DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AlA 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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments received 04-29-2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 17 have been amended.
Claim 6, 11 has been cancelled.
There are no new claims.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-17 are currently pending.
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(s) 1, 8-10, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20150178999 A1) in view of Bruneel (US 20190378355 A1) and in further view of Spackman (US 8621645 B1) and O'Hare (US 20120198241 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Smith discloses, storing, by each motor vehicle of the vehicle fleet, the predetermined, anonymization parameter set (Smith: [0017-0018]; [0025]), anonymizing the first dataset (Smith: [ABS]) by a vehicle processor of the first motor vehicle (Smith: [ABS]) based on the stored anonymization predetermined parameter set (Smith: [ABS]; [0017-0018]; [0025]) and thereby completely or partially removing or deleting the user related data (Smith: [0012] The privacy enforcement module being to generate filtered data may comprise the privacy enforcement module being to remove at least a portion of the operational data from the filtered data based on the privacy settings. The operational data may comprise data identifying at least one vehicle operator and vehicular operational data recorded during operation of the vehicle by the at least one vehicle operator. The privacy enforcement module being to generate filtered data may comprise the privacy enforcement module being to replace the data identifying the at least one vehicle operator with coded identification data or to alter the data identifying the at least one vehicle operator to render the at least one vehicle operator anonymous based on the privacy settings; [0021] PEM 110 may simply remove personal information as indicated by the privacy settings. For example, PEM 110 may remove one or more of location data, speed data, data about the actions performed by the operator in vehicle 100, etc) while maintaining the data without user relation (Smith: [0012] The privacy enforcement module being to generate filtered data may comprise the privacy enforcement module being to remove at least a portion of the operational data from the filtered data based on the privacy settings. The operational data may comprise data identifying at least one vehicle operator and vehicular operational data recorded during operation of the vehicle by the at least one vehicle operator. The privacy enforcement module being to generate filtered data may comprise the privacy enforcement module being to replace the data identifying the at least one vehicle operator with coded identification data or to alter the data identifying the at least one vehicle operator to render the at least one vehicle operator anonymous based on the privacy settings; [0021] PEM 110 may simply remove personal information as indicated by the privacy settings. For example, PEM 110 may remove one or more of location data, speed data, data about the actions performed by the operator in vehicle 100, etc); encrypting the first dataset by the vehicle processor (Smith: [0019] TEE 108 may encrypt data such as keys, passwords, licenses, etc.); decrypting the first dataset by the server system (Smith: [0019] TEE 108 may encrypt data such as keys, passwords, licenses, etc.).
Smith discloses a backend server and privacy settings. Smith does not explicitly disclose, selecting, by a server system, a predetermined anonymization parameter set sent by the server system, the server system being remote from the motor vehicles; generating a first dataset by a first motor vehicle of the vehicle fleet based on sensor and/or GNSS data, the first dataset comprising user related data as well as data without user relation; determining, by the server system, a degree of anonymization achieved by the anonymizing of the anonymized first dataset; selectively generating an updated anonymization parameter set based on the determined degree of anonymization; transmitting the updated anonymization parameter set to the vehicle processor by the server system; transmitting the updated anonymization parameter set to one or more other motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet; replacing, by the first motor vehicle and the one or more other motor vehicles, the stored anonymization predetermined parameter set with the updated anonymization parameter set; and using, by the first motor vehicle and the one or more other motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet, the updated anonymization parameter set for anonymizing one or more second data sets, until a further updated anonymization parameter set is received.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bruneel discloses, selecting, by a server system, a predetermined anonymization parameter set (Bruneel: [0005] the method is carried out using at least one computer program executing on at least one server located at a remote facility; [0011] determining whether the vehicle sensor data request complies with a data privacy governance rule-set; and denying the vehicle sensor data request when it is determined that the vehicle sensor data request does not comply with a data privacy governance rule-set) sent by the server system (Bruneel: [0035]; [0074]; [0080]), the server system being remote from the motor vehicles (Bruneel: [0035]; [0074]; [0080]); generating a first dataset by a first motor vehicle of the vehicle fleet (Bruneel: [0022-0024]; [0033]; [0066]; [0099]) based on sensor and/or GNSS data (Bruneel: [0037] GNSS receiver 22 may be used to provide navigation and other position-related services to the vehicle operator … wherein the position information is sent to a remote location for purposes of providing the vehicle with navigation maps, map annotations (points of interest, restaurants, etc.), route calculations, and the like), the first dataset comprising user related data (Bruneel: [0041] The vehicle environmental state includes behavior of a driver, operator, or passenger, as well as traffic conditions, roadway conditions and features, and statuses of areas nearby the vehicle) as well as data without user relation (Bruneel: [0041] The vehicle environmental state includes behavior of a driver, operator, or passenger, as well as traffic conditions, roadway conditions and features, and statuses of areas nearby the vehicle); determining, by the server system, a degree of anonymization achieved by the anonymizing of the anonymized first dataset (Bruneel: [0010-0011]; [0083]; [0090]); selectively generating an updated anonymization parameter set (Bruneel: [0016-0018]; [0107]) based on the determined degree of anonymization (Bruneel: [0011-0012]); transmitting the updated anonymization parameter set to the vehicle processor by the server system (Bruneel: [0107]); transmitting the updated anonymization parameter set to one or more other motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet (Bruneel: [ABS]); replacing, by the first motor vehicle and the one or more other motor vehicles, the stored anonymization predetermined parameter set with the updated anonymization parameter set (Bruneel: [0090-0091]; see all of [0090-0094] for implementing modified privacy parameters); and using, by the first motor vehicle and the one or more other motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet, the updated anonymization parameter set for anonymizing one or more second data sets (Bruneel: [0011]; [0090]), until a further updated anonymization parameter set is received (Bruneel: [0011]; [0090]), for the benefit of providing secure vehicular data management with enhanced privacy.
In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (mpep 2144.01). In this case, Bruneel does not explicitly recite the terminology "replacing" a stored parameter. However, Bruneel discloses modified parameters replacing previous settings. Which, implies or suggest replacing previously stored instructions.
Further, Bruneel does not explicitly recite the terminology "using until a further updated parameter set is received". However, the method disclosed by Bruneel discloses a vehicle operating according to received parameters until a modification is received.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Smith to include a data privacy check/confirmation taught by Bruneel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide secure vehicular data management with enhanced privacy.
The examiner submits, Smith, as modified, discloses, selecting, by a server system, a predetermined anonymization parameter set from a group of predetermined anonymization parameter sets based on an application for data collection; determining, by the server system, a degree of anonymization achieved by the anonymizing of the anonymized first dataset (see Bruneel above [0010-0011], [0083-0090]).
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, Spackman discloses, selecting, by a server system, a predetermined anonymization parameter set (Spackman: (Col. 9, Ln. 63-66) Prior to determining whether to send the request generated in step 302 to the vehicle computing apparatus 14, in step 304, the mobile computing device 12(1) identifies privacy information associated with the content included in the request) from a group of predetermined anonymization parameter sets (Spackman: (Col. 9, Ln. 50-51) based on one or more rules) based on an application for data collection (Spackman: (Col. 5, Ln. 15-17) FIGS. 1-2. In step 202, the vehicle computing apparatus 14 receives a request from a mobile computing device 12(1) to output content); determining, by the server system, a degree of anonymization achieved by the anonymizing of the anonymized first dataset (Spackman: (Col. 6, Ln. 43-57) the vehicle computing apparatus 14 determines whether the privacy level exceeds a threshold privacy level indicating at least a portion of the content is private and requires modification or suppression. Based on the privacy information, the vehicle computing apparatus 14 can determine a privacy level associated with the content. In one example, a privacy level is assigned by the vehicle computing apparatus 14 to the request based on the treatment included in the identified privacy information. In this example, each treatment is associated with a privacy level. Accordingly, privacy levels can be used to indicate that content is at least partially private, available or not available to only certain specified individual(s) or categories of individuals, and/or available in a modified form with private information filtered, modified, removed, or anonymized, for example; (Col. 8, Ln. 7-9) network-accessible device can be a remote corporate server accessible by a wireless network connection using the network interface), for the benefit of determining if requested content requires modification or suppression.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Smith to include server determinations taught by Spackman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine if requested content requires modification or suppression.
The examiner respectfully submits Smith discloses encryption and other security measures (see at least [0019]).
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, O’Hare discloses, encrypting the first dataset by the vehicle processor (O’Hare: [0152] systems where the sender and receiver of a message share a single common key that is used to encrypt and decrypt a message); decrypting the first dataset by the server system (O’Hare: [0152] systems where the sender and receiver of a message share a single common key that is used to encrypt and decrypt a message), for the benefit of securing data
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Smith to include inscription keys taught by O’Hare. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to securing data.
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Bruneel also discloses, the predetermined parameter set comprises a delay period and the anonymized first dataset is communicated to the server system delayed in time according to the delay period by means of the vehicle processor (Bruneel: [0089]).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Bruneel also discloses, a group size is determined by the server system based on the anonymized first dataset, which corresponds to a number of motor vehicles, to which the anonymized dataset may be related, and the degree of anonymization is determined depending on the group size (Bruneel: [0094]).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Smith also discloses, a second dataset is generated by the first motor vehicle and the second dataset is anonymized (Smith: [FIG. 4(410)]) by the vehicle processor based on the adapted parameter set.
Smith does not explicitly disclose, the anonymized second dataset is communicated to the server system by the vehicle computing processor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bruneel discloses, (Bruneel: [0099]), for the benefit of providing secure vehicular data management with enhanced privacy.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Smith to include an updated data package taught by Bruneel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide secure vehicular data management with enhanced privacy.
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Bruneel also discloses, a further dataset is generated by each other motor vehicle of the motor vehicle fleet and the respective further dataset is anonymized by the respective further vehicle processor based on the adapted parameter set; and the respective anonymized further dataset is communicated to the server system by the respective further vehicle processor (Bruneel: [0099]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Smith discloses, decrypt the anonymized first dataset (Smith: [0019]); to determine, whether the degree of anonymization is sufficient based on a predefined application for data collection (Smith: [0012]; [0021]); to selectively generate an updated anonymization parameter set for future anonymization (Smith: [0012]; [0021]) based on the degree of anonymization (Smith: [0012]; [0021]) and the predefined application for data collection (Smith: [0012]; [0021]).
Smith does not explicitly disclose, determine a degree of anonymization achieved by anonymization based on the anonymized first dataset; and to selectively communicate the adapted anonymization parameter set to the first motor vehicle and one or more other motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bruneel discloses, determine a degree of anonymization achieved by anonymization based on the anonymized first dataset (Bruneel: [0010]); and to selectively communicate the adapted anonymization parameter set to the first motor vehicle and one or more other motor vehicles of the vehicle fleet (Bruneel: see [0090-0094] for implementing modified privacy parameter and [0107]), for the benefit of providing secure vehicular data management with enhanced privacy.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Smith to include a data privacy check/confirmation taught by Bruneel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide secure vehicular data management with enhanced privacy.
The examiner submits, Smith, as modified, discloses, determining, by the server system, a degree of anonymization achieved by the anonymizing of the anonymized first dataset (see Bruneel above [0010-0011], [0083-0090]).
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, Spackman discloses, determine a degree of anonymization achieved by anonymization based on the anonymized first dataset (Spackman: (Col. 6, Ln. 43-57); (Col. 8, Ln. 7-9)), for the benefit of determining if requested content requires modification or suppression.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Smith to include server determinations taught by Spackman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine if requested content requires modification or suppression.
The examiner respectfully submits Smith discloses encryption and other security measures (see at least [0019]).
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, O’Hare discloses, decrypt the anonymized first dataset (O’Hare: [0152]), for the benefit of securing data
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Smith to include inscription keys taught by O’Hare. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to securing data.
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 13, and further, Smith also discloses, anonymize the first dataset generated by the first motor vehicle based on the predetermined anonymization parameter set to generate the anonymized first dataset (Smith: [ABS]; [0017-0018]; [0025]) and thereby completely or partially remove or delete the user related data while maintaining the data without user relation (Smith: [0012]; [0021]); to encrypt the anonymized first dataset (Smith: [0019]); to communicate the anonymized first dataset to the server system (Smith: [0033]).
Smith does not explicitly disclose, store a predetermined anonymization parameter set, received from the server system; to determine a first dataset based on sensor and/or GNSS data, the first dataset comprising user related data as well as data without user relation; to selectively receive an updated anonymization parameter set from the server system; to selectively replace the stored anonymization predetermined parameter set with the updated anonymization parameter set; and to use the adapted anonymization parameter set for anonymizing at least a second data set, generated by the first motor vehicle, until a further adapted anonymization parameter set is received.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bruneel discloses, store a predetermined anonymization parameter set, received from the server system (Bruneel: [0005]; [0011]); to determine a first dataset based on sensor and/or GNSS data (Bruneel: [0037]), the first dataset comprising user related data as well as data without user relation (Bruneel: [0041]); to selectively receive an updated anonymization parameter set from the server system (Bruneel: [0016-0018]; [0107]); to selectively replace the stored anonymization predetermined parameter set with the updated anonymization parameter set (Bruneel: see all of [0090-0094] for implementing modified privacy parameters); and to use the adapted anonymization parameter set for anonymizing at least a second data set, generated by the first motor vehicle, until a further adapted anonymization parameter set is received (Bruneel: [0011]; [0090]),for the benefit of providing secure vehicular data management with enhanced privacy.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Smith to include a data privacy check/confirmation taught by Bruneel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide secure vehicular data management with enhanced privacy.
As cited above, Bruneel discloses, store a predetermined anonymization parameter set, received from the server system ([0005]; [0011]). However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, Spackman discloses, store a predetermined anonymization parameter set, received from the server system (Spackman: (Col. 9, Ln. 63-66)), for the benefit of determining if requested content requires modification or suppression.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Smith to include server determinations taught by Spackman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine if requested content requires modification or suppression.
The examiner respectfully submits Smith discloses encryption and other security measures (see at least [0019]).
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, O’Hare discloses, encrypt the anonymized first dataset (O’Hare: [0152]), for the benefit of securing data
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Smith to include inscription keys taught by O’Hare. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to securing data.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20150178999 A1) in view of Bruneel (US 20190378355 A1) and in further view of Spackman (US 8621645 B1) and O'Hare (US 20120198241 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Stinner (US 20210258776 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Smith, as modified, discloses filtering and removing data for preservation of privacy (Spackman: (Col. 6, Ln. 43-57), (Col. 8, Ln. 7-9)).
However, alternatively and in the same field of endeavor, Stinner discloses, user related data is communicated to the server system together with the anonymized first dataset by the vehicle processor; and the communicated user related data is deleted by the server system (Stinner: [0024]), for the benefit of providing increased privacy after data communications.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Smith to removal of identifying information after transfer taught by Stinner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased privacy after data communications.
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 2, and further, Stinner also discloses, the user related data comprises one or more of: an IP address of the vehicle processor, and an identifier associated with the vehicle processor (Stinner: [0024]).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 2, and further, Smith also discloses, the user related data (Smith: [ABS]) and the anonymized first dataset (Smith: [0010]) are communicated to a first server processing circuit of the server system by the vehicle processor (Smith: [FIG. 4(412)]).
Smith, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the communicated user related data is deleted by the first server processing circuit (Stinner: [0024]); and the anonymized first dataset is communicated to a second server processing circuit of the server system by the first server processing circuit (Stinner: [0043]), for the benefit of providing increased privacy after data communications.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Smith to include removal of identifying information after a first data transfer taught by Stinner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased privacy after data communications.
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Smith, as modified, remain as applied above to claim 4, and further, Bruneel also discloses, the degree of anonymization is determined by the second server processing circuit; and the adapted parameter set is generated by the second server processing circuit and communicated to the vehicle processor (Bruneel: [0010-0011]; [0089]).
To the examiners best understanding, the limitations of claim 5 are duplicative of limitations of claim 1. The duplication of essential steps/parts is typically considered well within the scope of customary practices for one of ordinary skill, and does not provide or involve an inventive step in the absence of an unanticipated result, resulting in an improvement.
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Smith also discloses, before decryption, a success of deletion of the user related data is examined by the server system (Smith: [0010]); and the decryption is performed depending on a result of the examination (Smith: [0010]; [0016-0017]; [FIG. 2 and 4]).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 13, and further, Stinner also discloses, the at least one server processor comprises a first server processing circuit and a second server processing circuit (Stinner: [0024]; [0043]); the first server processing circuit is configured to obtain user related data from the first motor vehicle together with the anonymized first dataset, to delete the communicated user related data and to communicate the anonymized first dataset to the second server processing circuit (Stinner: [0024]; [0043]).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 3, and further, Smith also discloses, the user related data and the anonymized first dataset are communicated to a first server processing circuit of the server system by the vehicle processor (Smith: [0016]).
Smith, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the communicated user related data is deleted by the first server processing circuit; and the anonymized first dataset is communicated to a second server processing circuit of the server system by the first server processing circuit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stinner discloses, the communicated user related data is deleted by the first server processing circuit; and the anonymized first dataset is communicated to a second server processing circuit of the server system by the first server processing circuit (Stinner: [0024]; [0043]), for the benefit of providing increased privacy after data communications.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Smith to include removal of identifying information after a first data transfer taught by Stinner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased privacy after data communications.
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Smith, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 16, and further, Bruneel also discloses, the degree of anonymization is determined by the second server processing circuit; and the adapted parameter set is generated by the second server processing circuit and communicated to the vehicle processor (Bruneel: [0010-0011]; [0089]).
To the examiners best understanding, the limitations of claims 5 and 17 are duplicative of limitations of claim 1. The duplication of essential steps/parts is typically considered well within the scope of customary practices for one of ordinary skill, and does not provide or involve an inventive step in the absence of an unanticipated result, resulting in an improvement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant submitted an argument under the heading “Remarks”, but didn’t make clear their disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. It is not clear to the examiner how the references applied against the claims fails to disclose that which is claimed, why it would be improper to combine the prior art in an obviousness rejection, how the claims avoid the references, or distinguish from them.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jebara (US 20160292455 A1)
Nakagawa (US 20150304331 A1)
Farmer (US 20030130893 A1)
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 AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights