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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2023 was filed and is considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 13-24 are currently pending.
Claims 13, 15, and 22 are currently amended.
Claims 1-12 have been cancelled.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laur et al. (US 10317220 B2), and herein after will be referred to as Laur.
Regarding Claim 13, Laur teaches a method of providing combined map information on board a vehicle (see at least Laur, Col 1 lines 52-54: “The system then aligns the maps so information from different maps can be used as needed to control operation of the host-vehicle.”; A method on board a vehicle that aligns multiple maps together for vehicle operation), the method comprising:
determining a first coordinate of a first map to a reality in surroundings of the vehicle, wherein the first coordinate maps a position of a first landmark in the reality to a location of the first landmark in the first map (see at least Laur, Col 3-4 lines 65-12: “In order to align the first-map 24 and the second-map 30, the controller 36 is configured to determine a first-coordinate 40 of the host-vehicle 12 on the first-map 24 based on the relative-positions 20 of the first-object 26 and the second-object 28. The relative-positions 20 may include a first-distance 42 and a first-direction 44 to the first-object 26 and a second-distance 46 and a second-direction 48 to the second-object 28. The first-map 24 may provide or indicate absolute coordinates, e.g. latitude, longitude, elevation, of the first-object 26 and the second-object 28. The first-coordinate 40 of the host-vehicle 12 on the first-map 24 may then be determined using triangulation based on the first-distance 42 and the first-direction 44 to the first-object 26 and the second-distance 46 and the second-direction 48 to the second-object 28.”; see at least Laur, Col 2 lines 41-46: “The system 10 includes an object-detector that indicates relative-positions 20 of a plurality of objects 22 proximate to, e.g. within two-hundred-meters (200 m) of, the host-vehicle 12. The object-detector 18 may include or be formed of, but not limited to, a camera, a radar, a lidar, an ultrasonic transducer, or any combination thereof.”; see at least Laur, Col 1 lines 42-45: “The system then correlates, based on object relative position and attributes, this object with an object in a first-map database, and determines the position or coordinates of the host-vehicle on first-map relative to the object.”; The controller determines a first-coordinate of the host vehicle on the first-map by correlating the relative positions of a first object detected by the system’s object-detector in reality and known absolute coordinates of the same first-object provided by the first-map);
determining a second coordinate of a second map to the first map, wherein the second coordinate maps a position of a second landmark in the first map to a location of the second landmark in the second map (see at least Laur, Col 4 lines 42-45: “…the second-map 30 may be rotated about the first-object 26 so a direction or vector from the first-object 26 to the second-object 28 indicated by the second-map 30 is aligned with a similar direction or vector on the first-map 24.”; The controller aligns the first-map and second-map for a second mapping by mapping the position of a second object in the second map to its corresponding vector position in the first map);
and providing information from the first map and the second map with respect to the surroundings (see at least Laur, Col 1 lines 52-54: “The system then aligns the maps so information from different maps can be used as needed to control operation of the host-vehicle.”; The aligned first and second map provides “information with respect to the surroundings” to control the vehicle).
Laur does not explicitly disclose the claimed “first mapping” and “second mapping”
However, Laur teaches determining a first-coordinate of the host-vehicle position on the first-map by correlating the relative positions of a first-object observed in reality through the object-detector where the first-map provides known absolute coordinates of the same first-object (see at least Laur, Col 3-4 lines 65-12; see at least Laur, Col 1 lines 42-45). This teaching is functionally equivalent to the claimed “first mapping” because the system triangulates the host-vehicle’s coordinates in the first-map based on the observed objects surrounding the vehicle. Laur further teaches aligning maps by rotating the second map so that the vector from the first-object to the second-object in the second map aligns with the corresponding vector in the first map (see at least Laur, Col 4 lines 42-45). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed “second mapping” because the second map is brought into conformity with the first map based on the positions of the objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method of triangulating the first coordinate of the host vehicle provides a first mapping (see at least Laur, Col 3-4 lines 65-12) and rotating the second map to align objects and vector positions in the first map for a second mapping (see at least Laur, Col 4 lines 42-45) are functionally equivalent.
Regarding Claim 15, Laur teaches all the limitations of Claim 13. Laur further teaches wherein positions of the second landmark in the maps match positions of other objects in the maps (see at least Laur, Col 4 lines 42-45 "the second-map 30 may be rotated about the first-object 26 so a direction or vector from the first-object 26 to the second-object 28 indicated by the second-map 30 is aligned with a similar direction or vector on the first-map 24."; The second-map is rotated so the first and second object are aligned in a similar direction or vector as on the first map).
Regarding Claim 16, Laur teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Laur further teaches wherein the second mapping is determined based on deviations of positions of multiple landmarks between the maps (see at least Laur, Col 3 lines 37-44: “…if there is a rotational difference as suggested in FIG. 2, which could be indicated by a difference in heading indicated by a compass reading by the host-vehicle 12 prior to reaching the indicated positions on the first-map 24 and the second-map 30, then multiple instances of objects, e.g. the first-object 26 and the second-object 28, are needed to align the first-map 24 and the second-map 30.”; see at least Laur, Col 5 lines 31-33: “the controller 36 may determine a third-direction 56 and a third-distance 58 to the third-object 54…”; Aligning the maps based on multiple landmarks inherently accounting for overall deviations in their collective positions).
Regarding Claim 22, Laur discloses an apparatus comprising: a device for scanning surroundings of the vehicle (see at least Laur, Col 2 lines 41-46: “The system 10 includes an object-detector that indicates relative-positions 20 of a plurality of objects 22 proximate to, e.g. within two-hundred-meters (200 m) of, the host-vehicle 12. The object-detector 18 may include or be formed of, but not limited to, a camera, a radar, a lidar, an ultrasonic transducer, or any combination thereof.”); and a processing device which is configured (see at least Laur, Col 3 lines 45-47: “the system 10 may also include a controller 36 in communication with the object-detector 18, the first-map 24, and the second-map 30.”): to determining a first mapping of a first map to a reality in the surroundings of the vehicle, wherein the first coordinate maps a position of a first landmark in the reality to a location of the first landmark in the first map (see at least Laur, Col 3-4 lines 65-12: “In order to align the first-map 24 and the second-map 30, the controller 36 is configured to determine a first-coordinate 40 of the host-vehicle 12 on the first-map 24 based on the relative-positions 20 of the first-object 26 and the second-object 28. The relative-positions 20 may include a first-distance 42 and a first-direction 44 to the first-object 26 and a second-distance 46 and a second-direction 48 to the second-object 28. The first-map 24 may provide or indicate absolute coordinates, e.g. latitude, longitude, elevation, of the first-object 26 and the second-object 28. The first-coordinate 40 of the host-vehicle 12 on the first-map 24 may then be determined using triangulation based on the first-distance 42 and the first-direction 44 to the first-object 26 and the second-distance 46 and the second-direction 48 to the second-object 28.”; see at least Laur, Col 2 lines 41-46: “The system 10 includes an object-detector that indicates relative-positions 20 of a plurality of objects 22 proximate to, e.g. within two-hundred-meters (200 m) of, the host-vehicle 12. The object-detector 18 may include or be formed of, but not limited to, a camera, a radar, a lidar, an ultrasonic transducer, or any combination thereof.”; see at least Laur, Col 1 lines 42-45: “The system then correlates, based on object relative position and attributes, this object with an object in a first-map database, and determines the position or coordinates of the host-vehicle on first-map relative to the object.”; The controller determines a first-coordinate of the host vehicle on the first-map by correlating the relative positions of a first object detected by the system’s object-detector in reality and known absolute coordinates of the same first-object provided by the first-map);
to determine a second coordinate of a second map to the first map, wherein the second coordinate maps a position of a second landmark in the first map to a location of the second landmark in the second map (see at least Laur, Col 4 lines 42-45: “…the second-map 30 may be rotated about the first-object 26 so a direction or vector from the first-object 26 to the second-object 28 indicated by the second-map 30 is aligned with a similar direction or vector on the first-map 24.”; The controller aligns the first-map and second-map for a second mapping by mapping the position of a second object in the second map to its corresponding vector position in the first map);
and to provide information about the surroundings from the first map and the second map (see at least Laur, Col 1 lines 52-54: “The system then aligns the maps so information from different maps can be used as needed to control operation of the host-vehicle.”; The aligned first and second map provides “information with respect to the surroundings”).
Laur does not explicitly disclose the claimed “first mapping” and “second mapping”
However, Laur teaches determining a first-coordinate of the host-vehicle position on the first-map by correlating the relative positions of a first-object observed in reality through the object-detector where the first-map provides known absolute coordinates of the same first-object (see at least Laur, Col 3-4 lines 65-12; see at least Laur, Col 1 lines 42-45). This teaching is functionally equivalent to the claimed “first mapping” because the system triangulates the host-vehicle’s coordinates in the first-map based on the observed objects surrounding the vehicle. Laur further teaches aligning maps by rotating the second map so that the vector from the first-object to the second-object in the second map aligns with the corresponding vector in the first map (see at least Laur, Col 4 lines 42-45). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed “second mapping” because the second map is brought into conformity with the first map based on the positions of the objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method of triangulating the first coordinate of the host vehicle provides a first mapping (see at least Laur, Col 3-4 lines 65-12) and rotating the second map to align objects and vector positions in the first map for a second mapping (see at least Laur, Col 4 lines 42-45) are functionally equivalent.
Regarding Claim 24, Laur teaches all the limitations of Claim 22. Laur further discloses a vehicle comprising the apparatus as claimed in claim 22 (see at least Laur, Col 2 lines 25-28: "FIG. 1 illustrates a non-limiting example of a navigation system 10, hereafter referred to as the system 10, which is suitable for use by an automated vehicle, e.g. a host-vehicle 12."; see at least Laur, Col 2 lines 41-46: “The system 10 includes an object-detector that indicates relative-positions 20 of a plurality of objects 22 proximate to, e.g. within two-hundred-meters (200 m) of, the host-vehicle 12. The object-detector 18 may include or be formed of, but not limited to, a camera, a radar, a lidar, an ultrasonic transducer, or any combination thereof.”).
Claim(s) 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laur, as applied to claims 13 and 15 above, in view of Wheeler et al. (US 10794711 B2), and herein after will be referred to as Wheeler.
Regarding Claim 14, Laur teaches all the limitations of Claim 13. Laur does not explicitly teach the first map is configured for controlling the vehicle with respect to the surroundings and the second map is configured for navigating the vehicle on a road network.
However, Wheeler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first map is configured for controlling the vehicle with respect to the surroundings (see at least Wheeler, Col 12 lines 51-53: “The occupancy map 530 comprises spatial 3-dimensional (3D) representation of the road and all physical objects around the road”; see at least Wheeler, Col 3 lines 58-61: “the HD maps provide the current location of the autonomous vehicle relative to the lanes of the road precisely enough to allow the autonomous vehicle to drive safely in the lane.”; Wheeler’s occupancy map would serve as the “first map” providing information with respect to the vehicle’s surroundings and is explicitly used by the vehicle’s control module) and the second map is configured for navigating the vehicle on a road network (see at least Wheeler, Col 3 lines 32-33: “The HD maps may be used by autonomous vehicles to safely navigate to their destinations...”; Wheeler’s HD map system supports the overall navigation and route planning. A “second map” providing broader road network information for the comprehensive vehicle mapping system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the first and second map as taught in Laur, in view of Wheeler’s specific assignments of roles to the HD map systems. This detailed assignment of roles to the different maps optimizes their efficiency by dividing the tasking that is essential for autonomous vehicle operation.
Regarding Claim 17, Laur teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Laur does not explicitly teach wherein a position of a respective landmark in one of the maps is determined based on a plurality of observations of the respective landmark by vehicles and determined positions of the vehicles.
However, Wheeler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a position of a respective landmark (see at least Wheeler, Col 12 lines 9-16: “…the landmark map comprises information describing lanes including spatial location of lanes and semantic information about each lane. The spatial location of a lane comprises the geometric location in latitude, longitude and 15 elevation at high precision, for example, at or below 10 cm precision.” ) in one of the maps (see at least Wheeler, Col 12 lines 3-5: “The HD map 510 of a geographical region comprises a landmark map (LMap) 520 and 5 an occupancy map (OMap) 530.”; Showing the plurality of maps used in Wheeler’s system ) is determined based on a plurality of observations of the respective landmark (see at least Wheeler, Col 15 lines 42-55: “While vehicles are in motion, they can continuously collect data about their surroundings via their sensors that may include landmarks in the environment…When new data is available from the various vehicles within a fleet, this is passed to the online HD map system ( e.g., in the cloud) for updating the landmark map, and the updated map is stored in the cloud. As new versions of the map become available, these or portions of them are pushed to the vehicles in the fleet for use while driving around. The vehicles 150 verify the local copies of the landmark maps, and the online HD map system 100 updates the landmark maps based on the verification results.”; Data from various vehicles within a fleet implies a plurality of observations including landmarks) by vehicles and determined positions of the vehicles (see at least Wheeler, Col 6 lines 23-29: “The perception module 210 receives sensor data 230 from the sensors 105 of the vehicle 150. This includes data collected by cameras, a LIDAR, an IMU, a GPS navigation system of the car, and so on. The perception module 210 uses the sensor data to determine what objects are around the vehicle, the details of the road on which the vehicle is travelling, and so on.”; Sensor data used to determine objects inherently includes the vehicle’s position from the GPS navigation system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the first and second map as taught in Laur, in view of Wheeler’s determining the position of landmarks in a map based on a plurality of observations from vehicles and their determined positions for the purpose of improving the accuracy and reliability of the landmark data used in combining the maps. (See MPEP § 2143, section I.C - Use of Known Technique to Improve Similar Devices (Methods, or Products) in the Same Way)
Regarding Claim 18, Laur teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Laur does not explicitly teach wherein mutually corresponding landmarks in the maps each bear a same identifier.
However, Wheeler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein mutually corresponding landmarks in the maps each bear a same identifier (see at least Wheeler, Col 17 lines 16-20: “The match record may also include information about the verified represented object, such as an object ID identifying the verified represented object that is used in the existing landmark map stored in the HD map system HD map store 165.”; see at least Wheeler, Col 18 lines 12-15: “…the vehicle 150 may provide the object and associated data ( e.g., location data, geometric shape data, image data, etc.) to the online HD map system 110…”; The landmark map contains an “object ID” is a unique identifier for an object detected by the vehicle and can be held in the online HD map system to bear the same identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the combined mapping method as taught in Laur, in view of Wheeler’s HD map system wherein mutually corresponding landmarks are identified with unique IDs, for the purpose of ensuring that landmarks in the first and second maps bear a same identifier, thereby improving the reliability and identification of the landmarks.
Regarding Claim 19, Laur and Wheeler teaches all the limitations of Claim 18. Laur does not explicitly teach the landmarks in one of the maps each have additional assigned information which allows a determination of the identifier of the landmark in the other map.
However, Wheeler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the landmarks in one of the maps (see at least Wheeler, Col 12 lines 3-5: “The HD map 510 of a geographical region comprises a landmark map (LMap) 520 and 5 an occupancy map (OMap) 530.”; Showing the plurality of maps used in Wheeler’s system and landmark map specifically used for landmarks) each have additional assigned information (see at least Wheeler, Col 8 lines 28-30: “The landmark features include, for each landmark, a spatial description that is specific to the type of landmark.”; Each landmark containing additional information including an ID discussed in claim 18) which allows a determination of the identifier of the landmark in the other map (see at least Wheeler, Col 9 lines 24-37: “The map update API 285 also allows the vehicle computing system 120 to determine whether the information monitored by the vehicle sensors 105 indicates a discrepancy in the map information provided by the online HD map system 110 and uploads data to the online HD map system 110 that may result in the online HD map system 110 updating the map data stored in the HD map store 165 that is provided to other vehicles 150. The map discrepancy module 290 works with the map update API 285 to determine map discrepancies and communicate map discrepancy information to the online HD map system 110. Determining map discrepancies involves 35 comparing sensor data 230 of a particular location to HD map data for that particular location.”; The online HD map system allows for determination of the landmark identifiers in other maps collected by other vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the landmarks containing the same identifier as taught in claim 18 to further include additional assigned information such as spatial description that is specific to the type of landmark which allows a determination of the identifier of the landmark in other maps as taught in Wheeler to facilitate a more robust determination or verification of the identifier of the corresponding landmark in the other maps.
Claim(s) 20-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laur, as applied to claims 13 and 22 above, in view of Seo et al. (US 10002462 B2), and herein after will be referred to as Seo.
Regarding Claim 20, Laur teaches all the limitations of Claim 13. Laur does not explicitly teach the information from the first map and the second map is presented to a person on board the vehicle in an immediate spatial context of an object to which the information relates.
However, Seo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the information is presented to a person on board the vehicle (see at least Seo, Col 16 lines 22-25: “a method of providing the driver or a passenger with status information of a predetermined external vehicle via the transparent display 121, performed by the information providing vehicle 100…”) in an immediate spatial context of an object to which the information relates (see at least Seo, Col 12 lines 33-41: “…the transparent display 121 may display the image corresponding to the status information based on an augmented reality mode. An augmented reality technology shows a user a view of real objects overlaid with virtual objects. The augmented reality shows an image by combining the view of real objects with a virtual image having additional information in real-time, and thus, may be referred to as mixed reality (MR). The transparent display 121 may display the image corresponding to the status information after mapping the image to a map.”; Overlaying virtual information directly onto the view of real-world objects and presenting information in the immediate spatial context of an object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the alignment and combined map information as taught in Laur, in view of Seo’s disclosure of presenting information to a person on board a vehicle in an augmented reality mode in the immediate spatial context of an object, for enhancing the situation and safety awareness of the vehicle operator. The information presented in a spatially contextualized manner would allow the operator to be more aware and understand information relevant to the immediate surroundings.
Regarding Claim 21, Laur and Seo teaches all the limitations of Claim 20. Laur does not explicitly teach the information is presented in a manner of an extended reality with respect to the object.
However, Seo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the information is presented in a manner of an extended reality with respect to the object (see at least Seo, Col 12 lines 33-41: “Here, the transparent display 121 may display the image corresponding to the status information based on an augmented reality mode. An augmented reality technology shows a user a view of real objects overlaid with virtual objects. The augmented reality shows an image by combining the view of real objects with a virtual image having additional information in real-time, and thus, may be referred to as mixed reality (MR).”; The examiner interprets the augmented reality showing a view of real objects overlaid with virtual objects aligning with the concept of presenting information “in a manner of extended reality with respect to the object”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the method of presenting information in the immediate spatial context as set forth in claim 20, and further specify the presented information is in a manner of an extended reality as explicitly taught by Seo, for utilizing a well-known and immersive visualization technique that enhances the user’s ability to understand and interact with the information relative to the object.
Regarding Claim 23, Laur discloses all the limitations of Claim 22. Laur does not explicitly teach further comprising a head-up display for providing the information about the surroundings to a person on board the vehicle.
However, Seo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a head-up display for providing the information about the surroundings to a person on board the vehicle (see at least Seo, Col 16 lines 18-25: “The projection type display employs a method of displaying an image by projecting the image to a transparent screen such as a head-up display (HUD)… a method of providing the driver or a passenger with status information of a predetermined external vehicle via the transparent display 121, performed by the information providing vehicle 100”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the apparatus providing combined map information as taught by Laur in view of Seo’s transparent display of a head-up display for presenting information about the surroundings to a person onboard the vehicle directly in the user’s field of view. This is a known and advantageous technique for displaying vehicular and navigational information, enhancing convenience and accessibility for the vehicle operator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6 and 7, filed 09/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13, 15, and 22 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant correctly argued that Luthardt did not suggest or teach the amended claim limitation of determining a first mapping of an existing first map to a reality in the surrounding of a vehicle, wherein the first mapping maps a position of a first landmark in the reality to a location of the first landmark in the first map. Applicant further notes, see Page 6, that “ The Office Action acknowledges that Laur does not disclose ‘determining a first mapping of a first map to surroundings of the vehicle,' as previously recited in claim 13. However, the Office Action states that Luthardt discloses this claim feature, and that it would have been obvious to modify Laur in view of Luthardt to arrive at the claimed invention.” The Examiner’s previous statement was directed to the broad limitation of “determining a first mapping of a first map to surroundings” in the context of creating a visual representation as taught by Luthardt’s grid maps. However, the Applicant has amended the claim in order to improve clarity, as stated by the Applicant’s remarks see Page 6, to define the first mapping as “mapping a position of a first landmark in the reality to a location of the first landmark in the first map”. The amendment has changed the scope of the claim from a general surroundings mapping to a specific landmark data association. Laur discloses detecting the relative-positions, positions in reality, of a first-object using the system’s object detector (see at least Laur, Col 3-4 lines 65-12; see at least Laur, Col 2 lines 41-46) and correlates the relative-positions and known absolute coordinate of the same first-object provided in a first-map to triangulate the first-coordinate vehicle’s position (see at least Laur, Col 1 lines 42-45). Accordingly, the claims remain rejected based on a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amended claims.
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 EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights