DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-18, and 20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 12, 15-18 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claim 20 is newly presented.
Claim 19 is newly cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “unit” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) are: (1) “control unit” in claims 12-13 and (2) “computing unit” in claim 1 and 12-13.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Addetta (US 20120200704 A1) in view of Sathyanarayana (US 20180365533 A1) in view of Breed et al. (US 20020116106 A1) (collectively referenced as combination D’Addetta below). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, D’Addetta teaches a method for:
detecting objects in a first vehicle detection field, which comprises: an interior and an exterior region of a vehicle, by means of a first camera of the vehicle, (D’Addetta: ¶ 008; only a single camera system is used which detects both the exterior and the interior.) the method comprising: generating first detection data of the first detection field by detecting a first object in the exterior region of the first vehicle detection field with the first camera; generating second detection data of the first detection field by detecting a second object in the interior of the first vehicle detection field with the first camera; and(D’Addetta: ¶ 007; camera system for detecting a first incident radiation from a direction of the windshield of a vehicle and at least one second incident radiation from a direction of the interior of the vehicle) processing the first detection data and the second detection data of the first vehicle detection field (D’Addetta: ¶ 008; interior camera focused primarily on occupant classification, occupant OOP detection (OOP=out of position), detection of drowsiness, etc.))in a computing unit, (D’Addetta: ¶ 021; a microprocessor,) wherein the first vehicle detection field comprises a detection cone comprising at least a portion of the exterior region disposed in front of the vehicle (D’Addetta: ¶ 009; For the exterior, there are forward-looking functions, for example, vehicle identification, pedestrian detection, lane detection, traffic sign detection) controlling a braking system of an autonomous vehicle . . . thereby causing the autonomous vehicle to have a reduced speed prior to reaching a location of the first object; (D’Addetta: ¶ 009; activation of emergency brake systems and the like.) . . . such that the first vehicle detection field of the first camera extends from a first vehicle side, at least across the interior, transversely to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, to an opposite, second vehicle side into the exterior region. (D’Addetta: ¶ 043; the enlarged optical range is used in the central area for the exterior sensing, whereas the laterally enlarged part of the optical system senses the interior via a mirror situated in the laterally enlarged part and aimed toward the rear.).
To the extent D’Addetta is either silent or does not explicitly teach: based on the first detection data and the second detection data,; Sathyanarayana teaches:
based on the first detection data and the second detection data (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 029; correlating the interior event with the exterior event can include associating the widening of the driver's eyes with the activation of the brake lights in time (e.g., temporally associating), and the method can include generating combined event data that includes an indication that the driver visibly responded to the brake light activation and a calculation of the driver's response time.) (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 079; wherein the notification model generates a driver notification based on event data (e.g., interior event data, exterior event data, combined event data, etc.). The driver notification can include various notification types,. . . automatically or semi-automatically operate a vehicle.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sathyanarayana with the teachings of D’Addetta because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improved temporal identification of events (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 029).
To the extent D’Addetta is either silent or does not explicitly teach: arranging the first sensor unit camera on a pillar in the interior of the vehicle; Breed does teach:
arranging the first sensor unit camera on a pillar in the interior of the vehicle (Breed: ¶ 093; camera can be arranged . . . in an A-pillar or B-pillar of the vehicle to obtain images of an interior environment of the vehicle) (Breed: ¶ 168; also suited for monitoring the environment outside of the vehicle for purposes of blind spot detection)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Breed with the teachings of D’Addetta because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of better detection of occupants would improve airbag related safety. (Breed: ¶ 011).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Sathyanarayana teaches:
the method further comprising detecting objects in a second vehicle detection field, which comprises an interior region of the vehicle and an exterior region of the vehicle, by at least one second camera of the vehicle, wherein detecting the objects in the second vehicle detection field comprises: generating first detection data of the second detection field by detecting a first object in the exterior region of the second vehicle detection field with the second camera; (Sathyanarayana: Clm. 16; wherein the first data stream comprises a first image stream and the first sensor comprises a first camera of the onboard vehicle system, and wherein the second data stream comprises a second image stream and the second sensor comprises a second camera of the onboard vehicle system.) and generating second detection data of the second detection field by detecting a second object in the interior of the second vehicle detection field with the second camera, (Sathyanarayana: Clm. 10; sampling a second data stream within a second time window at a second sensor of the onboard vehicle system; extracting exterior activity data from the second image stream; determining an exterior event based on the exterior activity data; correlating the exterior event and the interior event to generate combined event data)
And Breed further teaches: wherein the second camera comprises an optical sensor arranged on a pillar of the vehicle opposite the first camera in the interior of the vehicle. (Breed: ¶ 241; camera can be arranged in various locations in the vehicle including in a headliner, roof, ceiling, an A-pillar, a B-pillar and a C-pillar.) (Breed: Fig. 2A & 5; [110])
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Breed further teaches:
wherein the first object in the exterior region is in a blind-spot region of the vehicle. (Breed: ¶ 168; also suited for monitoring the environment outside of the vehicle for purposes of blind spot detection)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. D’Addetta: further teaches:
wherein the second object in the interior is an occupant of the vehicle (D’Addetta: ¶ 008; interior camera focused primarily on occupant classification, occupant OOP detection (OOP=out of position), detection of drowsiness, etc.))
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Breed further teaches:
wherein the wherein the first camera is arranged on an A-pillar of the vehicle in the interior of the vehicle. (Breed: ¶ 241; camera can be arranged in various locations in the vehicle including in a headliner, roof, ceiling, an A-pillar, a B-pillar and a C-pillar.) (Breed: Fig. 2A & 5; [110])
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Breed further teaches:
wherein the first camera is arranged on a B-pillar or C-pillar of the vehicle in the interior of the vehicle. (Breed: ¶ 241; camera can be arranged in various locations in the vehicle including in a headliner, roof, ceiling, an A-pillar, a B-pillar and a C-pillar.)
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent D’Addetta does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first camera has a vehicle detection field which, starting from a respective camera, forms a horizontal detection cone of at least 110 degrees; D’Addetta does teach:
A single-camera system (D’Addetta: ¶ 008; only a single camera system is used which detects both the exterior and the interior.)providing optical coverage with three cones covering approximately 4α degrees in horizontal coverage wherein α is approximately 40 degrees. (D’Addetta: Fig. 3) (D’Addetta: ¶ 042; This yields an enlarged sensing area, which is defined by the enlarged optical range of the camera contained in camera housing 120, this sensing area being spanned by an angle .alpha.+.alpha.', and this sensing area being required for forward-looking functions spanned by two times angle .alpha./2 and the two additional areas required for sensing the interior, each being spanned by angle .alpha.'/2. The two additional areas required for sensing the interior here enlarge the required sensing area for forward-looking functions on both lateral borders with respect to the central longitudinal axis of vehicle 100.)
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught wherein the first camera has a vehicle detection field which, starting from a respective camera, forms a horizontal detection cone of at least 110 degrees because they would recognize that 4α is approximately 160 degrees of horizontal camera cone coverage and that is greater than 110 degrees. Furthermore, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” MPEP § 2144.05. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a camera range that accounted for the primary road travel area ahead and the occupants of the vehicle would perform observation despite the cameras not being turned to exactly 110 degrees, being discontinuous, or being wider.
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Sathyanarayana further teaches:
wherein further comprising: providing a driving assistance function (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 081; implementing a notification model to transmit an event-based notification to a driver. The notification is preferably transmitted in real-time (e.g., substantially real-time, near real-time, etc.) based on or in response to driving event determination) based on the first detection data and the second detection data by way of a driving assistance system. (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 033; training an event-based model based on the combined event data S140; and implementing the event-based model S150.)
Regarding claim 12, D’Addetta teaches a detection system for:
detecting objects in a first vehicle detection field, which comprises an interior and an exterior region of a vehicle, comprising: a first camera (D’Addetta: ¶ 008; only a single camera system is used which detects both the exterior and the interior.) for: generating first detection data of the first detection field by detecting a first object in the exterior region of the first vehicle detection field; and generating second detection data of the first detection field by detecting a second object in the interior of the first vehicle detection field; (D’Addetta: ¶ 007; camera system for detecting a first incident radiation from a direction of the windshield of a vehicle and at least one second incident radiation from a direction of the interior of the vehicle) a computing unit for (D’Addetta: ¶ 021; a microprocessor,) processing the first detection data (D’Addetta: ¶ 008; interior camera focused primarily on occupant classification, occupant OOP detection (OOP=out of position), detection of drowsiness, etc.)) and the second detection data of the first vehicle detection field, and a control unit configured to control a braking system of an autonomous vehicle . . . thereby causing the autonomous vehicle to have a reduced speed prior to reaching a location of the first object, (D’Addetta: ¶ 009; activation of emergency brake systems and the like.))wherein the first vehicle detection field comprises a detection cone comprising at least a portion of the exterior region disposed in front of the vehicle. (D’Addetta: ¶ 009; For the exterior, there are forward-looking functions, for example, vehicle identification, pedestrian detection, lane detection, traffic sign detection) . . . such that the first vehicle detection field of the first camera extends from a first vehicle side, at least across the interior, transversely to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, to an opposite, second vehicle side into the exterior region. (D’Addetta: ¶ 043; the enlarged optical range is used in the central area for the exterior sensing, whereas the laterally enlarged part of the optical system senses the interior via a mirror situated in the laterally enlarged part and aimed toward the rear.).
To the extent that D’Addetta is silent or does not explicitly teach: based on the first detection data and the second detection data, ; Sathyanarayana teaches:
based on the first detection data and the second detection data (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 029; correlating the interior event with the exterior event can include associating the widening of the driver's eyes with the activation of the brake lights in time (e.g., temporally associating), and the method can include generating combined event data that includes an indication that the driver visibly responded to the brake light activation and a calculation of the driver's response time.) (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 079; wherein the notification model generates a driver notification based on event data (e.g., interior event data, exterior event data, combined event data, etc.). The driver notification can include various notification types,. . . automatically or semi-automatically operate a vehicle.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sathyanarayana with the teachings of D’Addetta because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improved temporal identification of events (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 029).
To the extent that D’Addetta is silent or does not explicitly teach: wherein the first camera is arranged on a pillar in the interior of the vehicle; Breed does teach:
wherein the first camera is arranged on a pillar in the interior of the vehicle (Breed: ¶ 093; camera can be arranged . . . in an A-pillar or B-pillar of the vehicle to obtain images of an interior environment of the vehicle) (Breed: ¶ 168; also suited for monitoring the environment outside of the vehicle for purposes of blind spot detection)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Breed with the teachings of D’Addetta because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of better occupant detection which would improve airbag safety. (Breed: ¶ 011).
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Sathyanarayana further teaches:
where the control unit is further configured to provide the driving assistance function (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 081; implementing a notification model to transmit an event-based notification to a driver. The notification is preferably transmitted in real-time (e.g., substantially real-time, near real-time, etc.) based on or in response to driving event determination) based on the first detection data and the second detection data of the first vehicle detection field. (Sathyanarayana: ¶ 033; training an event-based model based on the combined event data S140; and implementing the event-based model S150.)
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Breed further teaches:
wherein the second camera is arranged on an A- pillar of the vehicle in the interior of the vehicle. (Breed: ¶ 241; camera can be arranged in various locations in the vehicle including in a headliner, roof, ceiling, an A-pillar, a B-pillar and a C-pillar.) (Breed: Fig. 2A & 5; [110])
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Breed further teaches:
wherein the second camera is arranged on a B-pillar or C-pillar of the vehicle in the interior of the vehicle. (Breed: ¶ 241; camera can be arranged in various locations in the vehicle including in a headliner, roof, ceiling, an A-pillar, a B-pillar and a C-pillar.)
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. D’Addetta further teaches:
wherein the second camera is arranged in a manner such that the second vehicle detection field of the second camera extends from a second vehicle side, at least across the interior, transversely to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, to an opposite, first vehicle side into the exterior region. (D’Addetta: ¶ 043; the enlarged optical range is used in the central area for the exterior sensing, whereas the laterally enlarged part of the optical system senses the interior via a mirror situated in the laterally enlarged part and aimed toward the rear.).
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. To the extent D’Addetta does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second camera has a vehicle detection field which, starting from a respective camera, forms a horizontal detection cone of at least 110 degrees.; D’Addetta does teach:
A single-camera system (D’Addetta: ¶ 008; only a single camera system is used which detects both the exterior and the interior.)providing optical coverage with three cones covering approximately 4α degrees in horizontal coverage wherein α is approximately 40 degrees. (D’Addetta: Fig. 3) (D’Addetta: ¶ 042; This yields an enlarged sensing area, which is defined by the enlarged optical range of the camera contained in camera housing 120, this sensing area being spanned by an angle .alpha.+.alpha.', and this sensing area being required for forward-looking functions spanned by two times angle .alpha./2 and the two additional areas required for sensing the interior, each being spanned by angle .alpha.'/2. The two additional areas required for sensing the interior here enlarge the required sensing area for forward-looking functions on both lateral borders with respect to the central longitudinal axis of vehicle 100.)
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught wherein the second camera has a vehicle detection field which, starting from a respective camera, forms a horizontal detection cone of at least 110 degrees because they would recognize that 4α is approximately 160 degrees of horizontal camera cone coverage and that is greater than 110 degrees. Furthermore, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” MPEP § 2144.05. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a camera range that accounted for the primary road travel area ahead and the occupants of the vehicle would perform observation despite the cameras not being turned to exactly 110 degrees, being discontinuous, or being wider.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination D’Addetta as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Raab (US 20160200254 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Combination D’Addetta does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first camera and the second camera are arranged opposite one another on two pillars of a same type, of the vehicle.; however, Raab does teach:
wherein the first camera and the second camera are arranged opposite one another on two pillars of a same type, of the vehicle. (Raab: ¶ 064; vehicle 216 has an A pillar 202, a B pillar 204, a C pillar 206, and a D pillar 208. Each pillar may have mounted thereon one or more cameras 110, 112 and 114 respectively.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Raab with the teachings of D’Addetta because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of elimination of blind spots which would improve safety (Raab: ¶ 76).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination D’Addetta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Englander et al. (US 9718405 B1).
a. Regarding claim 20, as detailed above, combination D’Addetta teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent D’Addetta does not explicitly teach or is silent regarding:
wherein the first camera comprises a thermal imaging camera; Englander does teach:
wherein the first camera comprises a thermal imaging camera (Englander: ¶ 088; Col. 19, Lns. 14-17; cameras and/or sensors used for hazard and/or pedestrian detection are generally a network of cameras and/or sensors, but may include any object detecting sensor or sensor system, including optical sensors, thermal sensors).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Englander with the teachings of D’Addetta because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving safety by addressing driver vision limitations during low-light environments (Englander: ¶ 005; Col. 1, Lns. 46-54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that:
the teachings of McBride concerning LiDAR sensors fail to render obvious that a detection field of a camera extends from a first vehicle side, at least across the interior, transversely to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, to an opposite, second vehicle side into the exterior region. See McBride, Figure 2B. It is commonly known in the field of automotive engineering that cameras and LiDAR sensors have separate ranging and imaging capabilities due to fundamental differences in their respective technologies. Specifically, a camera captures an image by "record[ing] static or moving images as detection data on a photographic film or electronically on a digital storage interface." (Applicant’s Arguments filed Apr. 3, 2026, pgs. 8-9).
McBride has not been applied to the current rejection. New art D’Addetta (US 20120200704 A1) and Sathyanarayana (US 20180365533 A1) have been applied. D’Addetta teaches an optical camera with optics that allow it to simultaneously cover both front passengers as well as the forward vehicle roadway. Applicant further argues:
Breed fails to remedy the defects of McBride in order to render limitation (i) obvious. At most, Breed teaches that an active pixel camera may be located on an A-pillar, but fails to describe that the field of view extends transversely across the interior of the vehicle. See Breed, paragraph [0241]. Rather, and as described by paragraphs [0125]-[0127] of Breed, multiple sensor assemblies (denoted as elements 110-114 in Figures lA-1D) are used to create a field of view of the interior of the vehicle. Thus, Breed fails to remedy the defects of McBride, as no portion of Breed discloses that a camera, arranged on a pillar of the vehicle in the interior of the vehicle, has a first vehicle detection field that extends from a first vehicle side, at least across the interior, transversely to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, to an opposite, second vehicle side into the exterior region (Applicant’s Arguments filed Apr. 3, 2026, pgs. 9-10).
The above Office Action does not rely on Breed’s teachings for an optical camera capable of detecting front-facing roadway concurrently with a passenger-area interior. The rejection infra only relies on Breed to teach the concept of mounting a camera on an A-pillar and mounting two cameras on two opposite A-pillars. Consequently Applicant’s arguments with respect to field of view are moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is Jiang (CN-108482385-A) which teaches a vehicle-mounted camera system that identifies the risk of and complexity of a traffic environment. Also made of record is Englander et al. (US 9718405 B1) which teaches a “collision avoidance and/or pedestrian detection system for a large passenger vehicle such as commuter bus, which includes one or more exterior and/or interior sensing devices positioned strategically around the exterior and interior of the vehicle.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights