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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 9th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9, and 11-32 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 14-16, 24-28, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buehring (United States Patent Application Publication 20190324122 A1), hereinafter Buehring
Regarding claim 1, Buehring teaches a LIDAR system ([title]), comprising:
a light source configured to generate a plurality of laser beams arranged in a beam pattern ([0034] The method of the present invention may be used with apparatus comprising a plurality of stationary laser sources each controlled to emit light along an emission beam path);
a rotatable deflector configured to rotate about a scanning axis and to deflect the plurality of laser beams toward a field of view of the LIDAR system (Fig. 2; [0025] rotating a second DROE);
a beam rotator configured to cause rotation of the beam pattern of the plurality of laser beams relative to the scanning axis of the rotatable deflector (Fig. 2; [0049] wedge prism 11),
wherein the rotation of the rotatable deflector about the scanning axis and the rotation of the beam pattern about the scanning axis combine to maintain the beam pattern of the plurality of laser beams in a substantially fixed orientation relative to a deflection surface of the rotatable deflector as it rotates about the scanning axis ([0052] By controlling both the first constant angular rate and the second constant angular rate appropriately a dense scanning pattern can be achieved); and
at least one sensor configured to receive, via the rotatable deflector and the beam rotator, laser light resulting from one or more of the plurality of laser beams reflected from at least one object in the field of view of the LIDAR system ([0050] The laser beam will then be reflected by the surrounding environment back onto the scanning mirror 7 wherein it is reflected back through the wedge prism 11, through the receiving lens 6 and onto the detector 9).
Regarding claim 2, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the scanning axis of the rotatable deflector is oriented substantially vertically ([0014] In this apparatus, the only part that is required to move is the scanning mirror that is controlled to rotate about a scanning axis.).
Regarding claim 3, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the rotatable deflector includes a folding mirror (Fig. 2; [0049] scanning mirror 7).
Regarding claim 4, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 3, wherein the rotatable deflector is further configured to rotate about a vertical scan axis ([0051] The angular direction relative to the axis of rotation 12).
Regarding claim 5, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein the rotation about the vertical scan axis occurs according to predetermined vertical tilt increments ([0051] the axis of rotation through an angle of θ.).
Regarding claim 8, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein the vertical scan axis is oriented substantially horizontally relative to the field of view of the LIDAR system (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the beam rotator is configured to rotate the beam pattern in a direction about the scanning axis of the rotatable deflector that is the same as a direction of rotation of the rotatable deflector about the scanning axis ([0027] The second DROE may be rotated about the third axis of rotation in the opposite direction to the first DROE diffractive optical element or in the same direction.).
Regarding claim 14, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein a frequency of rotation of the beam pattern provided by the beam rotator substantially matches a rotation frequency of the rotatable deflector ([0027] The third constant angular velocity may be controlled to be equal to the second constant angular velocity or may be different thereto.).
Regarding claim 15, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein a frequency of rotation associated with the beam rotator substantially matches a frequency of rotation of the rotatable deflector ([0027] The third constant angular velocity may be controlled to be equal to the second constant angular velocity or may be different thereto.).
Regarding claim 16, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein a frequency of rotation associated with the beam rotator is substantially one half a frequency of rotation of the rotatable deflector ([0020] The first angular velocity can be either constant or variable. Similarly, the second angular velocity can be either constant or variable...However, in alternatively embodiments varying the first angular velocity and/or the second angular velocity may be advantageous.).
Regarding claim 24, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, further including a primary scan deflector located in an optical path between the beam rotator and the rotatable deflector, wherein the primary scan deflector is configured to vary angles of incidence of the plurality of laser beams relative to the rotatable deflector ([0025] wherein the second DROE is located between the first DROE and the scanning mirror and the emission beam path passes through the second DROE before being incident upon the scanning mirror.).
Regarding claim 25, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 24, wherein the varied angles of incidence enable vertical shifting of horizontal scan lines associated with scanning of the plurality of laser beams relative to the field of view of the LIDAR system ([0028] Utilising a second DROE can act to increase the scanning area as a beam can now be deviated twice before being incident upon the scanning mirror. This can result in a much greater angle of deviation before a beam is incident on the scanning mirror thereby greatly increasing the maximum possible height of the scanning area.).
Regarding claim 26, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, further including a primary scan deflector located in an optical path between the light source and the beam rotator, wherein the primary scan deflector is configured to vary angles of incidence of the plurality of laser beams relative to the rotatable deflector ([0025] wherein the second DROE is located between the first DROE and the scanning mirror and the emission beam path passes through the second DROE before being incident upon the scanning mirror.).
Regarding claim 27, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 26, wherein the varied angles of incidence enable vertical shifting of horizontal scan lines associated with scanning of the plurality of laser beams relative to the field of view of the LIDAR system ([0028] Utilising a second DROE can act to increase the scanning area as a beam can now be deviated twice before being incident upon the scanning mirror. This can result in a much greater angle of deviation before a beam is incident on the scanning mirror thereby greatly increasing the maximum possible height of the scanning area.).
Regarding claim 28, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein a relative phase between rotation of the beam pattern provided by the beam rotator and rotation of the rotatable deflector is selectively advanced or delayed to control spacing between the plurality of laser beams deflected from the rotatable deflector (Fig. 8; [0061] As can be seen, the scanning pattern is particularly dense over the scanning area. If it were desired to scan some of the voids in the scanning pattern this could be done by simply varying the first angular rate and/or the second angular rate appropriately.).
Regarding claim 31, Buehring teaches a LIDAR system ([title]), comprising:
a light source configured to generate at least one laser beam having an elongated cross section ([0034] The method of the present invention may be used with apparatus comprising a plurality of stationary laser sources each controlled to emit light along an emission beam path);
a rotatable deflector configured to rotate about a scanning axis and to deflect the at least one laser beam toward a field of view of the LIDAR system (Fig. 2; [0025] rotating a second DROE);
a beam rotator configured to cause rotation of the elongated cross section of the at least one laser beam relative to the scanning axis of the rotatable deflector (Fig. 2; [0049] wedge prism 11),
wherein the beam rotator is configured to rotate the elongated cross section such that the elongated cross section maintains a substantially fixed orientation relative to a deflection surface of the rotatable deflector as the rotatable deflector rotates about the scanning axis ([0052] By controlling both the first constant angular rate and the second constant angular rate appropriately a dense scanning pattern can be achieved); and
at least one sensor configured to receive, via the rotatable deflector and the beam rotator, laser light resulting from the at least one laser beam reflected from at least one object in the field of view of the LIDAR system ([0050] The laser beam will then be reflected by the surrounding environment back onto the scanning mirror 7 wherein it is reflected back through the wedge prism 11, through the receiving lens 6 and onto the detector 9).
Regarding claim 32, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the rotation of the beam pattern about the scanning axis is controlled to maintain the beam pattern of the plurality of laser beams in a substantially fixed first orientation relative to the deflection surface of the rotatable deflector over a first portion of the field of view and to maintain the beam pattern of the plurality of laser beams in a substantially fixed second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the deflection surface of the rotatable deflector over a second portion of the field of view ([0052] As a result of the beam deviation described above and shown in FIG. 3, controlling the scanning mirror 7 to rotate in the first direction at the first constant angular rate and controlling the wedge prism 11 to rotate in the second direction at the second constant angular rate results in a controlled scanning pattern through a complete 360° angular range with a maximum azimuthal deviation of ±θ. By controlling both the first constant angular rate and the second constant angular rate appropriately a dense scanning pattern can be achieved.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehring in view of Angus et al. (United States Patent No. 10712431 B1), hereinafter Angus.
Regarding claim 6, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 5,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the predetermined vertical tilt increments are sized such that a first set of horizontal scan lines resulting from rotation of the rotatable deflector at a first tilt increment do not interleave with a second set of horizontal scan lines resulting from rotation of the rotational deflector at a second tilt increment.
However, Angus teaches the system wherein the predetermined vertical tilt increments are sized such that a first set of horizontal scan lines resulting from rotation of the rotatable deflector at a first tilt increment do not interleave with a second set of horizontal scan lines resulting from rotation of the rotational deflector at a second tilt increment (Fig. 2B; [Col. 12, line 63 -Col. 13, line 2] The scan sweeps through a range of azimuth angles (e.g. horizontally along axis 222) and inclination angles (e.g. vertically along axis 224 above and below a level direction at zero inclination). Various can patterns can be used, including adaptive scanning. FIG. 2C is an image that illustrates an example speed point cloud produced by a hi-res Doppler LIDAR system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the horizontal scan pattern with non-overlapping lines similar to Angus, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a rough image of a surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 7, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 5,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the predetermined vertical tilt increments are sized such that a first set of horizontal scan lines resulting from rotation of the rotatable deflector at a first tilt increment at least partially interleave with a second set of horizontal scan lines resulting from rotation of the rotational deflector at a second tilt increment.
However, Angus teaches the system wherein the predetermined vertical tilt increments are sized such that a first set of horizontal scan lines resulting from rotation of the rotatable deflector at a first tilt increment at least partially interleave with a second set of horizontal scan lines resulting from rotation of the rotational deflector at a second tilt increment ([Col. 13, lines 20-32] In an implementation, the oscillatory scan element 226 actuates the beam 205 in opposing directions along the axis 222 between the angles −A and +A as the unidirectional constant speed scan element 228 simultaneously actuates the beam 205 in one direction along the axis 224. In an implementation, the actuation speed of the oscillatory scan element 226 is bi-directional and greater than the unidirectional actuation speed of the constant speed scan element 228, so that the beam 205 is scanned along the axis 222 (e.g. between angles −A to +A) back and forth multiple times for each instance that the beam is scanned along the axis 224 (e.g. from angle =D to +D).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the overlapping horizontal scan configuration similar to Angus, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of defining a more accurate and precise image of a surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 17, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the beam rotator and the rotatable deflector are rotated by a shared motor.
However, Angus teaches the system wherein the beam rotator and the rotatable deflector are rotated by a shared motor ([Col. 13, lines 33-37] the scanner control module 270 provides signals that are transmitted from the processing system 250 to a motor 232 that is mechanically coupled to the oscillatory scan element 226 and/or the unidirectional scan element 228.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the shared motor similar to Angus, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of minimizing the number of parts required for the system.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehring in view of Reeder et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20050111496 A1), hereinafter Reeder
Regarding claim 11, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the beam rotator includes a Pechan prism.
However, Reeder teaches the system wherein the beam rotator includes a Pechan prism ([0030] The present invention teaches the rotation of the laser beam spatial profile between successive round-trip passes through the resonator cavity; [0017] The separate optical rotator element may be a dove prism, Pechan prism or other image rotator element known in the art.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the Pechan prism similar to Reeder, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of utilizing a prism well known in the art to shape and rotate the outgoing beam.
Regarding claim 12, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the beam rotator includes a Dove prism.
However, Reeder teaches the system wherein the beam rotator includes a Dove prism ([0030] The present invention teaches the rotation of the laser beam spatial profile between successive round-trip passes through the resonator cavity; [0017] The separate optical rotator element may be a dove prism, Pechan prism or other image rotator element known in the art.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the Dove prism similar to Reeder, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of utilizing a prism well known in the art to shape and rotate the outgoing beam.
Regarding claim 13, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the beam rotator includes at least a pair of K mirrors.
However, Reeder teaches wherein the beam rotator includes at least a pair of K mirrors ([0030] The present invention teaches the rotation of the laser beam spatial profile between successive round-trip passes through the resonator cavity; [0017] The separate optical rotator element may be a dove prism, Pechan prism or other image rotator element known in the art.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the pair of K mirrors similar to Reeder, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of utilizing a mechanism well known in the art to shape and rotate the outgoing beam.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehring in view of Medina et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20180081037 A1), hereinafter Medina.
Regarding claim 18, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the LIDAR system further includes circuitry to selectively shift a phase of rotation of the beam rotator relative to a phase of rotation of the rotatable deflector to correct for drift associated with a mismatch between a frequency of rotation of the beam pattern provided by the beam rotator and a rotation frequency of the rotatable deflector.
However, Medina teaches the system wherein the LIDAR system further includes circuitry to selectively shift a phase of rotation of the beam rotator relative to a phase of rotation of the rotatable deflector to correct for drift associated with a mismatch between a frequency of rotation of the beam pattern provided by the beam rotator and a rotation frequency of the rotatable deflector ([0045] A feedback including Ractive may provide information to measure/determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle and accordingly, mirror 306 deflection may be corrected.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the calibration circuitry similar to Medina, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of correcting drift issues with the image without the need for direct intervention from a user.
Regarding claim 19, Buehring, as modified above, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 18,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the circuitry includes at least one processor.
However, Medina teaches the system wherein the circuitry includes at least one processor ([0011] The controller may also control deflection of the actuator and may correct a steering signal based on the sensed mechanical deflection.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the processor similar to Medina, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of automating and analyzing the data for calibration.
Regarding claim 20, Buehring, as modified above, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 18,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the selective phase shift is implemented based on feedback indicating the presence of the mismatch between the frequency of rotation of the beam pattern provided by the beam rotator and the rotation frequency of the rotatable deflector.
However, Medina teaches the system wherein the selective phase shift is implemented based on feedback indicating the presence of the mismatch between the frequency of rotation of the beam pattern provided by the beam rotator and the rotation frequency of the rotatable deflector ([0075] Information received from the memory may include laser power budget (defined by eye safety limitations, thermal limitations reliability limitation or otherwise); electrical operational parameters such as current and peak voltages; calibration data such as expected PSY scanning speed, expected PSY scanning frequency, expected PSY scanning position and more).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the feedback alignment calibration similar to Medina, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of utilizing a self-calibrating system to monitor when the rotating devices need to be adjusted.
Regarding claim 21, Buehring, as modified above, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 20,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the selective phase shift is a positive or a negative relative phase shift.
However, Medina teaches the system wherein the selective phase shift is a positive or a negative relative phase shift ([0073] PSY 616 may produce an internal signal measuring the mechanical overshoot then providing such feedback may be utilized by situational assessment logic 626 for calculating drifts and offsets parameters in the PRX and/or for correcting steering parameters control 618 of PSY 616 to correct an offset.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the positive or negative shift similar to Medina, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of finishing the calibration method previously claimed with an easily adjusted calibration.
Regarding claim 22, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the LIDAR system further includes circuitry to selectively shift a phase of rotation of the beam rotator relative to a phase of rotation of the rotatable deflector to compensate for an alignment disparity between the light source and the rotatable deflector.
However, Medina teaches the system wherein the LIDAR system further includes circuitry to selectively shift a phase of rotation of the beam rotator relative to a phase of rotation of the rotatable deflector to compensate for an alignment disparity between the light source and the rotatable deflector ([0045] A feedback including Ractive may provide information to measure/determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle and accordingly, mirror 306 deflection may be corrected.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the feedback alignment calibration similar to Medina, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of utilizing a self-calibrating system to monitor when the rotating devices need to be adjusted.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehring in view of LaChapelle et al. (United States Patent No. 10802120 B1), hereinafter LaChapelle
Regarding claim 23, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the light source includes an array of M×N lasers where N>1 and M does not equal N.
However, LaChapelle teaches the system wherein the light source includes an array of M×N lasers where N>1 and M does not equal N ([Col. 76, lines 31-35] For example, a detector array 342 may include any suitable M×N array of detectors (where Mand N are integers), such as for example, a 4×4, 10×10, 50×50, 100×100, 100×500, 200×1,000, or 1,000×1,000 array of detectors 340).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the asymmetric MxN array similar to LaChapelle, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a multibeam image in desired asymmetric resolutions.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehring in view of Toyama et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20200355800 A1), hereinafter Toyama.
Regarding claim 29, Buehring teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Buehring fails to teach the system wherein the LIDAR system further includes a curved window through which the plurality of laser beams deflected from the rotatable deflector pass.
However, Toyama teaches the system wherein the LIDAR system further includes a curved window through which the plurality of laser beams deflected from the rotatable deflector pass ([0022] an optical window 200 as illustrated in FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the curved window similar to Toyama, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of protecting the spinning lidar device in an external environment.
Regarding claim 30, Buehring, as modified above, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 29,
Buehring fails to teach the system further including at least one lens to correct for one or more aberrations imparted to at least one of the plurality of laser beams by the curved window.
However, Toyama teaches the system further including at least one lens to correct for one or more aberrations imparted to at least one of the plurality of laser beams by the curved window ([0051] The light having entered the light-projecting deflector 20a is outputted through the optical window 200; [0052] passes through the optical window 200, being reflected on the light-receiving deflector 20b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Buehring to comprise the correcting lens similar to Toyama, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of correcting any unintended diffraction made from the window.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the prior art does not teach maintaining a beam pattern in a substantially fixed orientation relative to a deflection surface of a rotatable deflector as it rotates about eh scanning axis, as formally part of claim 10, now in claim 1, the claim language states that the rotation of the deflector is maintained in a manner that is suitable for maintaining the scanning pattern. Absent of further description on how this process is achieved, the deflector present in Buehring is sufficient in describing a rotating deflector that maintains a beam pattern that is consistent as described in the figures described in the cited paragraph, namely Figures. 4 and 5. As such the prior art is maintained as teaching the claim limitations as previously and currently presented and the rejection is maintained to this final rejection.
Regarding the new claim, 32, the section above regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been amended to include the relevant teachings of the prior art over the claimed limitations, as necessitated by the amendments made.
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 ROBERT WILLIAM VASQUEZ JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, Flex Friday, 8:00-5:00 PST.
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, HELAL ALGAHAIM can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/ROBERT W VASQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645