does not add additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 20 because claim 16 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely refines the abstract idea by claiming a sharpness index and does not add additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 20 because claim 17 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely refines the abstract idea by claiming a method of normalization and does not add additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 20 because claim 18 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely refines the abstract idea by claiming a method of applying the abstract idea in a particular way and does not add additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 29 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 20 because claim 29 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely refines the abstract idea by claiming a particular type of data to be used by the abstract idea and does not add additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 30 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 29 because claim 30 is still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as it merely refines the abstract idea by claiming a particular type of data to be used by the abstract idea and does not add additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims 13, 15-18, 20, and 29-30 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and have been rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 20, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairfield et al. (US 20150254986 A1) in view of Giurgiu et al. (US 20190155827 A1) (combination referenced as “combination Fairfield” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 20, Fairfield teaches a:
vehicle (Fairfield: ¶ 023; A vehicle may be configured to operate in an autonomous mode) comprising - a communication interface designed to interchange data with a database arranged externally to the vehicle (Fairfield: ¶ 024; control system may maintain a persistent, time-ordered database of information by combining information reports from individual vehicles. The vehicles may be autonomously detecting possible issues within the environment and generating reports to send back to the fleet control system.) (Fairfield: ¶ 046; the wireless communication system 146 could be configured to wirelessly communicate with one or more devices directly or via a communication network) - a position determination unit designed to ascertain a vehicle position value that is representative of a current position of the vehicle (Fairfield: ¶ 036; The GPS 122 could include a transceiver operable to provide information regarding the position of the vehicle 100 with respect to the Earth) a computing unit disposed within or supported by the vehicle, (Fairfield: ¶ 095; a computing device)
Fairfield does not explicitly teach: the computing unit configured to, receive a database road dataset by the communication interface, said database road dataset being provided by the database arranged externally to the vehicle and said database road dataset being representative of the position-dependent road-related property, and use the database road dataset and a vehicle road dataset generated in the vehicle and to be positionally assigned to said database road dataset as a basis for ascertaining a confidence index that is representative of how high a level of confidence in at least one further database road dataset relating to predefinable positions of the vehicle is; and wherein the confidence index is ascertained by means of a predefined filtering; however, Giurgiu does teach:
the computing unit configured to, receive a database road dataset by the communication interface, (Giurgiu: ¶ 095; vehicles system 140 and may include a cloud data receiver) said database road dataset being provided by the database arranged externally to the vehicle (Giurgiu: ¶ 005; sending an update to the remote geographic database) and said database road dataset being representative of the position-dependent road-related property, (Giurgiu: ¶ 005; remote geographic database at specified times includes receiving sensor data indicative of a road furniture item) and use the database road dataset and a vehicle road dataset generated in the vehicle and to be positionally assigned to said database road dataset as a basis for ascertaining a confidence index that is representative of how high a level of confidence in at least one further database road dataset relating to predefinable positions of the vehicle is; (Giurgiu: ¶ 007; a method for geographic database updates includes receiving sensor data indicative of a road furniture item, determining a geographic position associated with the road furniture item, identifying a confidence value in a local database, comparing the confidence value to a confidence threshold, and discarding the sensor data indicative of the road furniture item in response to the confidence value exceeding the confidence threshold.) and wherein the confidence index is ascertained by means of a predefined filtering. (Giurgiu: ¶ 044; when one vehicle initially detects a road object, the confidence value is low and the location uncertainty value is high. As more vehicles detect the same road object, the confidence value increases and the location uncertainty value decreases. The position uncertainty value decreases relatively more as the cluster of detections includes points nearer to one another and decreases relatively less as the cluster of detections includes points farther from one another.) (Giurgiu: ¶ 008; controller is configured to compare the geographic position of the road object to the vehicle database and discard the data inactive of the road object in response to the confidence level.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Giurgiu with the teachings of Fairfield because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reduced communication requirements resulting which “reduces costs and improves the speed and overall operation of the system.” (Giurgiu: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Fairfield teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 20. Giurgiu teaches:
wherein the computing unit is further configured to determine whether the confidence index exceeds or falls below predefined confidence level, and as initiating a predefined measure, as a contribution to the safety of the vehicle, responsive to a determination that the confidence index exceeds or falls below predefined confidence level (Giurgiu: ¶ 007; identifying a confidence value in a local database, comparing the confidence value to a confidence threshold, and discarding the sensor data indicative of the road furniture item in response to the confidence value exceeding the confidence threshold.)
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Fairfield teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 20. Giurgiu teaches:
wherein the computing unit is further configured to provide the confidence index to the database arranged externally to the vehicle by means of the communication interface via the communication interface (Giurgiu: ¶ 063; real time data collector 169 receives the update messages from the data collector 145 and forwards the information to the real time data processor 167. The real time data processor 167 writes new road features to the server database 163 and increments confidence levels to the server database 163 for existing road features)
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Fairfield teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 20. Giurgiu teaches:
the database road dataset comprises a data sharpness index, said data sharpness index being representative of how high an error probability of the position-dependent road-related property represented by the database road dataset is, (Giurgiu: ¶ 043; location uncertainty value describes the geographic range for the detections or vehicles that have contributed to the confidence value. The location uncertainty value may be the standard deviation of the positions for the detected road objects divided by the square root of the number of observations.) and - the confidence index is ascertained on the basis of the data sharpness index. (Giurgiu: ¶ 008; controller is configured to compare the geographic position of the road object to the vehicle database and discard the data inactive of the road object in response to the confidence level.)
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Fairfield teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 20. Giurgiu teaches:
wherein the database road dataset comprises a normalization (Giurgiu: ¶ 043) with reference to a predefinable vehicle fleet; (Giurgiu: ¶ 023; Updates may be transferred from the vehicle to the server. In turn, at the predetermined time, the server provides the updates to the fleet of vehicles. A fleet of vehicles may include vehicles dispatched for the purpose of collecting data but may also include connected vehicles of any type that may be connected in a fleet only in that the vehicles are from the same manufacturer, share the same map provider for navigation, or have been assigned to collector sensor data)
Claims 18 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Fairfield as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nakao (EP 1150266 A2) (Fairfield). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination Fairfield teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 20. Giurgiu teaches:
wherein during the ascertainment of the confidence index, (Giurgiu: ¶ 043)
However, Fairfield does not explicitly teach: - a vehicle-individual correction value is provided that is characteristic of at least one of the group consisting of a predefinable vehicle characteristic of the vehicle in comparison with the predefinable vehicle fleet and a predefinable surroundings characteristic of the vehicle in comparison with the predefinable vehicle fleet, and - the confidence index is ascertained on the basis of the vehicle-individual correction value and the normalization; but, Nakao teaches:
- a vehicle-individual correction value is provided that is characteristic of at least one of the group consisting of a predefinable vehicle characteristic of the vehicle in comparison with the predefinable vehicle fleet (Nakao: ¶ 023; By combining the aforesaid numerical information with the positional information, the information on the road surface can be added to the road map information. The data of this road surface information is replaced with new data each time a vehicle passes on the road, and highly reliable road surface information can be obtained by performing a mathematical process such as taking an average or a deviation or by classifying the data depending on the type of the tyre or vehicle.) and a predefinable surroundings characteristic of the vehicle in comparison with the predefinable vehicle fleet, and - the confidence index is ascertained on the basis of the vehicle-individual correction value and the normalization. (Nakao: ¶ 029; Representative values Y1, Y2 of the road surface .Math. of the asphalt X1 and the pressed snow road X2 provided by the three information-offering vehicles A, B and C were calculated by taking an average. These representative values Y1, Y2 were simple averages of the three vehicles, because all the three vehicles were found to be passenger cars by the information ZA, ZB and ZC on the vehicles. These average values are the road surface information to be distributed. The results are shown in Table 1.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fairfield with the teachings of Nakao because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Fairfield and Nakao’s base methods are similar methods to share vehicle observed driving characteristics with a fleet of other vehicles; however, Nakao’s method has been improved by explicitly sharing a road friction co-efficient. Such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because road friction is a frequently-changing characteristic that can significantly alter vehicle dynamics and correct data can lead to better vehicle stability, control, and safety.
Regarding claim 29, as detailed above, combination Fairfield teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 20. Fairfield does not explicitly teach:
wherein the position-dependent road-related property comprises a physical property of a road surface; however, Nakao does teach
wherein the position-dependent road-related property comprises a physical property of a road surface. (Nakao: ¶ 023; a system for collecting and distributing vehicle information and a device for transmitting vehicle information, and a program for controlling a vehicle by which the efficiency of the driving control of a vehicle can be improved on the basis of information on slipperiness such as friction coefficient of the road surface where the vehicle travels.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fairfield with the teachings of Nakao because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Fairfield and Nakao’s base methods are similar methods to share vehicle observed driving characteristics with a fleet of other vehicles; however, Nakao’s method has been improved by explicitly sharing a road friction co-efficient. Such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because road friction is a frequently-changing characteristic that can significantly alter vehicle dynamics and correct data can lead to better vehicle stability, control, and safety.
Regarding claim 30, as detailed above, combination Fairfield as modified by Nakao teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 29. Nakao further teaches:
wherein the physical property is one of the group consisting of: a vehicle-related coefficient of friction, a physical condition of the road surface, and damage to the road surface.(Nakao: ¶ 023; a system for collecting and distributing vehicle information and a device for transmitting vehicle information, and a program for controlling a vehicle by which the efficiency of the driving control of a vehicle can be improved on the basis of information on slipperiness such as friction coefficient of the road surface where the vehicle travels.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is not persuasive because the claims remain a mental process at least (1) due to the lack of a positive control step or (2) the inclusion of an additional element that (a) integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or (b) is significantly or unconventionally more than the mental process alone.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13, 15-18, 20, and 29-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that:
[t]he Proposed Combination does not Use Fairfield's Mathematical Approach In the rejection of claim 14, the Office Action relies on Fairfield as teaching that "the confidence index is ascertained by means of predefined filtering." (Id. at 15). To this end, it appears that the Office Action is referring to the teaching in Fairfield that "the database may be refined based on new information reports using one of a number of different possible algorithms or statistical methods (such as Bayesian inference) to combine observations from multiple cars" used to determine the confidence level. (Id.) However, the proposed combination specifically employs the mathematical methods of Marti, not Fairfield, to determine the confidence level. (See Office Action at p.14, quoted above). Accordingly, the proposed combination would not include the mathematical statistical combination methods taught by Fairfield, or any other filtering taught by Fairfield. The Office Action provides no explanation of how one would "combine Marti's mathematical approach to determining a confidence interval for a database entry with Fairfield's remote database", that somehow involved combining Marti's mathematical approach with Fairfield's mathematical approach. (Applicant’s Arguments filed December 2, 2025, pgs. 8-9).
Newly applied art Giurgiu et al. (US 20190155827 A1) teaches a remote database update method where the number of observations and the size of position errors are combined with a pre-filter to determine a confidence index that must exceed a threshold test before updating the remote road database. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested the mathematical approach to determining a confidence interval for a database entry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure McGavran et al. (US 20200158519 A1) which discloses a local data service provided as part of a vehicle map service system can communicate (send, receive, or process) data or information described in terms of a local map. The local map can be described as a semantic map of some area surrounding the vehicle, describing objects around the vehicle, object attributes, and/or connections between objects. Also made of record if Kluge et al. (US 20140019041 A1) which describes checking of the validity of the database by testing if an expected location exceeds a predefined threshold, and if so, using that as an indication that the database has become outdated. Also made of record is Pazhayampallil (US 20190137287 A1) which describes testing database accuracy by detection of discrepancy which will can selectively pushed to other autonomous vehicles in the field.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663