Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 11/07/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 18 are amended and claims 7, 8, and 13 are cancelled. Thus, claims 1-6, 9-12, and 14-20 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 1 and 18 have overcome the previous claim rejections. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-6, 9-12, and 14-20 are withdrawn. However, in view of the amendments, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites “the apparatus of claim 8,” however, claim 8 has been cancelled. This is being interpreted as --the apparatus of claim 1-- for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1) in view of Wong (US 20090269075 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Rosenzweig discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1A, lidar system 100; Fig. 10A, LIDAR 1000; [0195] “LIDAR system 1000 of FIG. 10A may be LIDAR system 100 of FIG. 1A”), comprising:
a lidar transmitter including a laser source to generate an optical probe beam and a movable mirror to scan the optical probe beam across a FOV (Fig. 1A, projecting unit 102 having light source 112 with scanning unit 104 with deflector 114; [0196] and Fig. 10A, projecting unit 1002, deflector 1006 which is a scanning mirror like a MEMS),
an optical monitor configured to generate a stream of measurements of a scan rate of the optical probe beam by optically sensing motion of the movable mirror (Fig. 10A, deflector position sensor 1008a and 1008b; [0198] a processor determines, based on the signals from sensors 1008a and 1008b, whether the scanning pattern is being scanned in the expected frequency), the optical monitor including:
a plurality of photodiodes, each photodiode of the plurality of photodiodes being configured to generate a respective electrical pulse in response to the movable mirror causing light of the optical probe beam to be received by the photodiode (Fig. 10A, sensors 1008a and 1008b receive optical signals and determines an operational status of the deflector 1006 based on these signals; [0052] the sensors in this disclosure can be photodiodes like APD or SPADs which generate electrical signals from detected optical signals); and
an electrical circuit connected to the plurality of photodiodes to generate an electrical pulse sequence by combining the respective electrical pulses generated by different ones of the photodiodes ([0198] a processor determines, based on the signals from sensors 1008a and 1008b, whether the scanning pattern is being scanned in the expected frequency); and an electric controller configured to:
determine the scan rate of the optical probe beam based on the electrical pulse sequence (Fig. 10B, steps 1015 and 1017 and 1019, where data from the sensors 1008a and 1008b is analyzed to determine the scanning pattern and compared to the expected scan pattern; [0200] the method of Fig. 10B can be implemented by the processor); and cause the lidar transmitter to dynamically change optical power of the optical probe beam in response to the stream of measurements carrying the determined scan rate ([0213] and Fig. 10B, at step 1021, after data indicative of the scanning pattern has been received from the deflection sensors 1008a and 1008b, and the scanning pattern has been analyzed, the lighting emission scheme can be modified. It can be modified to decrease emission levels, stop light emission entirely, or change the number/timing of pulses in the scan scheme).
However, Rosenzweig does not expressly teach that the plurality of photodiodes are mounted on a printed circuit board having an opening through which the optical probe beam is directed towards the FOV. In Rosenzweig’s Fig. 10A, the deflection sensors 1008a and 1008b taught by Rosenzweig border the window 1004 through which the transmitted beam is directed to the FOV, but Rosenzweig does not expressly disclose how these sensors are kept in this configuration.
Wong teaches an electro-optical assembly where photodiodes [are] mounted on a printed circuit board having an opening ([0019] and Fig. 1, PCB 1 has a photodetector 40 on the PCB with other electrical circuitry like receiver electronics circuitry 35 and receiver IC 40. The PCB 1 also has an opening 55C, which is a hole in the center of the PCB 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of photodiodes for measuring the deflector position, as taught by Rosenzweig, by attaching them to a PCB having a hole in it, as taught by Wong. Wong teaches that it is possible to mount photodiodes on a PCB having an opening in it, which also contains electrical circuitry. This teaching, which illustrates that PCBs can be effectively used in a system for optical detection, even when there is an opening in it. A person of ordinary skill in lidar technologies would readily be able to use this teaching and apply it to the lidar apparatus disclosed by Rosenzweig, such that the sensors disclosed by Rosenzweig are held in their respective positions, since this would be using the known technique of mounting photodiodes on a PCB to secure the photodiodes in place. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
Regarding Claim 9: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Rosenzweig further discloses a light source configured to shine light onto the movable mirror ([0202] and Fig. 10B, at step 1011 the processor controls the light emission of the at least one light source, for example, light sources 112; Fig. 2C and [0070], secondary light source 112B is also incident on the same scanning mirror. Secondary light source 112B is used for calibration and providing operational confidence for the user of the LIDAR device [0233] any combination of the disclosed embodiments can be combined to form a single LIDAR system).
Regarding Claim 10: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the apparatus of claim 9. Rosenzweig further discloses wherein the light source is less powerful than the laser source ([0071] and Fig. 2C, 112A is the primary laser source and 112B is the secondary source. “Secondary light source 112B may be associated with a smaller power compared to primary light source 112A”).
Regarding Claim 11: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the apparatus of claim 9. Rosenzweig further discloses wherein the light source and the optical probe beam have different respective wavelengths ([0069] primary light source 112A has a wavelength between 750nm and 1100nm and secondary light source 112B has a wavelength between 400nm and 700nm).
Regarding Claim 14: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Rosenzweig further discloses further comprising a light source configured to direct an optical beam to the movable mirror (Fig. 2C and [0070], secondary light source 112B is also incident on the same scanning mirror. Secondary light source 112B is used for calibration and providing operational confidence for the user of the LIDAR device [0233] any combination of the disclosed embodiments can be combined to form a single LIDAR system); and
wherein the optical monitor comprises a two-dimensional, pixelated light detector configured to track the motion by capturing the optical beam reflected by the movable mirror ([0206] “the at least one sensor used for the detection of the signals indicative of the position of the at least one deflector may include one or more sensors (e.g., sensors 116). This may be achieved, for example, by using a sensing array which includes a 2D array of detectors”; Fig. 10B, steps 1015 and 1017 and 1019. Analyzing the scanning pattern detected by the sensors 1008a and 1008b means the motion of the mirror is tracked).
Regarding Claim 16: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Rosenzweig further discloses wherein the lidar transmitter includes circuitry configured to drive the laser source and further configured to drive the movable mirror ([0200] and Fig. 10B, method 1010 is executed by processor 118 of LIDAR system 100 of Fig. 1A, and steps 1011 and 1012 are to drive the light source to emit light and control the deflector to scan according to the scanning pattern); and
wherein the circuitry is further configured to communicate to the electronic controller one or more performance indicators internally generated by the circuitry while driving the laser source and the movable mirror (Fig. 10B, step 1019, based on the measured scanning pattern, measured by photoelectric sensors 1008a and 1008b, the processor determines whether there is a deviation between the expected and measured scanning pattern, indicating the performance of the system).
Regarding Claim 17: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the apparatus of claim 16. Rosenzweig further discloses wherein the one or more performance indicators includes one or more of the following: a sensed laser current; a sensed optical emit power of the laser source; sensed temperature in one or more locations within the lidar transmitter; mirror-orientation feedback ([0208] “The scanning pattern may include data indicative of any one or more of: orientations of the at least one light deflector relative to a resting plane of the at least one light deflector, locations of the at least one light deflector relative to the resting plane”); an operating mode setting ([0208] the scanning pattern includes data indicative of “a scanning frequency of the at least one light deflector”); and an error indication signal ([0212] and Fig. 10B, step 1019, compare data of the expected to measured scanning pattern and determine if there is an error or deviation. This determination is used to initiate a remedial action in response to the error in step 1021).
Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18 is essentially the method version of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Wong (US 20090269075 A1), further in view of Mielke (US 20230176198 A1). Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Rosenzweig further discloses comprising a lidar receiver to receive an optical signal produced by reflections of the optical probe beam from a scene in the FOV (Fig. 1A, light reflected back from FOV 120 returns as RX light and is sensed by the sensor 116 of the sensing unit 106; Fig. 1B is an output from a single scanning cycle of the LIDAR device, where each of the points is obtained by receiving a reflection of the optical probe beam from the FOV); and
wherein the electronic controller is configured to cause the lidar transmitter to dynamically change the optical power of the optical probe beam ([0213] based on the measured scan pattern, the emission scheme by the light source can be modified. One way the emission scheme can be modified is by decreasing emission level and/or changing emission timings).
Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, does not expressly disclose that the optical power of the optical probe beam is changed such that MPE for a person in the scene is not exceeded.
Mielke teaches the changing of the optical power of the optical probe beam such that MPE for a person in the scene is not exceeded ([0059] “light source 110 or lidar system 100 may be classified as a Class 1 laser product (as specified by the 60825-1:2014 standard of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)) or a Class I laser product (as specified by Title 21, Section 1040.10 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) that is safe under all conditions of normal use”; since the light source taught by Mielke is a Class 1 laser product, it inherently is incapable of exceeding MPE for a person in the scene).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus taught by Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, such that the light source is a Class 1 laser product that is incapable of exceeding MPE for a person in the scene, as taught by Mielke. This modification would be motivated by the desire to ensure that the entire lidar system is an eye-safe laser product that is operated in an eye-safe manner to protect people in the scene (Mielke, [0059]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Wong (US 20090269075 A1), further in view of Mielke (US 20230176198 A1), further in view of Graf (DE 102020209944 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong and Mielke, teaches the apparatus of claim 2. However, they do not teach: wherein the electronic controller has a lookup table stored in a memory thereof, the lookup table specifying permissible values of the optical power for different scan rates.
Graf teaches this limitation in the specifications in [0023]: “it is provided that the LiDAR system comprises a memory in which a lookup table is stored which specifies a maximum permissible laser power for different deflection directions, wherein the control device is set up to read out the associated maximum permissible laser power from the lookup table for the deflection direction corresponding to the diffraction order and to control the laser power of the laser radiation deflected in the deflection direction as a function of the maximum permissible laser power.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus taught by Rosenzweig, Wong, and Mielke, by incorporating the teachings of Graf, such that permissible values of optical power for scan rates are stored in a lookup table. This would be using the known technique of storing variables in a lookup table, used to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale C).
Regarding Claim 4: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, Mielke, and Graf, teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Graf further teaches wherein the lookup table further has stored therein information representing permissible parameter values of the stream of measurements for different scan rates ([0067-0068] describe that the control device comprises a control path for measuring the laser power of the laser radiation that is deflected in the deflection direction, and “wherein the control device is configured to control the laser power of the laser radiation deflected in the deflection direction as a function of the measured laser power”; [0023] explains that the lookup power stores the permissible laser power, and it is understood that this is the permissible laser power of the measured laser power as described in [0067-0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus taught by Rosenzweig, Wong, Mielke, and Graf, such that the permissible power values for the measurements is also stored in addition to permissible values in general. This would be using the known technique of storing variables in a lookup table, used to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale C).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Wong (US 20090269075 A1), further in view of Mielke (US 20230176198 A1), further in view of Goodwill (US 20190391271 A1). Rosenzweig, in view of Wong and Mielke, teaches the apparatus of claim 2. They do not expressly teach: wherein the electronic controller is programmed to control operations of the lidar transmitter in accordance with MPE values of an ANSI Z136.1 standard.
Goodwill teaches a system that is configured such that their system is in accordance with MPE values of ANSI Z136.1 standard ([0023] system characteristics are designed in order to be in accordance with ANSI Z136.1-2014).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus taught by Rosenzweig, Wong, and Mielke, by incorporating the teachings of Goodwill, such that the lidar transmitter is operated in accordance with MPE values of ANSI Z136.1 standards. A person of ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies would know that ANSI Z136.1 standards define the maximum optical radiation level people can be exposed to before sustaining injuries and such a modification would be beneficial to protect humans that may be exposed to the transmitted beams (Goodwill, [0023]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Wong (US 20090269075 A1), further in view of Li (US 20190277953 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Rosenzweig further discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to cause the optical power to be turned OFF in response to the stream of measurements ([0187] in response to detecting an error in performance, indicated by the stream of measurements, the illumination scheme can be modified like altering an illumination level or stopping light emission entirely).
While Rosenzweig discloses that turning the laser off may be initiated by the measured scanning pattern deviating too far from the expected scanning pattern, Rosenzweig does not explicitly state that the power is to be turned OFF when the stream of measurements specifically indicates that the movable mirror has stalled.
Li specifically teaches that when measurements indicate that the movable mirror has stalled, the optical power is turned off (Fig. 6, step 622, it is determined whether the first and second motors for the scanning mirror are operating. If not, the method proceeds to step 624, where the system determines if a time out timer has expired. If it has, and the motors for the scanner are still not operational, then the LIDAR system is shut down in step 626. [0040] recites: “If both mirrors 230 and 240 are not functioning properly, system 200 is permitted a third period of time to shut down its laser transmitter system, where the third period of time is less than the first and second periods of time.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system disclosed by Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, such that the light source is turned off in the scenario where the mirror has stalled, as taught by Li. This is beneficial because when the scanning is stopped and the laser beam is only being transmitted in one spot, the laser exposure safety limit can quickly be exceeded and by turning the laser off when the mirrors stop scanning, unsafe laser exposure can be prevented (Li, [0058]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Wong (US 20090269075 A1), further in view of Pacala (US 20180329062 A1). Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the apparatus of claim [1]. They do not expressly disclose comprising a plurality of diffuse reflectors mounted on a frame defining an optical window through which the optical probe beam is directed toward the FOV, each one of the diffuse reflectors being configured to generate a respective cone of the light directed toward a respective one of the photodiodes in response to the movable mirror directing at least a portion of the optical probe beam to said one of the diffuse reflectors.
However, Pacala teaches a plurality of diffuse reflectors (Fig. 21A, receiver channel 2132 containing diffuser 2181 before photosensor 2173; Fig. 10 shows a receiver channel array 1014 with individual receiver channels 1012; it is understood that in this embodiment, where the receiver channels contain diffusers, that each of the receiver channels contains a diffuser, so there are a plurality of diffusers directing light towards their respective photosensors), each one of the diffuse reflectors being configured to generate a respective cone of the light directed toward a respective one of the photodiodes (Fig. 21A, light that passes through diffuser 2181 is reflected in the y direction such that it is incident on all of the photodetectors 2171 in the photosensor 2173. The lines indicating the margins of the rays illustrate that this light is cone shaped. Fig. 10 shows a receiver channel array 1014 with individual receiver channels 1012; it is understood that in this embodiment, where the receiver channels contain diffusers, that each of the receiver channels contains a diffuser, so there are a plurality of diffusers directing light towards their respective photosensors) in response to the movable mirror directing at least a portion of the optical-probe beam to said one of the diffuse reflectors (Fig. 10, light detection system 1001 shows that rays 1006 are directed to receiver channels, and because the receiver channels contain diffuse reflectors, as shown in Fig. 21A, the light is directed towards the diffuse reflectors). These diffuse reflectors are attached directly to the photosensors, as illustrated by Fig. 21A.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus disclosed by Rosenzweig and Wong, such that diffuse reflectors are used to direct incident light onto their respective photosensors, as taught by Pacala. By attaching these diffuse reflectors onto their respective photosensors, they will also be attached to the same PCB that the photosensors are attached to, which means they will inherently be mounted on a frame defining an optical window through which the optical probe beam is directed toward the FOV. Because the photosensors disclosed by Rosenzweig are located at the borders of the window, and by incorporating the teachings of Wong, these same photosensors are structurally supported by a PCB, attaching the diffuse reflectors to these same photodetectors would mean that they are also attached to the same PCB, whose configuration defines the optical window. This addition of diffuse reflectors is another design option and “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” (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Claims 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Wong (US 20090269075 A1), further in view of Cichon (WO 2021099254 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Rosenzweig further discloses further comprising a camera configured to capture an image of a scene in the FOV ([0063] the LIDAR system is connected to a host, which has a camera, and the system can combine lidar measurements with the images obtained by the cameras).
They do not expressly teach that the electronic controller is configured to determine whether or not a person Is present in the scene by processing the image and is further configured to cause the dynamic change to the scene based on a determination outcome.
Cichon teaches: a camera configured to capture an image of a scene in the FOV (Fig. 3, camera sensor 19, [0025] “measurement data from a video sensor or Camera sensors can be checked using image analysis”; it is understood that in order for image analysis to be performed, an image has to be captured first); and wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine whether or not a person is present in the scene by processing the image ([0025] “measurement data from a video sensor or Camera sensors can be checked using image analysis and people can be detected in the scanning area. This can provide further evidence of the presence of people in the scanning area”; [0019] “The results of the evaluation can be used to determine and/or confirm the absence of persons in the scanning area of the LIDAR device”) and is further configured to cause the dynamic changes based on a determination outcome ([0047] “If at least one person P is detected in the scanning area A or a possible threat to a person P in the scanning area A is determined by the LIDAR device 1, scanning is carried out by beams 4 with reduced radiation power. If the absence of persons P in the scanning area A is detected, the scanning area A is scanned by beams 5 with increased radiated power”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus taught by Rosenzweig and Wong, by incorporating instructions for identifying the presence of people and causing dynamic changes based on the presence/absence of a person, as taught by Cichon, using the camera originally disclosed by Rosenzweig. This would be beneficial because identifying whether a person is present enables the system to reduce radiation power to protect the person from harm, yet when there is an absence of people in the scanning area, the beams can have increased power to maximize the range of the lidar device (Cichon, [0047]).
Regarding Claim 19: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong, discloses the method of claim 18. Rosenzweig further discloses operating circuitry configured to drive the laser source and the movable mirror ([0200] and Fig. 10B, method 1010 is executed by processor 118 of LIDAR system 100 of Fig. 1A, and steps 1011 and 1012 are to drive the light source to emit light and control the deflector to scan according to the scanning pattern), the operating including the circuitry internally generating one or more performance indicators while driving the laser source and the movable mirror and externally communicating the one or more performance indicators to the electronic controller (Fig. 10B, step 1019, based on the measured scanning pattern, measured by photoelectric sensors 1008a and 1008b, the processor determines whether there is a deviation between the expected and measured scanning pattern, indicating the performance of the system); and
operating a camera to capture an image of a scene in the FOV ([0063] the LIDAR system is connected to a host, which has a camera, and the system can combine lidar measurements with the images obtained by the cameras. For the measurements and image to be combined, the camera inherently has to capture an image).
They do not expressly teach the determining whether or not a person is present in the scene by automatically processing the image.
Cichon teaches operating a camera to capture an image of a scene in the POV ([0025] “measurement data from a video sensor or Camera sensors can be checked using image analysis”; it is understood that in order for image analysis to be performed, an image has to be captured first); and determining whether or not a person is present in the scene by automatically processing the image ([0025] “measurement data from a video sensor or Camera sensors can be checked using image analysis and people can be detected in the scanning area. This can provide further evidence of the presence of people in the scanning area”; [0019] “The results of the evaluation can be used to determine and/or confirm the absence of persons in the scanning area of the LIDAR device”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Rosenzweig and Wong, by incorporating instructions for identifying the presence of people in images captured by the camera, as taught by Cichon. This would be beneficial because identifying whether a person is present enables the system to dynamically reduce radiation power to protect the person from harm, yet when there is an absence of people in the scanning area, the beams can have increased power to maximize the range of the lidar device (Cichon, [0047]).
Regarding Claim 20: Rosenzweig, in view of Wong and Cichon, teaches the method of claim 19. Cichon further teaches wherein said dynamically changing is performed further in response to the one or more performance indicators and based on a result of the determining ([0017] “The absence of persons in the scanning area can be detected even if the persons do not exceed a defined distance from the LIDAR device”; [0047] “If at least one person P is detected in the scanning area A or a possible threat to a person P in the scanning area A is determined by the LIDAR device 1, scanning is carried out by beams 4 with reduced radiation power. If the absence of persons P in the scanning area A is detected, the scanning area A is scanned by beams 5 with increased radiated power”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Rosenzweig, Wong, and Cichon, such that dynamic changes can be caused based on the presence/absence of a person, as further taught by Cichon. This would be beneficial because identifying whether a person is present enables the system to reduce radiation power to protect the person from harm, yet when there is an absence of people in the scanning area, the beams can have increased power to maximize the range of the lidar device (Cichon, [0047]).
Conclusion
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 ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645