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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Claims 13 and 16 are amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Regarding claim 10 it is unclear how the complex envelope, evaluation function, sum function, angle of evaluation and sampling frequency all work together. Applicant simply states that the envelope is subjected to evaluation without showing how the evaluation portion is selected or chosen. Applicant does not show what is meant by the sum function as it can mean anything from the total returned signal to any filtering or evaluation of the returns. Applicant does not explain how an angle is calculated in the evaluation portion or what the angle even is as an evaluation is not a geometric figure that has an angle. There is no explanation on how a sampling frequency is involved in it as it shows up for the first time in the very last line of the claim and does not show to a person of ordinary skill in the art the metes and bounds of the claim and how the various parts are supposed to function together.
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 1-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egbert (WO 2014180609 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Egbert discloses transmitting an ultrasonic burst signal with a first number of ultrasonic pulses following each other at a frequency and, timely offset from this ultrasonic burst signal[Abstract, Claims 1-3 have 2 bursts and fig 8 shows first burst #22 followed by second burst #23, Additionally first burst is said to be temporally earlier meaning offset], an ultrasonic burst signal with a second number of ultrasonic pulses following each other at a same or a different frequency respectively into a same area of the environment of the vehicle and in a same direction by an ultrasonic transmitter within repeating measuring cycles[ Abstract has bursts directed to object], the second number of ultrasonic pulses being greater than the first number of ultrasonic pulses[Abstract, Claim 1,2,3 has 2 ultrasonic bursts each with a number of pulses each of which is different as second burst has more pulses],
- creating timely offset echo signals at an object present in said area of the environment of the vehicle by reflection of the two ultrasonic burst signals, which echo signals are received by an ultrasonic receiver[Abstract, Claims 1-3 have 2 bursts and fig 8 shows first burst #22 followed by second burst #23; Moreover ultrasound object detection works by generating echos from objects based on the principles of physics; Additionally first burst is said to be temporally earlier meaning timely offset],
- evaluating the echo signals of both ultrasonic burst signals to determine different parameters of an object present in said area of the environment of the vehicle[ Abstract has analysis unit evaluate the signal],
- calculating a distance of an object present in said area of the environment of the vehicle from the vehicle based on the echo signal of the ultrasonic burst signal with the first number of ultrasonic pulses[Abstract, Claim 1, Description has distance to object from echo being calculated from first burst signal], and
- calculating, based on the echo signal of the ultrasonic burst signal with the second number of ultrasonic pulses, a velocity at which the vehicle and the object present in said area of the environment of the vehicle move relative to each other in the direction of transmission of both ultrasonic burst signals or opposite thereto [Description has second burst signal with a barker code and Fig 3 has correlation of function of speed of object with baker code meaning the second burst signal indicates the speed of object. Same with Figs 4, 5. See also Abstract; Moreover Egbert has doppler shifts and it would be well understood based on the basic principles of physics that using doppler means relative velocity is being measured Moreover using a pulse to measure distance or velocity would be arbitrary and a matter of design choice]..
Regarding claim 5, Egbert discloses an ultrasonic transmitter for a timely offset transmission of two ultrasonic burst signals in a same direction into a same area of the environment of the vehicle[Abstract, Claims 1-3 have 2 bursts and fig 8 shows first burst #22 followed by second burst #23, Additionally first burst is said to be temporally earlier meaning timely offset], the transmission occurring within repeating measuring cycles[ Abstract, Claims 1-3 have bursts and receiving echos], one ultrasonic burst signal comprising a first number of ultrasonic pulses following each other at a frequency and the other ultrasonic burst signal comprising a second number of ultrasonic pulses different from the first number of ultrasonic pulses and following each other at the same or a different frequency [Abstract, Claim 1,2,3 has 2 ultrasonic bursts each with a number of pulses each of which is different as second burst has more pulses],
- an ultrasonic receiver for receiving echo signals of the two ultrasonic burst signals upon reflection at an object potentially present in said area of the environment of the vehicle[ Abstract, Claims 1-3 have 2 bursts and fig 8 shows first burst #22 followed by second burst #23; Moreover ultrasound object detection works by generating echos from objects based on the principles of physics],
- a signal processing unit for evaluation of the two echo signals to determine different parameters of an object potentially present in said area of the environment of the vehicle[ Abstract has analysis unit evaluate the signal],
- a distance of an object potentially present in said area of the environment of the vehicle from the vehicle being calculated based on the echo signal of the ultrasonic burst signal with a lower number of ultrasonic pulses, [Abstract, Claim 1, Description has distance to object from echo being calculated from first burst signal] and
- based on the echo signal of the ultrasonic burst signal with a higher number of ultrasonic pulses, a velocity can be calculated at which the vehicle and an object potentially present in said area of the environment of the vehicle move relative to each other in the direction of the transmission of both ultrasonic burst signals or opposite thereto [Description has second burst signal with a barker code and Fig 3 has correlation of function of speed of object with baker code meaning the second burst signal indicates the speed of object. Same with Figs 4, 5. See also Abstract; Moreover Egbert has doppler shifts and it would be well understood based on the basic principles of physics that using doppler means relative velocity is being measured. Moreover using a pulse to measure distance or velocity would be arbitrary and a matter of design choice]
Regarding claim 2, Egbert discloses wherein the analysis of the echo signals is performed using a signal processing unit. [Abstract and description has an analysis unit evaluates the receiver output signals and passes the data of the measured reflections to the outside for further processing].
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Egbert discloses wherein as the ultrasonic transmitter and as the ultrasonic receiver, an ultrasonic transducer is used that fulfills the functions of both. [Description has it being cost effective to use same transducer as transmitter and receiver]
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 4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbert (WO 2014180609 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Cheatham(US 20160364960 A1) and/or Ding (US 11733377 B2) and/or Hoenes(US 6166995 A).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Egbert does not explicitly teach wherein the ultrasonic burst signal with the lower number of pulses comprises 10 to 20 pulses, and/or a length of 190 us to 380 us, and the ultrasonic burst signal with the higher number of pulses advantageously comprises 170 to 220 pulses, and/or a length of 3.2 ms to 4.0 ms.
Cheatham teaches ….. number of pulses comprises 10 to 20 pulses and/or a length of 190us to 380 us, and the ultrasonic burst signal with the higher number of pulses advantageously comprises 170 to 220 pulses, and/or a length of 3.2 ms to 4.0 ms, [0062-0063 has pulses that may be of any duration and number of pulses meaning a person of ordinary skill can find the optimum time and number of pulses].
Ding teaches wherein the ultrasonic burst signal ….. comprises 10 to 20 pulses, and/or a length of 190 us to 380 us, and the ultrasonic burst signal with the higher number of pulses advantageously comprises 170 to 220 pulses, and/or a length of 3.2 ms to 4.0 ms, [Col 4, Lines 20-30 has 15-100 pulses which reads on the limitation]
Hoenes teaches wherein the ultrasonic burst signal ….. comprises 10 to 20 pulses, and/or a length of 190 us to 380 us, and the ultrasonic burst signal with the higher number of pulses advantageously comprises 170 to 220 pulses, and/or a length of 3.2 ms to 4.0 ms,. [Col 4, Lines 20-30 has 300microsecond pulse length which reads on the claim language]
Egbert does not explicitly teach the specific number and length of pulses. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egbert with the teachings in Cheatam for any number and/or duration of pulses or the number of pulses in Ding and/or the pulse length in Hoenes to get the desired number and length of pulses, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Egbert does not explicitly teach herein the ultrasonic burst signal with the lower number of pulses comprises 16 pulses, and a length of 300 us, and the ultrasonic burst signal with the higher number of pulses comprises 190 pulses, and a length of 3.6 ms.
Cheatham teaches herein the ultrasonic burst signal with the lower number of pulses comprises 16 pulses, and a length of 300 us, and the ultrasonic burst signal with the higher number of pulses comprises 190 pulses, and a length of 3.6 ms. [0062-0063 has pulses that may be of any duration and number of pulses meaning a person of ordinary skill can find the optimum time and number of pulses].
Ding teaches herein the ultrasonic burst signal with the lower number of pulses comprises 16 pulses, and a length of 300 us, and the ultrasonic burst signal with the higher number of pulses comprises 190 pulses, and a length of 3.6 ms. [Col 4, Lines 20-30 has 15-100 pulses which reads on the limitation]
Hoenes teaches herein the ultrasonic burst signal with the lower number of pulses comprises 16 pulses, and a length of 300 us, and the ultrasonic burst signal with the higher number of pulses comprises 190 pulses, and a length of 3.6 ms. [Col 4, Lines 20-30 has 300microsecond pulse length which reads on the claim language]
Egbert does not explicitly teach the specific number and length of pulses. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egbert with the teachings in Cheatam for any number and/or duration of pulses or the number of pulses in Ding and/or the pulse length in Hoenes to get the desired number and length of pulses, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbert (WO 2014180609 Al) in view of Ding (US 11733377 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Egbert teaches - transmitting an ultrasonic burst signal with a first number of ultrasonic pulses following each other at a frequency and, timely offset from this ultrasonic burst signal [Abstract, Claims 1-3 have 2 bursts and fig 8 shows first burst #22 followed by second burst #23, Additionally first burst is said to be temporally earlier meaning timely offset], an ultrasonic burst signal with a second number of ultrasonic pulses following each other at a same or a different frequency respectively into a same area of the environment of the vehicle and in a same direction by an ultrasonic transmitter within repeating measuring cycles Abstract has bursts directed to object], the second number of ultrasonic pulses being greater than the first number of ultrasonic pulses Abstract, Claim 1,2,3 has 2 ultrasonic bursts each with a number of pulses each of which is different as second burst has more pulses],
- creating timely offset echo signals at an object present in said area of the environment of the vehicle by reflection of the two ultrasonic burst signals, which echo signals are received by an ultrasonic receiver, [Abstract, Claims 1-3 have 2 bursts and fig 8 shows first burst #22 followed by second burst #23; Moreover ultrasound object detection works by generating echos from objects based on the principles of physics; Additionally first burst is said to be temporally earlier meaning timely offset]
- evaluating the echo signals of both ultrasonic burst signals to determine different parameters of an object present in said area of the environment of the vehicle [Abstract has analysis unit evaluate the signal],
- calculating a distance of an object present in said area of the environment of the vehicle from the vehicle based on the echo signal of the ultrasonic burst signal with the first number of ultrasonic pulses, [Abstract, Claim 1, Description has distance to object from echo being calculated from first burst signal] …..
- calculating a velocity at which the vehicle and the object present in said area of the environment of the vehicle move relative to each other in the direction of transmission of both ultrasonic burst signals or opposite thereto, based on calculated angle, a wavelength of the burst signal and a sampling frequency [Description has second burst signal with a barker code and Fig 3 has correlation of function of speed of object with baker code meaning the second burst signal indicates the speed of object. Same with Figs 4, 5. See also Abstract; Moreover Egbert has doppler shifts and it would be well understood based on the basic principles of physics that using doppler means relative velocity is being measured. Moreover using a pulse to measure distance or velocity would be arbitrary and a matter of design choice].
Egbert does not explicitly teach - calculating a complex envelope signal based on the ultrasonic burst signal with the second number of ultrasonic pulses;
- calculating an evaluation portion of the calculated complex envelope signal using a sum function;
- calculating an angle of the evaluation portion, and
Ding teaches that - calculating a complex envelope signal based on the ultrasonic burst signal with the second number of ultrasonic pulses; [Abstract, Fig 3 has use of envelope in correlation and processing]
- calculating an evaluation portion of the calculated complex envelope signal using a sum function; [Fig 8, Col 10, Lines 55-65 has correlator doing sums]
- calculating an angle of the evaluation portion, and [Col 13, Lines 1-15 have velocity calculation based on frequency and burst]
calculating a velocity at which the vehicle and the object present in said area of the environment of the vehicle move relative to each other in the direction of transmission of both ultrasonic burst signals or opposite thereto, based on calculated angle, a wavelength of the burst signal and a sampling frequency [Col 13, Lines 1-15 have velocity calculation based on frequency and burst].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the echo analyzer in Egbert in view of the envelope correlation in Ding in order to correlate the signal to find the velocity.
Regarding claim 11, Egbert does not explicitly teach further comprising determining a second velocity, wherein the second velocity is a vehicle velocity relative to the environment by evaluating ground clutter signals reflected from a ground surface.
Ding teaches further comprising determining a second velocity, wherein the second velocity is a vehicle velocity relative to the environment by evaluating ground clutter signals reflected from a ground surface. [Col 13, Lines 1-15 have velocity calculation based on frequency and burst Fig 1 shows it is based on the environment and objects]
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbert (WO 2014180609 Al) in view of Ding (US 11733377 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Prus (US 20220043143 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Egbert does not explicitly teach averaging phase shifts caused by a plurality of reflectors over a length of the second number of ultrasonic pulses.
Prus teaches that averaging phase shifts caused by a plurality of reflectors over a length of the second number of ultrasonic pulses. [0073 has average of phase shift of various reflection signals].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the echo analyzer in Egbert with the averaging of phase shift signals in Prus in order to remove artifacts.
Regarding claim 13, Egbert does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of reflectors causing the phase shifts include moving parts of a pedestrian [Though this appears to be an intended use and would carry little patentable weight as it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).]
Ding teaches wherein the plurality of reflectors causing the phase shifts include moving parts of a pedestrian [Col 9, Lines 20-25 has use for detecting pedestrians]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the echo analyzer in Egbert with pedestrian detection in Ding in order to identify pedestrians.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbert (WO 2014180609 Al) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding (US 11733377 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Egbert does not explicitly teach further comprising determining a second velocity, wherein the second velocity is a vehicle velocity relative to the environment by evaluating ground clutter signals reflected from a ground surface.
Ding teaches further comprising determining a second velocity, wherein the second velocity is a vehicle velocity relative to the environment by evaluating ground clutter signals reflected from a ground surface. [Col 13, Lines 1-15 have velocity calculation based on frequency and burst Fig 1 shows it is based on the environment and objects]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the echo analyzer in Egbert in view of the envelope correlation in Ding in order to correlate the signal to find the velocity.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbert (WO 2014180609 Al) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prus (US 20220043143 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Egbert does not explicitly teach averaging phase shifts caused by a plurality of reflectors over a length of the second number of ultrasonic pulses.
Prus teaches that averaging phase shifts caused by a plurality of reflectors over a length of the second number of ultrasonic pulses. [0073 has average of phase shift of various reflection signals].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the echo analyzer in Egbert with the averaging of phase shift signals in Prus in order to remove artifacts.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbert (WO 2014180609 A1) in view of Prus (US 20220043143 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ding (US 11733377 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Egbert does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of reflectors causing the phase shifts include moving parts of a pedestrian [Though this appears to be an intended use and would carry little patentable weight as it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).]
Ding teaches wherein the plurality of reflectors causing the phase shifts include moving parts of a pedestrian [Col 9, Lines 20-25 has use for detecting pedestrians]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the echo analyzer in Egbert with pedestrian detection in Ding in order to identify pedestrians.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicants arguments on page 1-2 regarding the 112 rejection it is pointed out that in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Formulas cited as being in the specification, Mathematical notations, and explanations in the specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicants 102 arguments on page 3-4, applicant is reading the prior art of Egbert overly narrowly, as it is a basic concept in physics to use doppler or even simply using echos received to measure the velocity of an object. In response to applicant's argument that Egbert has Doppler robustness, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Applicant is claiming calculating velocity of object from echos and that is what is exactly what is happening in Egbert.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically applicant is reading the prior art of Egbert and Ding overly narrowly on pages 4-5 regarding the 103 rejection. Applicant is simply stating that Ding is not performing the limitation without distinguishing it from the prior art. Moreover the decision to use different bursts for different purposes would also have been an obvious matter of design choice to since applicant has not disclosed that having different pings for different purposes solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with one ping or spare pings.
Additionally, the applicant is reading the prior art of Prus and Ding on pages 6-10 regarding the 103 rejection, focusing on details such as microbubbles. The claim requires averaging phase shifts caused by a plurality of reflectors over a length of the second number of ultrasonic pulses and Prus has averaging of phase shifts meaning it reads on the claim.
It is also pointed out that the surfaces of an object causing phase shift as pointed out in the specification at [0015] and admitted by the applicant means that echoes naturally have phase shifts due to object movement meaning applicant is attempting to claim what appears to be basic physics meaning applicant has already admitted that phase shifts in the pulses would be a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. Formulas cited as being in the specification, Mathematical notations, and explanations in the specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).ng
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is pointed out that it was useful in removing artifacts in the statement above. Moreover all the prior art involves ultrasonic technology meaning it is all relevant and pertinent to the problem at hand.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
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 VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645