DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicant’s Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 3/27/26. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-15, 18-20 are amended; claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the entertainment system is enabled to temporarily control of the at least one vehicle subsystem” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required, such as deleting “of”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geylik (US Pub. No. 2013/0274024).
With respect to claims 1 and 20, Geylik teaches an entertainment system for and external to an on-road passenger vehicle, the on-road passenger vehicle 10 including a user-drivable automobile (paragraph [0028]); and an in-vehicle control system 14 configured to operate at least one vehicle subsystem while the vehicle 10 is being driven, the entertainment system comprising: a display 100 external to the on-road passenger vehicle 10 and viewable by an occupant of the on-road passenger vehicle (paragraph [0017]); a communication module (i.e. part of “user interface 20”) configured to receive occupant preferences from the occupant and a processing element configured to generate or modify content comprising an interactive simulation to be presented on the display based on the occupant preferences (paragraph [0023] – “user … makes a selection of the desired presentation”; See also paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0036], [0038]), wherein the in-vehicle control system 14 of the on-road passenger vehicle 10 is configured to temporarily integrate with the entertainment system to become part of the interactive simulation while the on-road passenger vehicle is stopped and not being driven, and such that the entertainment system is enabled to temporarily control of the at least one vehicle subsystem (paragraphs [0029]-[0037]). Per MPEP 2114 - a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the entertainment system is enabled to temporarily control the output of the vehicle sound system 14 such that the entertainment system audio is played over the vehicles internal speaker system due to the broadcasting of the audio being transmitted via the control room 72 of the entertainment system (paragraph [0030])
Regarding the claimed VIN of the automobile, examiner notes Geylik teaches wherein its entertainment system is configured for passengers traveling on automobiles positioned “on major highways or Interstates” (See Abstract; paragraphs [0004], [0018]). Notably, Geylik teaches wherein the system is designed for “average 4-door vehicle that is legally permitted to operate on the roadways” (paragraph [0028]). And as applicant notes in Remarks (3/27/26) in Section II, a VIN is “standardized … under strict regulations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. As such, Geylik is considered to teach wherein the on-road passenger vehicle has a vehicle identification number. See also MPEP 2144.01, "[I]n 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." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Supplemental to this, the claim recitation of each on road passenger vehicle including a VIN is intended use, or functional language. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber. Here, Geylik teaches wherein its system is intended for cars driving on “major highways or Interstates”. Thus, the automobile(s) used in the system of Geylik are considered capable of having a VIN.
With respect to claim 3, Geylik teaches wherein the display 100 surrounds the on-road passenger vehicle 10 (paragraphs [0017], [0026]).
With respect to claim 5, Geylik teaches a sense effect system configured to provide at least one of a smell effect, a sound effect, a heat effect, a cold effect, or a wind effect (paragraph [0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
6. Claims 2, 4, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geylik (US Pub. No. 2013/0274024) in view of Boyle (US Pub. No. 2016/0045833).
With respect to claim 2, Geylik teaches a structure 40 configured to receive the on-road passenger vehicle 10 prior to temporary integration with the in-vehicle control system 14 (paragraph [0018]); wherein the display 100 is coupled to the structure 40 and is configured to present the content to the occupant (Fig. 4). Boyle does not expressly teach a charging device configured to charge the on-road passenger vehicle while the on- road passenger vehicle is stopped and not being driven. However, analogous art reference Boyle teaches that it is known to provide a charging device (paragraph [0037]). At time of applicant’s effective filing date, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the charging device of Geylik to the system of Geylik. The rationale to combine is to attract ubiquitous electrical vehicles to the entertainment system by offering charging while the riders enjoy the entertainment. Since Geylik’s system operates while the vehicle is stopped, the combination would thus teach wherein the charging device is configured to charge the on-road passenger vehicle while it is stopped, and wherein display is coupled to the structure 40 and is configured to present the content to the occupant as the charging device charges the on-road passenger vehicle. See also MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber.
With respect to claim 4, Geylik teaches wherein the communication module communicates wirelessly with system microcontroller 71 (paragraph [0038]) and wherein the communication module is part of a user interface that a rider of the vehicle manually interacts with (paragraph [0033]), and thus fails to expressly teach wherein the communication module receives data via a vehicle cable or wireless communication. However, analogous art reference Boyle teaches such a feature to be known in the art - wherein a communication module (52) receives data via a vehicle cable or wireless communication [0038]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the communication module of Geylik such that it receives data via a vehicle cable or wireless communication as taught by Boyle. The rationale to combine is to enable the communication module to receive updated data from the vehicle using a known communication method.
With respect to claim 6, Geylik does not expressly teach an animatronic device configured to present a portion of the content. However, analogous art reference Boyle teaches this feature to be known in the art - Fig. 6B of Boyle shows an animatronic device (148) configured to present a portion of content such as ripping of the roof of the structure. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to obvious to modify the content provided by Geylik with the animatronic features of Boyle. The rationale to combine is to provide an entertaining show element to the passengers of the cars. Examiner notes the animatronic feature can be used as a supplemental content feature to the display of Geylik, or, as a substitute.
With respect to claims 8-10, Geylik does not expressly teach a base configured to support the on-road passenger vehicle and to provide at least one of a tilt effect, an acceleration effect, a deceleration effect, or a haptic effect to the on- road passenger vehicle while the on-road passenger vehicle is stopped and not being driven; an auxiliary autonomous vehicle, external to the on-road passenger vehicle, configured to present a portion of the content, wherein the auxiliary autonomous vehicle comprises at least one of an autonomous aerial vehicle, an autonomous ground-based vehicle, or a robot. However, analogous art reference teaches the following to be known in the art: a base (44) configured to support a vehicle and to provide at least one of a tilt effector up to six degrees of freedom motion [0036] and [0061], and an auxiliary autonomous vehicle, external to an on-road passenger vehicle, configured to present a portion of the content, wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises a robot [0028]. Per MPEP 2111, the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard: The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In the instant case, at paragraph [0012] of applicant’s specification, the scope of an auxiliary autonomous vehicle includes a robot, which is distinguishable from an aerial vehicle or ground-based vehicle. As such, a broad view of “vehicle” is given to the claim, including a structure that carries or conveys or transports. See also dictionary.com definition for “vehicle”. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate these features of Boyle into the entertainment system of Geylik. The rationale to combine is provide sensory inducement effect to the passengers and provide known entertainment show elements for purposes adding entertainment value to the system. Examiner notes these features can be used as supplemental content features to the display of Geylik, or, as a substitute. Since Geylik’s system operates while the vehicle is stopped, the combination would thus teach a base configured to support the on-road passenger vehicle and to provide at least one of a tilt effect, an acceleration effect, a deceleration effect, or a haptic effect to the on- road passenger vehicle while the on-road passenger vehicle is stopped and not being driven.
7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geylik (US Pub. No. 2013/0274024) in view of Boyle (US Pub. No. 2016/0045833) and further view of Kwak et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0031248).
With respect to claim 7, it is noted that Geylik as modified by Boyle fails to teach wherein the animatronic device is configured to electrically couple the charging device to the vehicle. However, Kwak et al discloses it is Known in the art provide a charging station with a robot (100a) that is configured to electrically couple the charging device (7) to a vehicle (2) as shown in Fig. 10 and [0148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the robot/animatronic device (148) of Geylik as modified by Boyle to be configured to electrically coupled the charging device as discussed in claim 2 above to the vehicle for the advantage of reducing labor/operating cost and improving efficiency of the entertainment. As Geylik teaches wherein the content is displayed to the passengers when the vehicle is stopped, the combination of the applied art is considered to teach: wherein the animatronic device is configured to electrically couple a charging device to the on-road passenger vehicle while the on-road passenger vehicle is stopped and not being driven.
8. Claims 11-13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geylik (US Pub. No. 2013/0274024) in view of Kalama et al. (US Pat. No. 10,561,954).
With respect to claims 11-12, Geylik does not expressly teach a communication system as claimed. However, analogous art reference Kalama et al. teaches the following to be known in the art: at step 402, communication system 130 in electrical communication with control system 102 of vehicle 108 that is configured to transmit a signal that the vehicle 108 has been properly arrived, based on this, the system moves to step 404, wherein the processor 102 initiates content delivery (column 9, lines 28-67; column 10, lines 1-30), wherein the communication system is configured to activate a portion of the control system 102 in synchronization with the content (column 10, lines 44-63). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the aforementioned features to the entertainment system of Geylik. The rationale to combine is to provide automation to the entertainment system and automatically provide content to the passengers when the car is stopped and they are fully within the entertainment system. Notably, some passengers have trouble making a decision and the automated system of Kalama et al. could serve as the initial content creation until the user decides on the content they desire. Since Geylik’s system operates while the vehicle is stopped, the combination would thus teach a communication system in electrical communication with the in-vehicle control system of the on-road passenger vehicle, wherein: the communication system is configured to transmit a signal to the on-road passenger vehicle, and based on the signal, the in-vehicle control system is configured to present a portion of the content while temporarily integrated with the entertainment system, wherein the communication system is configured to activate a portion of the in-vehicle control system in synchronization with the content while the in-vehicle control system is temporarily integrated with the entertainment system.
With respect to claims 13 and 15-16, it is noted that Keylik fails to specifically disclose the control system is configured to receive an input from the occupant, the input causes a change in the content, the content is configurable by an occupant device (claim 13), wherein the content is configurable by an occupant device (claim 15); wherein the content comprises a game or a puzzle (claim 16). However, analogous art reference Kalama teaches the following to be known in the art: a control system is configured to receive an input from the occupant (using user input controls 110), the input causes a change in the content, wherein the content is configurable by an occupant device (column 10, lines 31-63; See also column 6, lines 48-63 teaching the user configurable input controls within the vehicle); wherein the content comprises a game or a puzzle (here, completing a mission with tasks/objectives is reasonably construed as a game; See also “game engine 104” component that generates the progression of the content – column 5, lines 14-26). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add an interactive content element to the entertainment system of Keylik. The rationale to combine is to increase the entertainment value of the system, and provide passengers unique customizable experiences each ride. This will expectantly increase participation with the system. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Kalama teaches wherein the user inputs can occur via passenger devices such as smart phones tablets or the like that are connected to the control system 102 (column 10, lines 31-43). Since Geylik’s system operates while the vehicle is stopped, the combination would thus teach wherein the in-vehicle control system is configured to receive an input from the occupant, wherein the input causes a change in the content while the in-vehicle control system is temporarily integrated with the entertainment system.
With Respect to claim 19, Geylik teaches a method of providing content to an on-road passenger vehicle 10 via an entertainment system, the on-road passenger vehicle including a user-drivable automobile and an in-vehicle control system 14 configured to operate at least one vehicle subsystem while the vehicle is being driven, the method comprising: displaying, via one or more processing elements 71, content comprising an interactive simulation on a display 100 external to the on-road passenger vehicle 10 and viewable by an occupant of the on-road passenger vehicle 10 (paragraph [0029]); temporarily integrating, via the one or more processing elements 14, the in-vehicle control system of the on-road passenger vehicle with the entertainment system such that the on-road passenger vehicle 10 becomes part of the interactive simulation while the on-road passenger vehicle is stopped and not being driven, and such that the entertainment system is enabled to temporarily control of the at least one vehicle subsystem (paragraph [0030] - the entertainment system is enabled to temporarily control the output of the vehicle sound system 14 such that the entertainment system audio is played over the vehicles internal speaker system due to the broadcasting of the audio being transmitted via the control room 72 of the entertainment system); receiving, via the one or more processing elements 71, occupant preferences from the occupant (paragraphs [0023], [0033]);
Geylik further teaches displaying the content based on the occupant preferences, but fails to expressly teach modifying the content based on the occupant preferences; and displaying the modified content. However, such a feature is taught by analogous art reference Kalama et al. – column 10. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add an interactive content element to the entertainment system of Keylik. The rationale to combine is to increase the entertainment value of the system, and provide passengers unique customizable experiences each ride. This will expectantly increase participation with the system. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Kalama teaches wherein the user inputs can occur via passenger devices such as smart phones tablets or the like that are connected to the control system 102 (column 10, lines 31-43). Moreover, in the event applicant argues the content displayed on display 100 is not interactive, examiner notes Kalama et al. expressly teaches such a feature – column 4, lines 45-49. The rataionale to combine is the same as stated above in this rejection of claim 19.
Lastly, and regarding the limitation of the claimed VIN of the automobile, examiner notes Geylik teaches wherein its entertainment system is configured for passengers traveling on automobiles positioned “on major highways or Interstates” (See Abstract; paragraphs [0004], [0018]). Notably, Geylik teaches wherein the system is designed for “average 4-door vehicle that is legally permitted to operate on the roadways” (paragraph [0028]). And as applicant notes in Remarks (3/27/26) in Section II, a VIN is “standardized … under strict regulations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. As such, Geylik is considered to teach wherein the on-road passenger vehicle has a vehicle identification number. See also MPEP 2144.01, "[I]n 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." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Supplemental to this, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of the vehicle having a VIN is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
9. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geylik (US Pub. No. 2013/0274024) in view of Kalama et al. (US Pat. No. 10,561,954) and further in view of ADMITTED PRIOR ART.
With respect to claim 14, Geylik as modified by Kalama et al, cited above for the electrical communication between the communication system and the in-vehicle control system, fails to expressly teach an OBD-II as claimed. However, it is ADMITTED PRIOR ART that an OBD-II diagnostic device is well known in the art. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See MPEP 2144.03. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an OBD-II device within the entertainment system of Geylik as modified by Kalama et al. The rationale to combine is to provide self-diagnostics and reporting capability to the system for various parameters of the system.
10. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geylik (US Pub. No. 2013/0274024) in view of Boyle (US Pub. No. 2016/0045833) and further in view of Krauthamer et al (US Pat. No. 10,668,391).
With respect to claim 17, Geylik teaches a system comprising two or more entertainment systems (paragraph [0019]), but fails to expressly teach wherein the content comprises a game configured to enable occupants of respective on-road passenger vehicles received in respective structures of the two or more entertainment systems to participate in the game together. However, Krauthamer et al discloses wherein ride content comprises a game configured to enable occupants of respective vehicle received in the two or more vehicles (14) to participate together (col. 10, lines 44-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control system of Geylik with the teachings as discussed above of Krauthamer et al for the advantage of providing an interactive play environment with a team element. Similar to team gaming, the experience of working with other passengers/players is a known desirable feature of amusement gaming systems.
11. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geylik (US Pub. No. 2013/0274024) in view of Kalama et al. (US Pat. No. 10,561,954) and further in view of Ludwig et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0204057).
With respect to claim 18, Geylik teaches an entertainment system external to and for an on-road passenger vehicle 10, the on-road passenger vehicle including a user-drivable automobile 10 and an in-vehicle control system 14 configured to cooperate at least one vehicle subsystem while the vehicle 10 is being driven, the entertainment system comprising: one or more processing elements 71; one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media, the media encoded with instructions that when executed cause the one or more processing elements 71 to perform operations comprising: displaying content comprising an interactive simulation on a display 100 external to the on-road passenger vehicle 10 and viewable by an occupant of the on- road passenger vehicle 10 (paragraphs [0017], [0029], [0038]-[0042]); receiving occupant preferences from the occupant (paragraphs [0023], [0033]).
Geylik further teaches displaying the content based on the occupant preferences, but fails to expressly teach modifying the content based on the occupant preferences; and displaying the modified content. However, such a feature is taught by analogous art reference Kalama et al. – column 10. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add an interactive content element to the entertainment system of Keylik. The rationale to combine is to increase the entertainment value of the system, and provide passengers unique customizable experiences each ride. This will expectantly increase participation with the system. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Kalama teaches wherein the user inputs can occur via passenger devices such as smart phones tablets or the like that are connected to the control system 102 (column 10, lines 31-43).
Geylik further teaches temporarily integrating the in-vehicle control system 14 of the on-road passenger vehicle 10 with the entertainment system such that the on-road passenger vehicle 10 becomes part of the interactive simulation while the on-road passenger vehicle is stopped and not being driven, and such that the entertainment system is enabled to temporarily control of the at least one vehicle subsystem (paragraph [0030] - the entertainment system is enabled to temporarily control the output of the vehicle sound system 14 such that the entertainment system audio is played over the vehicles internal speaker system due to the broadcasting of the audio being transmitted via the control room 72 of the entertainment system). Admittedly, Geylik teaches this feature in analog form, as opposed to being a feature of the entertainment digital system. However, analogous art reference Ludwig et al. teaches that it is known to provide a vehicle audio system as part of in-vehicle control system (i.e. infotainment system 509) digitally coupled and controlled by an external device 550 (paragraphs [0059]-[0065]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Ludwig with Geylik. The rationale to combine is to provide a digital connection to control the audio output via the entertainment system.
Lastly, and regarding the limitation of the claimed VIN of the automobile, examiner notes Geylik teaches wherein its entertainment system is configured for passengers traveling on automobiles positioned “on major highways or Interstates” (See Abstract; paragraphs [0004], [0018]). Notably, Geylik teaches wherein the system is designed for “average 4-door vehicle that is legally permitted to operate on the roadways” (paragraph [0028]). And as applicant notes in Remarks (3/27/26) in Section II, a VIN is “standardized … under strict regulations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. As such, Geylik is considered to teach wherein the on-road passenger vehicle has a vehicle identification number. See also MPEP 2144.01, "[I]n 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." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Supplemental to this, the claim recitation of each on road passenger vehicle including a VIN is intended use, or functional language. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber. Here, Geylik teaches wherein its system is intended for cars driving on “major highways or Interstates”. Thus, the automobile(s) used in the system of Geylik are considered capable of having a VIN.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
Conclusion
13. 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 MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. 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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights