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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9-11, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Switkes (US 20160054735 A1).
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 1,3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switkes (US 20230054037 A1), in view of Jumpertz (US 20220063622 A1), and further in view of Switkes (US 20160054735 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Switkes (US 20230054037 A1) discloses a method comprising:
receiving sensor data about at least one intercepting vehicle between a tow vehicle, the at least one trailer vehicle being untethered and towed by the tow vehicle [0007] “The system and method involve operating a following vehicle (i.e., untethered and towed by the tow vehicle) in a platoon behind a lead vehicle, receiving data generated by one or more sensors arranged to interrogate a space radially extending from the lead vehicle as the lead vehicle travels over the road surface, ascertaining a hazard caused by an object in the space, and causing the following vehicle to take a preemptive action to avoid or mitigate the hazard caused by the object in the space, the preemptive action taken by the following vehicle prior to the lead vehicle taking any action in response to the hazard caused by the object.”;
in response to detection of the at least one intercepting vehicle … to tow the trailer vehicle by the tow vehicle (Switkes [0070] The dissolve mode may optionally (i.e., can dissolve or keep the platoon) be triggered by a wide variety of different circumstances, as for example, in response to one of the platoon partners or the NOC deciding to terminate the platoon “the detection [i.e., receiving sensor data] of a car cutting-in between the platooning vehicles,” wherein the “platooning vehicles” are a “lead truck,” which is a tow vehicle, and a “following truck,” which is a trailer vehicle, see [0034] One of the goals of platooning is typically to maintain a desired longitudinal distance between the platooning vehicles, which is frequently referred to herein as the “desired gap”. That is, it is desirable for the trailing vehicle (e.g., a trailing truck) to maintain a designated gap relative to a specific vehicle (e.g., a lead truck).”
outputting, using an output system, information related to the at least one intercepting vehicle (Switkes [0099] discloses “When the host vehicle is the lead vehicle in a platoon [i.e., tow vehicle], the gateway processor transmits a video feed [i.e., data] received from the forward-facing camera 477 to the trailing vehicle(s) [i.e., one or more trailer vehicles] so that the driver of the trailing vehicle has a view of what is in front of the lead vehicle.”) Switkes [0070] discloses “the detection of a car cutting-in (i.e., at least one vehicle) between the platooning vehicles”)
and the at least one trailer vehicle based on the sensor data the information including at least a position of the at least one trailer vehicle and a position of the at least one intercepting vehicle (Switkes [0102] discloses “GPS unit 131 to receive positional information about the location of the vehicle.”) (Switkes [0034] One of the goals of platooning is typically to maintain a desired longitudinal distance between the platooning vehicles, which is frequently referred to herein as the “desired gap”. That is, it is desirable for the trailing vehicle (e.g., a trailing truck) to maintain a designated gap relative to a specific vehicle (e.g., a lead truck).” (Switkes [0063] Of course, other distance measuring technologies can be used to measure or estimate the gap between vehicles as represented by other trackers 289. By way of example, a GPS tracker could be used that is based primarily on the respective reported GPS positions of the vehicles.”) (Switkes [0099] discloses “The partner vehicle (i.e., trailer vehicle) state information 444 includes state information about the partner vehicle that has been validated by the partner vehicle's system manager and is useful for one or more safety monitors 465 on the host vehicle.”) Switkes discloses determining the trailer vehicle’s position based on sensor data and making that information available for control and decision making. See [0034, 0063, and 0099].
receiving from a user, using an input system, a … position for the at least one trailer vehicle relative to the at least one intercepting vehicle, the input system being external to the at least one trailer vehicle; (Switkes [0112] discloses “The driver [i.e., user] interface device 469 [i.e., input system] may be a button or other suitable mechanism positioned at a convenient location on the host vehicle dashboard or elsewhere in the host vehicle cabin.”) (Switkes [0102] discloses “GPS unit 131 to receive positional information about the location of the vehicle.”)
and transmitting the … position to the at least one trailer vehicle. (Switkes [0106] discloses “The partner vehicle [i.e., trailer vehicle] state information 444 includes state information [e.g., position or speed] about the partner vehicle that has been validated by the partner vehicle's system manager and is useful for one or more safety monitors 465 on the host vehicle.”) (Switkes also discloses [0102] “The platoon controller 410 is configured as a listener on any appropriate vehicle communications buses where it can directly obtain information about the vehicle's operational state—such as the vehicle's current wheel speed, any brake or accelerator pedal inputs, steering wheel position (as appropriate), transmission gear, etc. It is also coupled to sensor units such as GPS unit 131 to receive positional information about the location of the vehicle”) A person that is skilled in the art would understand that since the platoon controller obtains position information about the vehicles in the platoon using GPS data that is communicated through the partner vehicle state information 444 using user input. Therefore, it is able to know the platoon vehicles or cutting in vehicle positions related to each other’s.
Switkes (US 20230054037 A1) does not fully teach the claim limitations regarding “in response to detection of the at least one intercepting vehicle ,continuing to tow the trailer vehicle by the tow vehicle” and “receiving from a user, using an input system, a new position for the at least one trailer vehicle relative to the position of at least one intercepting vehicle”
However, Jumpertz teaches equivalent teachings wherein in response to detection of the at least one intercepting vehicle, … to tow the trailer vehicle by the tow vehicle [0143] “Now turning to FIG. 7, a function graph diagram is shown illustrating example, non-limiting embodiments of a function for controlling longitudinal clearance in response to vehicle's actual speed v.sub.DV. In particular, a function is shown of speed-dependent clearance control with a positive correlation between x-axis depicted driverless vehicle speed 440 and y-axis depicted longitudinal clearance 450 between pilot vehicle and driverless vehicle for a convoy of two vehicles in forward motion. The function is shown for all speed levels between 0 km/h and maximum convoy speed of 100 km/h marked by double-broken vertical line 442. Bold solid line 400 depicts speed-dependent target longitudinal clearance LC.sub.target.” [0144] “A positive correlation between driverless vehicle speed and LC.sub.target may be required to ensure sufficient safety clearance for rear-collision avoidance in case of hard braking or emergency braking. At low-speed levels below 20 km/h clearance may be marginal due to low reaction time required for collision avoidance between leading and trailing vehicles. Low clearance may help to avoid frequent convoy interruptions from other traffic participants. A convoy interruption is understood to describe a state where another traffic participant, i.e. not participating in a convoy, is physically positioned between a leading and a trailing vehicle of a convoy. With increasing speed target clearance may increase because of growing safety clearance required for collision avoidance and decreasing risk of convoy interruptions.”
receiving from a user, using an input system, a new position for the at least one trailer vehicle relative to the at least one intercepting vehicle [0013] “The method relates to controlling a convoy including a pilot vehicle and a driverless vehicle. It includes electronically tethering the driverless vehicle to the pilot vehicle by establishing communication between a pilot vehicle control module and a driverless vehicle control module. It further includes receiving a longitudinal control user input in the pilot vehicle control module and communicating a longitudinal motion request from the pilot vehicle control module to the driverless vehicle control module. The longitudinal motion request is indicative of the longitudinal control user input. It further includes controlling a propulsion and braking system of the driverless vehicle in response to the longitudinal motion request received from the pilot vehicle and controlling a propulsion and braking system of the pilot vehicle, while tethered to the driverless vehicle, to maintain a target longitudinal clearance from the driverless vehicle.” [0129] “Any controlling activity may start with a convoy context 700, including desired and requested convoy properties, as for example, time of arrival, maximum speed, and scheduled route, and current convoy conditions, as for example actual speed, traffic conditions, traffic rules, behavior of other vehicles and traffic participants in the convoy's immediate proximity, road conditions, and ambient conditions.” [0285] “Vehicle system 600 may furthermore include a user interface 637 which is used to inform a human driver about actions required or information critical to safe and secure driving. In other embodiments, visual information such as rear mirror video streams, sensor readings, etc. may be presented to the human driver of a pilot vehicle through the user interface 637. The user interface device 637 may thus be, for example, a LED screen, a screen display, a head-up display, a laser beam projection or any other type of display used as user interface in automotive vehicles, a speaker, or any similar audio-visual device. The user interface 637 may also receive input from the human driver. For example, the user interface 637 may include keys or buttons, a touch-screen, a speech recognition system, or a gesture recognition system.”
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art to combine Switkes and Jumpertz’s explicit design goal to maintain the digital coupling while other vehicles are nearby and Switkes’ optional dissolve mode, would find it obvious to avoid interruptions of the platoon “towing” relation after detection of an intercepting vehicle, adapting longitudinal control instead of immediately dissolving. It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art, in the cut-in scenario of Switkes, to extend this mechanism so that the pilot driver, via the pilot UI, can specify a new desired relative position of the driverless trailer with respect to the intercepting vehicle (e.g., desired gap behind or ahead of the cut-in).
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Switkes and Jumpertz teachings to improve the system overall operations and safety [0010] “The present disclosure provides a solution that allows a human driver-controlled vehicle to locate, identify, connect to and pilot another vehicle. For that purpose, the other vehicle is equipped with a suitable vehicle control system. The solution simulates or approximates the effects of a physical connection between a leading vehicle and one or more trailing vehicles in a convoy. The disclosure thereby enables a safe, secure, and reliable coupling independently of the physical nature and technical properties of the vehicles involved. It allows operation in various traffic conditions, road conditions and ambient conditions of a specific convoy.”
The combination of Switkes (US 20230054037 A1) with Jumpertz does not appear to teach the full claim limitations regarding “in response to detection of the at least one intercepting vehicle, continuing to tow the trailer vehicle by the tow vehicle”
However, Switkes (US 20160054735 A1) teaches equivalent teachings wherein in response to detection of the at least one intercepting vehicle, continuing to tow the trailer vehicle by the tow vehicle [0074] “the system includes an “allow to merge” button to be used when the driver wants another vehicle to be able to merge in between the two vehicles. The button triggers an increase in the vehicle gap to a normal following distance, followed by an automatic resumption of the close following distance once the merging vehicle has left. The length of this gap may be determined by the speed of the vehicles, the current gap, an identification of the vehicle that wishes to merge, the road type, and other factors. The transition to and from this gap may have a smooth shape similar to that used for the original linking event. Using D.sub.v as the relative distance to allow a vehicle to cut in, and D.sub.a as the desired distance in semi-autonomous following mode, and a time Tt for the transition to occur, the target distance may be D.sub.g=D.sub.a+(D.sub.v−D.sub.a)*(1−cos(pi*t/T.sub.d))/2 for t less than or equal to T.sub.d.” Switkes expressly teaches the successful interception scenario (“merge in between”) and that the system continues the convoy relationship by managing the gap and then resuming close-following automatically (i.e., “continuing to tow in response to” the cut-in event.)
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Switkes (2023) with Switkes (2016) and Jumpertz because all are directed to convoy/platooning control, and the combination predictably improves handling of the known “cut-in/merge-between” event detected in Switkes (2023) by maintaining the convoy (i.e., continuing to tow) relationship via the explicit merge-between gap control of Switkes (2016) [0074], implemented using the user-input longitudinal request and clearance-control architecture of Jumpertz [0013], [0285], consistent with Jumpertz’s objective of reducing convoy interruptions by other traffic participants [0144]. to make the system wherein in response to detection of the at least one intercepting vehicle, continuing to tow the trailer vehicle by the tow vehicle.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Switkes and Jumpertz teachings to improve the system overall safety and efficiency Switkes (2016) [0008] It is therefore apparent that an urgent need exists for reliable and economical Semi-Autonomous Vehicular Convoying. These improved Semi-Autonomous Vehicular Convoying Systems enable vehicles to follow closely together in a safe, efficient, convenient manner.
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Switkes with Jumpertz teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
Switkes discloses determining a status update of the at least one trailer vehicle. (Switkes [0036] discloses “a platoon controller 110, receives inputs [i.e., status] from a number of sensors 130 on the tractor and/or one or more trailers or other connected units.”)
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Switkes with Jumpertz teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: Switkes discloses determining whether a condition has been met; and outputting, using the output system, an alert based on determining that the condition has been met. (Switkes [0133] discloses “The module 906 is responsible for implementing specific preemptive action(s) that correspond to the selected severity threat level [i.e., conditions], as determined by the module 904, to mitigate or avoid the risks resulting from the object 806 in the space 810. Such preemptive action(s) may include, but are not limited to, broad categories such warnings and/or alerts.”)
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Switkes with Jumpertz teaches the method of claim 5, Switkes discloses wherein the condition is at least of: a distance between the tow vehicle and the at least one trailer vehicle exceeding predetermined distance; or a number of vehicles between the tow vehicle and the at least one trailer vehicle exceeding a predetermined number. (Switkes [0176] discloses “Since 50 meters is generally considered a safe distance, and all involved vehicles are traveling at approximately the same speed, any perceived threat will be low. As a result, simply warning and/or alerting the platoon drivers and any other surrounding drivers, is an adequate response commensurate with the relatively low threat. As a result, the warnings alerts, such flashing warning lights, vibrating the seats of the platooning drivers, setting off an audio warning, are typically sufficient preemptive actions.”)
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Switkes with Jumpertz teaches a system comprising:
Switkes discloses a processor; and a memory storing machine-readable instructions (Switkes [0097] discloses “the described controllers can be implemented algorithmically using software or firmware algorithms executing on one or more processors, using programmable logic, using digital or analog components or using any combination of the preceding.”)
The claim also recites a system of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 10, The claim recites a system of the parallel limitations in claim 3, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 12, The claim recites a system of the parallel limitations in claim 5, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 13, The claim recites a system of the parallel limitations in claim 6, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 15, The claim recites a non-transitory readable media of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 17, The claim recites a non-transitory readable media of the parallel limitations in claim 3, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 19, The claim recites a non-transitory readable media of the parallel limitations in claim 5, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 20, The claim recites a non-transitory readable media of the parallel limitations in claim 6, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switkes (US 20230054037 A1) in view of Laubinger (US 20170344023 A1), and further in view of Jumpertz (US 20220063622 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Switkes with Jumpertz teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
Switkes does not teach “determining a route to the new position; generating at least one instruction based on the route; and transmitting at least one of the routes or the at least one instruction to the at least one trailer vehicle.”
However, Laubinger teaches equivalent teachings determining a route to …;
(Laubinger [0111] discloses “the route for a vehicle available for platooning must be known at least in part. This can be accomplished by generating a vehicle travel forecast, as shown in FIG. 12. The process there starts by receiving position information for a vehicle, designated Vehicle A, at step 1200. The position information can comprise longitude/latitude information, or a coordinate pair plus speed and heading, or a series or trail of coordinate pairs.”) The system determines the route of the vehicles in the platoon based on the position data by generating travel forecast
generating at least one instruction based on the route; (Laubinger [0114] discloses “the route information is fetched (i.e., generated) from the database of known routes. Vehicle A's position is then compared to the known route, as shown at step 1245. If Vehicle A is off route, a determination is made (i.e., instruction based on route information) at step 1250 as to where and when it is feasible for Vehicle A to rejoin the expected route.”)
and transmitting at least one of the routes or the at least one instruction to the at least one trailer vehicle. (Laubinger [0147] discloses “In this case, the display 2500 indicates to the follow vehicle that the lead vehicle is −495 feet behind the intended follow vehicle. The system instructs the operator of the follow vehicle to let the lead vehicle pull ahead.”)
Switkes and Laubinger do not teach the claim limitation regarding “determining a route to a new position”
However, Jumpertz teaches equivalent teachings wherein determining a route to a new position [0013] “The method relates to controlling a convoy including a pilot vehicle and a driverless vehicle. It includes electronically tethering the driverless vehicle to the pilot vehicle by establishing communication between a pilot vehicle control module and a driverless vehicle control module. It further includes receiving a longitudinal control user input in the pilot vehicle control module and communicating a longitudinal motion request from the pilot vehicle control module to the driverless vehicle control module. The longitudinal motion request is indicative of the longitudinal control user input. It further includes controlling a propulsion and braking system of the driverless vehicle in response to the longitudinal motion request received from the pilot vehicle and controlling a propulsion and braking system of the pilot vehicle, while tethered to the driverless vehicle, to maintain a target longitudinal clearance from the driverless vehicle.” [0129] “Any controlling activity may start with a convoy context 700, including desired and requested convoy properties, as for example, time of arrival, maximum speed, and scheduled route, and current convoy conditions, as for example actual speed, traffic conditions, traffic rules, behavior of other vehicles and traffic participants in the convoy's immediate proximity, road conditions, and ambient conditions.”
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art prior to the effective filling date to combine Switkes, Laubinger, and Jumpertz teachings to make the system to determine a route to the new position and generate instructions based on position and route data between the tow and trailer vehicle.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Switkes, Laubinger, and Jumpertz teachings to improve the system overall operations and safety [0010] “The present disclosure provides a solution that allows a human driver-controlled vehicle to locate, identify, connect to and pilot another vehicle. For that purpose, the other vehicle is equipped with a suitable vehicle control system. The solution simulates or approximates the effects of a physical connection between a leading vehicle and one or more trailing vehicles in a convoy. The disclosure thereby enables a safe, secure, and reliable coupling independently of the physical nature and technical properties of the vehicles involved. It allows operation in various traffic conditions, road conditions and ambient conditions of a specific convoy.”
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Switkes with Jumpertz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the information comprises at least one of:
Switkes discloses a relative position of the tow vehicle; a relative position of the at least one intercepting vehicle;
a relative position of the at one least trailer vehicle; (Switkes [0063] discloses “By way of example, a GPS tracker could be used that is based primarily on the respective reported GPS positions of the vehicles [i.e., all positions of vehicles of the platoon].”)
a speed of the tow vehicle; a speed of the at least one vehicle; a speed of the at least one trailer vehicle; (Switkes [0058] discloses “The ground speed estimator 275 is arranged to estimate the actual ground speed of the respective platoon partners.”)
Switkes and Jumpertz do not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “and an estimate of time for the at least one trailer vehicle to be behind the tow vehicle with no other vehicle in between the tow vehicle and the at least one trailer vehicle”
However, Laubinger teaches equivalent teachings wherein an estimate of time for the at least one trailer vehicle to be behind the tow vehicle with no other vehicle in between the tow vehicle and the at least one trailer vehicle. (Laubinger [0113] discloses “Vehicle A's route start location and time is used together with Vehicle A's expected speeds, to calculate, in the NOC or in the Vehicle Monitoring and Control System 700, minimum and maximum times for Vehicle A's arrival at specific waypoints on the identified route.”) The system uses location and time to calculate (i.e., estimate the time) to know minimum and maximum time for the trailing vehicle to arrive at a specific point behind the tow vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art prior to the effective filling date to combine Switkes, Laubinger, and Jumpertz teachings to make the system estimate the time it takes for a trailer vehicle to be behind the tow vehicle.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Switkes, Laubinger, and Jumpertz teachings to improve the system overall operations and safety [0010] “The present disclosure provides a solution that allows a human driver-controlled vehicle to locate, identify, connect to and pilot another vehicle. For that purpose, the other vehicle is equipped with a suitable vehicle control system. The solution simulates or approximates the effects of a physical connection between a leading vehicle and one or more trailing vehicles in a convoy. The disclosure thereby enables a safe, secure, and reliable coupling independently of the physical nature and technical properties of the vehicles involved. It allows operation in various traffic conditions, road conditions and ambient conditions of a specific convoy.”
Regarding Claim 9, The claim recites a system of the parallel limitations in claim 2, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 11, The claim recites a system of the parallel limitations in claim 4, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 16, The claim recites a non-transitory readable media of the parallel limitations in claim 2, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 18, The claim recites a non-transitory readable media of the parallel limitations in claim 4, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switkes (US 20230054037 A1) in view of Jumpertz (US 20220063622 A1), and further in view of Laubinger (US 20170344023 A1) and, in further view of Rothoff (US 20150154871 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Switkes with Jumpertz and Laubinger teaches the method of claim 1, The combination of Switkes with Jumpertz and Laubinger does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein at least two vehicles are between the tow vehicle and the at least one trailer vehicle; and the new position is in between the at least two vehicles”
However, Rothoff teaches equivalent teachings wherein at least two vehicles are between the tow vehicle and the at least one trailer vehicle; and the new position is in between the at least two vehicles (Rothoff [0091] discloses “The vehicles 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 of the group 100 are within communication range of the lead vehicle.”) See also (Rothoff Fig.3b)” in FIG. 3b all the vehicles drive in the same lane.” At least two or more vehicles are in between the tow and trailer vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art prior to the effective filling date to combine Switkes, Jumpertz, Laubinger, and Rothoff teachings to make the system have two or more vehicles in between the trailer vehicle and the tow vehicle.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Switkes, Jumpertz, Laubinger, and Rothoff teachings to improve safety and efficiency in platooning vehicles [Rothoff 0020] “the vehicles of the group can drive closer to each other than if each vehicle is individually driven, reducing air resistance and thereby saving fuel, which is positive for both environment and economy and also makes it possible to utilize the road network in a more efficient way.”
Regarding Claim 14, The claim recites a system of the parallel limitations in claim 7, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662