DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed April 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 and 23 are cancelled as previously indicated.
Claim 30 has been newly added.
Claims 16-22 and 24-30 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 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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 16-19, 22, 24-26, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITANI et al. (hereinafter Kitani) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0304828 A1) in view of Shribman et al. (hereinafter Shribman) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0358875 A1), and further in view of Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0076642 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kitani teaches and discloses an in-vehicle communication system (in vehicle system/network; figures 1 and 2) comprising a plurality of in-vehicle devices (ECUs; figures figure 1 and 2) each being connected to an Ethernet network (network, 10, figures 1 and 2; [0030]; “…main use network 10 is a transmission path for configuring a star type network, and for example, complies with an onboard use Ethernet…”) and a CAN (Controller Area Network) (network, 20/30, figures 1-2; [0031]; “…backup use network 20 is a transmission path for configuring a bus type network, and for example, complies with a CAN or a Controller Area Network-Flexible Data rate (CAN-FD)…”), wherein each of the plurality of in-vehicle devices transmits and receives information to and from another in-vehicle device via the Ethernet network and the CAN ([0028]; [0035]; teaches the plurality of ECUs transmits and receives information/data to and from another ECU via the first network, such as Ethernet, and the second network, such as a CAN bus network; figures 1 and 2).
However, Kitani may not explicitly disclose at least one of the plurality of devices is configured to transmit the same information to the first network and the second network in parallel (although Kitani does suggest a method in which transmission and reception of data are performed by using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance; [0035]).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Shribman teaches and suggests at least one of the plurality of devices (network node; [0184]) is configured to transmit the same information (“…sends simultaneously two copies of a frame…”; [0184]) to the first network and the second network in parallel ([0184]; “…each network node has two Ethernet ports attached to two different local area networks of arbitrary, but similar topology, and the two LANs are completely separated and are assumed to be fail-independent. A source node sends simultaneously two copies of a frame, one over each port…”; teaches a network node transmits simultaneously two copies of the same frame via two different local area networks in parallel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a network node transmits simultaneously two copies of the same frame via two different local area networks in parallel as taught by Shribman with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet network and CAN network and using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance as disclosed by Kitani for the purpose of maintaining reliability of the communication and providing redundancy and flexibility in the network in order to improve an accuracy, reliability, or availability, as suggested by Shribman.
However, Kitani, as modified by Shribman, may not explicitly disclose the information is control information being related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment, and at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to transmit information other than the control information to only one of the Ethernet network and the CAN (although Kitani does suggest that the information allows the control unit to control a vehicle on the basis of autonomous driving data, thus related to vehicle control).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches and suggests the information is control information (control instruction message) being related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment ([0005]; teaches control instruction message transmitted within a vehicle), and at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to transmit information other than the control information to only one of the Ethernet network and the CAN ([0005]; [0036]; [0038]; teaches the information comprises control instructions for control of a vehicle and in-vehicle device and transmitting other information/data, such as timing information, to only a CAN network/bus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information comprises control instructions for control of a vehicle and in-vehicle device and transmitting other information/data, such as timing information, to only a CAN network/bus as taught by Yang with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet network and CAN network and using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance as disclosed by Kitani, as modified by Shribman, for the purpose of resolving conflict of message transmission within a vehicle in order to improve safety of the vehicle operations, as suggested by Yang.
Regarding claim 17, Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, further teaches and suggests wherein when the in-vehicle device has detected an abnormality in the Ethernet network, the in-vehicle device switches a part or an entirety of transmission of information via the Ethernet network to transmission of the information via the CAN ([0035]; [0103]; teaches switching part or all of the transmitting of data from the first network to the second network based on a detection of a failure).
Regarding claim 18, Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, further teaches and suggests wherein when the in-vehicle device has detected an abnormality in the Ethernet network, the in-vehicle device continuously transmits, to the Ethernet network, information, out of the information to be transmitted to the Ethernet network, which is different from the information whose destination has been switched to the CAN ([0035]; [0103]; teaches switching different parts of the transmitting data from the first network to the second network based on a detection of a failure while continuing to transmit other parts of the transmitting data on the first network).
Regarding claim 19, Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, further teaches and suggests wherein the in-vehicle device determines whether or not the Ethernet network has been restored, and upon determining that the Ethernet network has been restored, the in-vehicle device restores transmission of the information whose destination has been switched to the CAN, to transmission of the information via the Ethernet network ([0035]; [0103]; teaches switching different parts of the transmitting data from the first network to the second network based on a detection of a failure while continuing to transmit other parts of the transmitting data on the first network).
Regarding claim 22, Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, further teaches and suggests wherein the in-vehicle device selectively transmits a part of the information to be transmitted to the Ethernet network, to the Ethernet network and the CAN in parallel ([0035]; [0103]; [0129]; teaches transmitting selective parts of the data from the first network and the second network simultaneously).
Regarding claim 24, Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, further teaches and suggests wherein the in-vehicle device transmits information not to be transmitted via the Ethernet network and the CAN, out of the information related to control of the vehicle or in-vehicle equipment, to the other in-vehicle device via a dedicated line (figure 2; [0021]; [0035]; [0103]; teaches switching different parts of the transmitting data from the first network and second network to a dedicated bus).
Regarding claim 25, Kitani teaches and discloses an in-vehicle communication system (in vehicle system/network; figures 1 and 2) comprising a plurality of in-vehicle devices (ECUs; figures figure 1 and 2) each being connected to a first network (network, 10, figures 1 and 2; [0030]) and a second network (network, 20/30, figures 1-2; [0031]), wherein each of the plurality of in-vehicle devices transmits and receives information to and from another in-vehicle device via the first network and the second network, the first network and the second network implementing different communication protocols (the first network, such as Ethernet, and the second network, such as a CAN bus network), and at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is able to transmit information related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment ([0028]; [0035]; [0129]; teaches the plurality of ECUs transmits and receives control information/data to and from another ECU via the first network, such as Ethernet, and the second network, such as a CAN bus network; figures 1 and 2).
However, Kitani may not explicitly disclose at least one of the plurality of devices is configured to transmit the same information to the first network and the second network in parallel (although Kitani does suggest a method in which transmission and reception of data are performed by using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance; [0035]).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Shribman teaches and suggests at least one of the plurality of devices (network node; [0184]) is configured to transmit the same information (“…sends simultaneously two copies of a frame…”; [0184]) to the first network and the second network in parallel ([0184]; “…each network node has two Ethernet ports attached to two different local area networks of arbitrary, but similar topology, and the two LANs are completely separated and are assumed to be fail-independent. A source node sends simultaneously two copies of a frame, one over each port…”; teaches a network node transmits simultaneously two copies of the same frame via two different local area networks in parallel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a network node transmits simultaneously two copies of the same frame via two different local area networks in parallel as taught by Shribman with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet network and CAN network and using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance as disclosed by Kitani for the purpose of maintaining reliability of the communication and providing redundancy and flexibility in the network in order to improve an accuracy, reliability, or availability, as suggested by Shribman.
However, Kitani, as modified by Shribman, may not explicitly disclose the information is control information being related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment, and at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to transmit information other than the control information to only one of the Ethernet network and the CAN (although Kitani does suggest that the information allows the control unit to control a vehicle on the basis of autonomous driving data, thus related to vehicle control).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches and suggests the information is control information (control instruction message) being related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment ([0005]; teaches control instruction message transmitted within a vehicle), and at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to transmit information other than the control information to only one of the Ethernet network and the CAN ([0005]; [0036]; [0038]; teaches the information comprises control instructions for control of a vehicle and in-vehicle device and transmitting other information/data, such as timing information, to only a CAN network/bus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information comprises control instructions for control of a vehicle and in-vehicle device and transmitting other information/data, such as timing information, to only a CAN network/bus as taught by Yang with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet network and CAN network and using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance as disclosed by Kitani, as modified by Shribman, for the purpose of resolving conflict of message transmission within a vehicle in order to improve safety of the vehicle operations, as suggested by Yang.
Regarding claim 26, Kitani teaches and discloses an in-vehicle device (ECUs; figures figure 1 and 2) connected to an Ethernet network (network, 10, figures 1 and 2; [0030]) and a CAN (network, 20/30, figures 1-2; [0031]), comprising: a processing unit (107, figure 2) configured to generate information to be transmitted to another in-vehicle device; a first communication unit (100, figure 2) configured to transmit the information generated by the processing unit to the other in-vehicle device via the Ethernet network; and a second communication unit (101, figure 2) configured to transmit the information generated by the processing unit to the other in-vehicle device via the CAN ([0028]; [0035]; teaches the plurality of ECUs transmits and receives information/data to and from another ECU via the first network, such as Ethernet, and the second network, such as a CAN bus network; figures 1 and 2).
However, Kitani may not explicitly disclose wherein the first communication unit and the second communication unit are configured to transmit the same information in parallel (although Kitani does suggest a method in which transmission and reception of data are performed by using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance; [0035]).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Shribman teaches and suggests wherein the first communication unit and the second communication unit (network node ports; [0184]) are configured to transmit the same information (“…sends simultaneously two copies of a frame…”; [0184]) in parallel ([0184]; “…each network node has two Ethernet ports attached to two different local area networks of arbitrary, but similar topology, and the two LANs are completely separated and are assumed to be fail-independent. A source node sends simultaneously two copies of a frame, one over each port…”; teaches a network node transmits simultaneously two copies of the same frame via two different local area networks in parallel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a network node transmits simultaneously two copies of the same frame via two different local area networks in parallel as taught by Shribman with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet network and CAN network and using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance as disclosed by Kitani for the purpose of maintaining reliability of the communication and providing redundancy and flexibility in the network in order to improve an accuracy, reliability, or availability, as suggested by Shribman.
However, Kitani, as modified by Shribman, may not explicitly disclose the information is control information being related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment, and at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to transmit information other than the control information to only one of the Ethernet network and the CAN (although Kitani does suggest that the information allows the control unit to control a vehicle on the basis of autonomous driving data, thus related to vehicle control).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches and suggests the information is control information (control instruction message) being related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment ([0005]; teaches control instruction message transmitted within a vehicle), and at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to transmit information other than the control information to only one of the Ethernet network and the CAN ([0005]; [0036]; [0038]; teaches the information comprises control instructions for control of a vehicle and in-vehicle device and transmitting other information/data, such as timing information, to only a CAN network/bus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information comprises control instructions for control of a vehicle and in-vehicle device and transmitting other information/data, such as timing information, to only a CAN network/bus as taught by Yang with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet network and CAN network and using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance as disclosed by Kitani, as modified by Shribman, for the purpose of resolving conflict of message transmission within a vehicle in order to improve safety of the vehicle operations, as suggested by Yang.
Regarding claim 28, Kitani teaches and discloses an in-vehicle device connected to a first network (network, 10, figures 1 and 2; [0030]) and a second network (network, 20/30, figures 1-2; [0031]), comprising: a processing unit (107, figure 2) configured to generate information to be transmitted to another in-vehicle device; a first communication unit (100, figure 2) configured to transmit the information generated by the processing unit to the other in-vehicle device via the first network; and a second communication unit (101, figure 2) configured to transmit the information generated by the processing unit to the other in-vehicle device via the second network, wherein the first network and the second network implementing different communication protocols (the first network, such as Ethernet, and the second network, such as a CAN bus network), and information related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment and is generated by the processing unit ([0028]; [0035]; [0129]; teaches the plurality of ECUs transmits and receives control information/data to and from another ECU via the first network, such as Ethernet, and the second network, such as a CAN bus network; figures 1 and 2).
However, Kitani may not explicitly disclose wherein the first communication unit and the second communication unit are configured to transmit the same information, in parallel (although Kitani does suggest a method in which transmission and reception of data are performed by using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance; [0035]).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Shribman teaches and suggests wherein the first communication unit and the second communication unit (network node ports; [0184]) are configured to transmit the same information (“…sends simultaneously two copies of a frame…”; [0184]), in parallel ([0184]; “…each network node has two Ethernet ports attached to two different local area networks of arbitrary, but similar topology, and the two LANs are completely separated and are assumed to be fail-independent. A source node sends simultaneously two copies of a frame, one over each port…”; teaches a network node transmits simultaneously two copies of the same frame via two different local area networks in parallel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a network node transmits simultaneously two copies of the same frame via two different local area networks in parallel as taught by Shribman with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet network and CAN network and using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance as disclosed by Kitani for the purpose of maintaining reliability of the communication and providing redundancy and flexibility in the network in order to improve an accuracy, reliability, or availability, as suggested by Shribman.
However, Kitani, as modified by Shribman, may not explicitly disclose the information is control information being related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment, and at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to transmit information other than the control information to only one of the Ethernet network and the CAN (although Kitani does suggest that the information allows the control unit to control a vehicle on the basis of autonomous driving data, thus related to vehicle control).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches and suggests the information is control information (control instruction message) being related to control of a vehicle or in-vehicle equipment ([0005]; teaches control instruction message transmitted within a vehicle), and at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to transmit information other than the control information to only one of the Ethernet network and the CAN ([0005]; [0036]; [0038]; teaches the information comprises control instructions for control of a vehicle and in-vehicle device and transmitting other information/data, such as timing information, to only a CAN network/bus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information comprises control instructions for control of a vehicle and in-vehicle device and transmitting other information/data, such as timing information, to only a CAN network/bus as taught by Yang with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet network and CAN network and using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance as disclosed by Kitani, as modified by Shribman, for the purpose of resolving conflict of message transmission within a vehicle in order to improve safety of the vehicle operations, as suggested by Yang.
Regarding claim 30, Kitani discloses the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet and CAN network, but may not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to determine whether to-be-transmitted information is the control information, or the information other than the control information.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Yang further teaches and suggests wherein each of the plurality of in-vehicle devices is configured to determine whether to-be-transmitted information is the control information, or the information other than the control information ([0004]; [0069]; teaches a message ID to determine whether the message is control instruction information or other information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a message ID to determine whether the message is control instruction information or other information as taught by Yang with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet network and CAN network and using both of the main use network and the backup use network in advance as disclosed by Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, for the purpose of resolving conflict of message transmission within a vehicle in order to improve safety of the vehicle operations, as suggested by Yang.
Claims 20, 21, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITANI et al. (hereinafter Kitani) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0304828 A1) in view of Shribman et al. (hereinafter Shribman) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0358875 A1) and Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0076642 A1), and further in view of Bartfai-Walcott al. (hereinafter Bartfai) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2019/0313283 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, discloses the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet and CAN network, but may not explicitly disclose when the information received from the Ethernet network overlaps the information received from the CAN, the other in-vehicle device discards one of the information received from the Ethernet network and the information received from the CAN.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Bartfai teaches and suggests when the information received from the Ethernet network overlaps the information received from the CAN, the other in-vehicle device discards one of the information received from the Ethernet network and the information received from the CAN ([0054]; [0055]; teaches discarding redundant packets send from multiple network interfaces simultaneously).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate discarding redundant packets send from multiple network interfaces simultaneously as taught by Bartfai with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet and CAN network as disclosed by Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, for the purpose of reducing overall latency, as suggested by Bartfai.
Regarding claim 21, Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, discloses the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet and CAN network, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the in-vehicle device on a transmission side assigns the same sequence number to the pieces of information to be transmitted to the Ethernet network and the CAN in parallel, and transmits pieces of information, and the in-vehicle device on a reception side detects an overlap of the pieces of information by using the sequence number included in the received information.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Bartfai teaches and suggests wherein the in-vehicle device on a transmission side assigns the same sequence number to the pieces of information to be transmitted to the Ethernet network and the CAN in parallel, and transmits pieces of information, and the in-vehicle device on a reception side detects an overlap of the pieces of information by using the sequence number included in the received information ([0054]; [0055]; [0056]; teaches discarding redundant packets send from multiple network interfaces simultaneously based on the sequence of data packets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate discarding redundant packets send from multiple network interfaces simultaneously as taught by Bartfai with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet and CAN network as disclosed by Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, for the purpose of reducing overall latency, as suggested by Bartfai.
Regarding claim 27, Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, discloses the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet and CAN network, but may not explicitly disclose wherein when the information received by the first communication unit overlaps the information received by the second communication unit, the processing unit discards one of the information received by the first communication unit and the information received by the second communication unit.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Bartfai teaches and suggests wherein when the information received by the first communication unit overlaps the information received by the second communication unit, the processing unit discards one of the information received by the first communication unit and the information received by the second communication unit ([0054]; [0055]; teaches discarding redundant packets send from multiple network interfaces simultaneously).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate discarding redundant packets send from multiple network interfaces simultaneously as taught by Bartfai with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet and CAN network as disclosed by Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, for the purpose of reducing overall latency, as suggested by Bartfai.
Regarding claim 29, Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, discloses the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet and CAN network, but may not explicitly disclose wherein when information is received by the first communication unit overlaps information received by the second communication unit, the processing unit discards one of the information received by the first communication unit and the information received by the second communication unit.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Bartfai teaches and suggests wherein when information is received by the first communication unit overlaps information received by the second communication unit, the processing unit discards one of the information received by the first communication unit and the information received by the second communication unit ([0054]; [0055]; teaches discarding redundant packets send from multiple network interfaces simultaneously).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate discarding redundant packets send from multiple network interfaces simultaneously as taught by Bartfai with the method and system for an in-vehicle system for transmitting data on an Ethernet and CAN network as disclosed by Kitani, as modified by Shribman and Yang, for the purpose of reducing overall latency, as suggested by Bartfai.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-22 and 24-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shribman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0358875 A1) and Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0076642 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights