DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed 5 July 2026.
Claims 118-119, 122, 124, 132, 135, 142, and 145-148 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-117, 121, 126, 129-130, 133, 136-141 and 144 have been canceled.
Claim 149 has been added.
Claims 118-120, 122-125, 127-128, 131-132, 134-135, 142-143, and 145-149 are currently pending.
Claims 119-120, 122-125, 132, 142-143, and 145-146 have been withdrawn with traverse.
Claims 118, 127, 128, 131, 134, 135, and 147-149 have been examined and are rejected below.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 127 was 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.
The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 127 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
Claim(s) 118, 127, 128, 131, 135, and 144 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amano et al. (US 20190193644 A1, hereinafter “Amano”).
Claim(s) 131 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Yamada (US 20170028987 A1 hereinafter “Yamada”).
Claim(s) 134 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Yang et al. (US-20180341277-A1hereinafter “Yang”).
Claim(s) 147 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Mizutani (US-20190179309-A1, hereinafter “Mizutani”).
Claim(s) 147 and 148 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Madigan et al. (US-20180059669-A1, hereinafter “Madigan”).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-5, filed 5 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 118, 127, 128, 131, 134, 135, and 147-148 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 103 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 102 rejection of claim 118, Applicant argues:
Amano does not disclose a vehicle's control system altering a screen of a user interface
of the vehicle's cabin such that the screen is unusable by an occupant for a driving-
unrelated act of the occupant while the occupant drives the vehicle and the screen is
usable by the occupant for the driving-unrelated act of the occupant while the vehicle is
autonomously driven.
As reflected in the Examiner's own citations, the only mode-dependent change disclosed
by Amano is that, when the vehicle is being manually driven, the control device disables
operation of the up/down and rotation switches used to reposition display 18, while
enabling that repositioning during autonomous driving or when the vehicle is not being
driven (e.g., parag. 0057). Amano describes this as a change in the availability of the
repositioning controls - not a change in whether the display's content can be viewed or
used. Indeed, Amano's paragraph 0055, on which the Examiner relies for the display of
navigation and entertainment content, describes that content as being shown on display
18 without any qualification tying it to whether the vehicle is being driven manually or
autonomously. As such, Amano's screen remains usable to view its content in both driving
modes; only the screen's physical position or orientation is gated by driving mode. This is
consistent with Amano's stated design, which enables the repositioning and content-
viewing controls not only during autonomous driving but also whenever the vehicle is not
being driven at all (e.g., parag. 0057) - reflecting a design goal of maximizing the
availability of the display's content, not restricting it.
It is further noted that claim 118 as amended squarely addresses the rationale offered in
the Office Action under MPEP § 2114(II) and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990), for treating the original "to allow the occupant to use the
screen" language as a non-limiting statement of intended use. As amended, claim 118 no
longer merely recites a purpose for which the screen may be used; it recites that the
screen is affirmatively rendered unusable in one driving mode and usable in the other - a
capability that Amano's disclosed structure does not possess. Under MPEP § 2111.04
and In re Giannelli, this functional language does limit the claim, because it requires the
prior art structure to be capable, as disclosed, of the recited transition, and Amano is not.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes the 112(a) rejection below with respect to the amended claim language. The examiner can find no support for controlling the screen such that it is unusable by the occupant for a driving-unrelated act of the occupant while the occupant drives the vehicle and the screen is usable by the occupant for the driving-unrelated act of the occupant while the vehicle is autonomously drive as claimed.
Further, the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Amano’s only mode-dependent change is that when the vehicle is manually driven the control device disables operation of the up and down rotation to reposition the display. Rather, Amano teaches that when the vehicle is being driven manually, the control device 26 “disposes the display 18 in the lower position” out of the way of the driver’s view while being manually driven. (see at least Amano Figure 2 and Figure 3 and [0057]). Thus, Amano teaches placing the screen in the stowed away position when the vehicle is being driven to improve the driver’s field of view (see at least Amano [0065]). Amano further teaches that the screen cannot be moved to the upper position or rotated while the vehicle is being manually driven (screen is unusable) However, Amano teaches that the screen may be placed the upper position and rotated when the vehicle is being driven autonomously and it allows occupants, including those in the rear seats to view the display (screen is usable) (see at least Amano [0069]).
Finally, the examiner notes the breadth of the term “driving-unrelated act”. Moving the screen into the upper position can be considered “a driving-unrelated act” and Amano clearly teaches preventing moving the screen into the upper position during manually driving and allowing the movement of the screen to the upper position when autonomously driven.
Thus, Amano teaches altering a screen of the user interface such that the screen is unusable by the occupant for a driving-unrelated act of the occupant while the occupant drives the vehicle and the screen is usable by the occupant for the driving-unrelated act of the occupant while the vehicle is autonomously driven, as claimed.
Applicant further argues with respect to claim 135:
Regarding claim 135, it now recites that the screen "is connectable to a portable computing
device of the occupant" and that the driving-unrelated act constituting work of the occupant
is "performed using the portable computing device." The Examiner interprets Amano's
disclosure of displaying "a TV program, a movie, a video clip, or the Internet" (parag. 0055)
as disclosing "work of the occupant." Amano's screen, however, displays only its own built-
in navigation and entertainment content; Amano does not disclose the screen being
connectable to, or used together with, any separate portable computing device belonging
to the occupant. As amended, claim 135 requires that the work be performed using such
a connected personal computing device - a feature that is absent from Amano regardless
of how broadly "work" is construed.
Moreover, the Examiner's construction of Internet browsing as "work" is inconsistent with
the present patent application's specification itself, which enumerates "working" and
"watching media" as separate, distinct occupant activities (e.g., p. 15, I. 29 explicitly
distinguishing between "working" and "watching media"). Amano's disclosure of displaying
"a TV program, a movie, a video clip, or the Internet" falls squarely within "watching
media," not "working," under the specification's own usage. The broadest reasonable
interpretation applied during examination must be consistent with the specification, not
divorced from it. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the screen being connectable is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below. However, the examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument regarding what comprises work. As Amano teaches the screen may used for the internet and the internet facilitates work. Applicant’s argument that the specification describes working and watching media as two separate activities is not persuasive as this argument does not negate that the internet can be used to both facilitate work and to facilitate watching media.
Finally, Applicant argues with respect to claims 147 and 148:
Claims 147 and 148 have been amended, in parallel with claims 118 and 135, to recite
that the screen - connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant - is unusable
for work of the occupant performed using the portable computing device while the vehicle
is in the human-controlled mode, and usable for that work, to provide a workspace, while
the vehicle is autonomously driven.
As discussed above, Amano does not disclose an actual unusable state for the screen
during manual driving, nor does it disclose the screen being used together with a portable
computing device. Mizutani is applied solely for teaching that an automated driving system
may hand control back to a human driver based on the vehicle's environment, for example
due to degraded sensor performance or a complex driving situation (e.g., parag. 0004-
0005). Madigan is applied solely for teaching that an autonomous vehicle may exit
autonomous mode upon detecting an accident or similar event (e.g., parag. 0082). Neither
Mizutani nor Madigan is applied to, or discloses, any gating of screen usability by driving
mode, nor any connection between the screen and a portable computing device. Neither
combination therefore remedies the deficiencies of Amano discussed above, and claims
147 and 148 are allowable over Amano in view of Mizutani and/or Madigan for at least
these reasons.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes the 112(a) rejection below with respect to the amended claim language. The examiner can find no support for changing the usability of a screen of the user interface, which is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant, such that the screen is unusable by the occupant for work of the occupant performed using the portable computing device while the vehicle is in the human-controlled mode and the screen is usable by the occupant for the work of the occupant, as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the screen being connectable is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below to address the amendment.
Further, similar to the arguments above with respect to claim 118, the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Amano’s only mode-dependent change is that when the vehicle is manually driven the control device disables operation of the up and down rotation to reposition the display. Rather, Amano teaches that when the vehicle is being driven manually, the control device 26 “disposes the display 18 in the lower position” out of the way of the driver’s view while being manually driven. (see at least Amano Figure 2 and Figure 3 and [0057]). Thus, Amano teaches placing the screen in the stowed away position when the vehicle is being driven to improve the driver’s field of view (see at least Amano [0065]). Amano further teaches that the screen cannot be moved to the upper position or rotated while the vehicle is being manually driven (screen is unusable) However, Amano teaches that the screen may be placed the upper position and rotated when the vehicle is being driven autonomously and it allows occupants, including those in the rear seats to view the display (screen is usable) (see at least Amano [0069]).
Thus, Amano teaches changing the usability of a screen of the user interface, which is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant, such that the screen is unusable by the occupant for work of the occupant using the portable computing device while the vehicle is in the human-controlled mode and the screen is usable by the occupant for the work of the occupant, as claimed.
Applicants additional arguments rely upon the purported deficiencies of Amano as addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 118, 127, 128, 131, 134, 135, and 147-149 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 118 recites “alter a screen of the user interface such that the screen is unusable by the occupant for a driving-unrelated act of the occupant while the occupant drives the vehicle and the screen is usable by the occupant for the driving- unrelated act of the occupant while the vehicle is autonomously driven”. The examiner can find no support in the instant specification for control of a screen that is unusable or usable based on the whether the vehicle is manually driven or autonomously driven.
Claim 147 and 148 recite “change a usability of a screen of the user interface, which is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant, such that the screen is unusable by the occupant for work of the occupant performed using the portable computing device while the vehicle is in the human-controlled mode and the screen is usable by the occupant for the work of the occupant”. The examiner can find no support in the instant specification for control of a screen that is unusable or usable based on the whether the vehicle is manually driven or autonomously driven.
The Applicant points to the instant application at p. 11, I. 20-30; p. 15, I. 20-29; p. 34, I. 31 to p. 35, I. 2; and p.36, I. 8 to p. 37, I. 16. However, none of these citations provide proper support for the amendment. Specifically, while the citations discuss the control system allows the vehicle to be driven autonomous or with a human driver (see page 11), that the vehicle may include occupant act facilitators that allow the one or more occupants to perform acts unrelated to and “normally not done while driving” (see pages 34-35), and further discuss facilitating working acts including a screen that may be altered for work-related acts (see at least pages 36-37). The examiner notes that the specification further discusses that the workspace may include a screen that is altered by connecting the screen to a computer (elected invention) and further teach that the workspace may be deployable from a non-working position to a working position in (a non-elected invention). However, there is no support for the vehicle having a control step of altering the screen based on whether the vehicle is human-controlled or driven autonomously as currently claimed.
Claim 149 recites “ wherein the control system is configured to alter the screen based on the state of the occupant”. The Applicant points to the instant application at p. 11, I. 20-30; p. 15, I. 20-29; p. 34, I. 31 to p. 35, I. 2; and p.36, I. 8 to p. 37, I. 16 for providing support. However, none of these citations provide proper support for the amendment. Specifically, while the citations discuss the control system allows the vehicle to be driven autonomous or with a human driver (see page 11), that the vehicle may include occupant act facilitators that allow the one or more occupants to perform acts unrelated to and “normally not done while driving” (see pages 34-35), and further discuss facilitating working acts including a screen that may be altered for work-related acts (see at least pages 36-37). The examiner notes that [0102]-[112] of the specification teaches monitoring the occupant and altering the light controlling the light noise, and seat of the cabin (which correspond to non-elected embodiments), but does not teach altering the screen. Thus, there is no support for the control system alters the screen based on the state of occupant.
Claims 127, 128, 131, 134, 135, and 149 depend from claim 118 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 118.
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 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.
Claim(s) 118, 127, 128, 131, and 149 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amano et al. (US 20190193644 A1, hereinafter “Amano”).
Regarding claim 118, Amano teaches a vehicle comprising:
a cabin including a driver's seat for an occupant of the vehicle and a user interface for interacting with the occupant (see at least Amano, Figure 2 and 6,, vehicle display device); and
a control system configured to:
autonomously drive the vehicle (see at least Amano Figure 6, autonomous driving control device 36 and [0010] “A vehicle display device of a third aspect of the disclosure is the vehicle display device of the first or second aspect, wherein the vehicle is switchable between manual driving and autonomous driving.),
monitor the occupant to determine a state of the occupant (see at least Amano Figure 6, occupant detection sensors 40 and [0036] “The autonomous driving control device 36 judges the non-driving state using information obtained from the occupant detection sensors 40. The occupant detection sensors 40 comprise various types of sensors and camera provided inside the cabin, for example, and detect the occupants P inside the cabin.)
monitor an environment of the vehicle (Amano Figure 6, area conditions detection device 38 and [0034-0035] “[0034] The autonomous driving control device 36 specifically controls switching between autonomous driving, in which it performs control of the vehicle 12 by judging the area information of the vehicle 12 and the conditions of the vehicle 12, and manual driving by an occupant P1 sitting in the driver's seat …[0035] When the vehicle 12 is driving autonomously, the autonomous driving control device 36 judges the vehicle 12 and the area information thereof on the basis of information obtained from the area conditions detection device 38, which comprises various types of sensors and cameras, in order to allow the vehicle 12 to travel autonomously. Additionally, in accordance with the judgment results, the autonomous driving control device 36 performs an autonomous driving control process that controls the actuator 46, which drives how much the accelerator pedal is depressed, how much the brake pedal is depressed, and the steering angle. …”
alter a screen of the user interface such that the screen is unusable by the occupant for a driving-unrelated act of the occupant while the occupant drives the vehicle and the screen is usable by the occupant for the driving- unrelated act of the occupant while the vehicle is autonomously driven (see the 112(a) rejection above, see at least Amano Figure 6, up/down actuator 22 and rotation actuator 24. See also [0057] “Furthermore, when the vehicle 12 is being manually driven, the control device 26 disposes the display 18 in the lower position, and when the vehicle 12 is driving autonomously and when the vehicle 12 is not being driven, the control device 26 allows the movement of the display 18 between the lower position and the upper position (the upper rotated position). Specifically, when the vehicle 12 is being manually driven, the control device 26 disables operation of the input unit 70 (the up switch 70U and the down switch 70L), and when the vehicle 12 is driving autonomously and when the vehicle 12 is not being driven, the control device 26 enables operation of the input unit 70.” See also [0065] The examiner notes that the claim is a system claim and thus the term “to allow the occupant to use the screen for a driving-unrelated act of the occupant during autonomous driving is intended use recitation. Such intended use limitations do not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the intended use did not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claims. See MPEP 2111.04. Further, the claim is a system claim. ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)” See MPEP 2114 (II) .)
Regarding claim 127, Amano discloses the vehicle of claim 118, wherein: the user interface comprises a dashboard; and the screen is part of the dashboard (see at least Amano Figure 1 wherein display is disposed on dashboard See also [0029] and [0050] .)
Regarding claim 128, Amano discloses the vehicle of claim 118, wherein: the cabin comprises a passenger seat adjacent to the driver's seat; and at least part of the screen is disposed between the driver's seat and the passenger seat (see at least Amano Figure 2 wherein the screen 18 is disposed between the driver and passenger seats.).
Regarding claim 149, Amano discloses the vehicle of 118, wherein the control system is configured to alter the screen based on the state of the occupant (see the 112(a) rejection above, see at least Amano Figure 6, occupant detection sensors 40 and [0036] “… The information about travel operation states of the vehicle 12 includes information about a manual driving state in which the vehicle 12 is being manually driven by the occupant P1 (manual driving state information), information about an autonomous driving state in which the vehicle 12 is being allowed to travel automatically by the autonomous driving control device 36 (autonomous driving state information), and information about a non-driving state in which there is an occupant P inside the cabin of the vehicle 12 that is not being manually driven or driving autonomously (non-driving state information).The autonomous driving control device 36 judges the non-driving state using information obtained from the occupant detection sensors 40. The occupant detection sensors 40 comprise various types of sensors and camera provided inside the cabin, for example, and detect the occupants P inside the cabin. See also see at least Amano, Figure 6, up/down actuator 22 and rotation actuator 24. See also [0057] “Furthermore, when the vehicle 12 is being manually driven, the control device 26 disposes the display 18 in the lower position, and when the vehicle 12 is driving autonomously and when the vehicle 12 is not being driven, the control device 26 allows the movement of the display 18 between the lower position and the upper position (the upper rotated position). Specifically, when the vehicle 12 is being manually driven, the control device 26 disables operation of the input unit 70 (the up switch 70U and the down switch 70L), and when the vehicle 12 is driving autonomously and when the vehicle 12 is not being driven, the control device 26 enables operation of the input unit 70.” See also [0065]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 131 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Yamada (US 20170028987 A1 hereinafter “Yamada”).
Regarding claim 131, Amano discloses the vehicle of claim 118 including wherein the control system is configured to monitor the occupant based on information rece3ived from at least one of a camera and a motions sensor, but does not explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured to determine the state of the occupant based on at least one of a position of the occupant, a movement of the occupant, and a face of the occupant .
Yamada discloses the control system is configured to monitor the occupant based on information received from at least one of a camera and a motion sensor; and the control system is configured to determine the state of the occupant based on at least one of a position of the occupant, a movement of the occupant, and a face of the occupant (see at least Yamada, figure 1, camera 18 and [0045] “The cameras 18 are disposed at the ceiling of a vehicle cabin interior or the like, from where facial expressions and the like of the occupants sitting on the seats can be imaged. Each camera 18 captures images of an occupant. In the present exemplary embodiment, the captured images obtained by the imaging are used for determining states of physical condition and the like from facial coloration, expressions and the like of the occupants. The captured images may also be used for facial recognition and the like in order to identify the occupants in the vehicle.”) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amano with the teaching of Yamada, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yamada teaches the monitoring helps determine the location and the driving suitability of the vehicle occupants when switching between autonomous and manual driving mode (see Yamada abstract).
Claim(s) 134 and 135 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Yang et al. (US-20180341277-A1hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 134, Amano discloses the vehicle of claim 118, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the screen is connectable to a portable computing device used by the occupant for the driving-unrelated act of the occupant .
Yang teaches wherein the screen is connectable to a portable computing device used by the occupant for the driving-unrelated act of the occupant (see at least Yang Figure 7 wherein the interface unit 131 is connected to the user interface apparatus 200, including the display module 251. See also Yang [0112-0113] 0112] “In addition, the interface unit 130 serves as a path allowing the vehicle 100 to interface with various types of external devices connected thereto. For example, the interface unit 130 can be provided with a port connectable with a mobile terminal, and connected to the mobile terminal through the port. In this instance, the interface unit 130 can exchange data with the mobile terminal.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amano with the teaching of Yang to have a screen connectable with a portable computing device with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yang teaches this allows the vehicle to interface with and obtain content from the mobile terminal (see at least Yang [112]).
Regarding claim 135, Amano discloses the vehicle of claim 118, wherein: the driving-unrelated act of the occupant is work of the occupant; and the control system is configured to alter the screen to provide a workspace facilitating the work of the occupant (see at least Amano Figure 6, up/down actuator 22 and rotation actuator 24 See also [0055] “The control device 26 controls the operation of the navigation system 30, the entertainment system 32, the up/down actuator 22, and the rotation actuator 24 in response to operations performed by the occupants P and received via the input device 28. In a state in which the navigation system 30 is set as the foreground application system, a screen of a map showing the current position of the vehicle 12 and the route to the destination is displayed on the display surface 18A of the display 18. Furthermore, in a state in which the entertainment system 32 is set as the foreground application system, a screen of a TV program, a movie, a video clip, or the Internet is displayed on the display 18.” Amano the screen may used for the internet and the internet facilitates work. The examiner notes that the claim is a system claim and the limitation “to alter the screen to provide a workspace facilitating the work of the occupant” is intended use recitation. Such intended use limitations do not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the intended use did not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claims. See MPEP 2111.04. Further, the claim is a system claim. ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)” See MPEP 2114 (II) .)
While Amano teaches a screen that facilitates work of the occupant, Amano does not teach that the screen is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant and work is performed using the portable computing device.
Yang teaches wherein the screen is connectable to a portable computing device used by the occupant for the driving-unrelated act of the occupant (see at least Yang Figure 7 wherein the interface unit 131 is connected to the user interface apparatus 200, including the display module 251. See also Yang [0112-0113] “In addition, the interface unit 130 serves as a path allowing the vehicle 100 to interface with various types of external devices connected thereto. For example, the interface unit 130 can be provided with a port connectable with a mobile terminal, and connected to the mobile terminal through the port. In this instance, the interface unit 130 can exchange data with the mobile terminal.” See also Yang [0125] which teaches that the driving unrelated act may be a video conference which corresponds to a work.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amano with the teaching of Yang to have a screen connectable with a portable computing device with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yang teaches this allows the vehicle to interface with and obtain content from the mobile terminal (see at least Yang [112]).
Claim(s) 147 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Mizutani (US-20190179309-A1, hereinafter “Mizutani”) in further view of Yang.
Regarding claim 147, Amano teaches vehicle comprising:
a cabin including a driver's seat for an occupant of the vehicle and a user interface for interacting with the occupant (see at least Amano, Figure 2 and 6,, vehicle display device); and
a control system configured:
to operate the vehicle in a human-controlled mode in which the occupant drives the vehicle and an autonomous mode in which the vehicle is autonomously driven (see at least Amano Figure 6, autonomous driving control device 36 and [0010] “A vehicle display device of a third aspect of the disclosure is the vehicle display device of the first or second aspect, wherein the vehicle is switchable between manual driving and autonomous driving.),
change a usability of a screen, such that the screen is unusable by the occupant for work of the occupant performed using the portable computing device while the vehicle is in the human-controlled mode and the screen is usable by the occupant for the work of the occupant of the user interface to provide a workspace facilitating work of the occupant on the screen while the vehicle is autonomously driven in the autonomous mode (see at least Amano Figure 6, up/down actuator 22 and rotation actuator 24 See also [0055] “The control device 26 controls the operation of the navigation system 30, the entertainment system 32, the up/down actuator 22, and the rotation actuator 24 in response to operations performed by the occupants P and received via the input device 28. In a state in which the navigation system 30 is set as the foreground application system, a screen of a map showing the current position of the vehicle 12 and the route to the destination is displayed on the display surface 18A of the display 18. Furthermore, in a state in which the entertainment system 32 is set as the foreground application system, a screen of a TV program, a movie, a video clip, or the Internet is displayed on the display 18.” The examiner interprets the internet to be work of the occupant and to facilitate work of the occupant. See also Amano [0057] and [0065] as cited above with respect to claim 118. The examiner notes that the claim is a system claim and thus the term “to provide a workspace facilitating work of the occupant on the screen while the vehicle is autonomously driven in the autonomous mode” is intended use recitation. Such intended use limitations do not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the intended use did not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claims. See MPEP 2111.04. Further, the claim is a system claim. ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)” See MPEP 2114 (II) .)
monitor the occupant (see at least Amano Figure 6, occupant detection sensors 40 and [0036] “The autonomous driving control device 36 judges the non-driving state using information obtained from the occupant detection sensors 40. The occupant detection sensors 40 comprise various types of sensors and camera provided inside the cabin, for example, and detect the occupants P inside the cabin.)
monitor an environment of the vehicle (Amano Figure 6, area conditions detection device 38 and [0034-0035] “[0034] The autonomous driving control device 36 specifically controls switching between autonomous driving, in which it performs control of the vehicle 12 by judging the area information of the vehicle 12 and the conditions of the vehicle 12, and manual driving by an occupant P1 sitting in the driver's seat …[0035] When the vehicle 12 is driving autonomously, the autonomous driving control device 36 judges the vehicle 12 and the area information thereof on the basis of information obtained from the area conditions detection device 38, which comprises various types of sensors and cameras, in order to allow the vehicle 12 to travel autonomously. Additionally, in accordance with the judgment results, the autonomous driving control device 36 performs an autonomous driving control process that controls the actuator 46, which drives how much the accelerator pedal is depressed, how much the brake pedal is depressed, and the steering angle. …”
Amano teaches switching between autonomous mode and human-controlled mode, but does not explicitly disclose change from the autonomous mode to the human-controlled mode based on the environment of the vehicle.
Mizutani teaches a control system configured to operate the vehicle in a human-controlled mode in which the occupant drives the vehicle and an autonomous mode in which the vehicle is autonomously driven (see at least Mizutani abstract “method of controlling a primary vehicle (18) comprising an automated driving system (20) for driving the primary vehicle autonomously when the primary vehicle is in an autonomous mode, the primary vehicle also being operable manually by a driver when in a manual mode,”) and further teaches changing from the autonomous mode to the human-controlled mode based on the environment of the vehicle (see at least Mizutani Figure 2 wherein the driver assumes control in step 36, See also [0004-0005] “There are various reasons why the automated driving system may need to hand back control to the driver. For example, vehicle sensors upon which the automated driving system relies may be impaired by weather conditions, by dirt or by a fault, therefore compromising the ability of the driving system to sense its surroundings. Alternatively, the vehicle may enter a complex driving situation that the automated driving system is not capable of handling and so hand back of control to the driver is planned, for example leaving or joining a motorway… When a request to hand back control is issued, the driver should indicate their consent to assume control, at which point the automated driving system relinquishes control to the driver.” See also [0047] “ To be able to determine an appropriate course of action for the primary vehicle 18, it is important to determine the driving state of the primary vehicle 18 and obtain information regarding the states of the secondary vehicles 22, so that collisions or otherwise unsafe scenarios can be avoided. In embodiments of the invention, the contingency measures that are implemented in the event that a driver fails to accept a request to switch to the manual mode involve obtaining data relating to a state of each secondary vehicle 22. That data can then be used in combination with the primary vehicle 18 driving state to determine the safest way to manage the primary vehicle 18.” See also [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amano with the teaching of Mizutani to change from autonomous mode to human-controlled mode with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Mizutani teaches this prevents collisions or other unsafe scenarios (see Mizutani [0047]).
While the combination of Amano and Mizutani teach a screen that facilitates work of the occupant, Amano does explicitly teach that the screen is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant and work is performed using the portable computing device.
Yang teaches the screen is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant and work is performed using the portable computing device (see at least Yang Figure 7 wherein the interface unit 131 is connected to the user interface apparatus 200, including the display module 251. See also Yang [0112-0113] “In addition, the interface unit 130 serves as a path allowing the vehicle 100 to interface with various types of external devices connected thereto. For example, the interface unit 130 can be provided with a port connectable with a mobile terminal, and connected to the mobile terminal through the port. In this instance, the interface unit 130 can exchange data with the mobile terminal.” See also Yang [0125] which teaches that the driving unrelated act may be a video conference which corresponds to a work.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Amano and Mizutani with the teaching of Yang to have a screen connectable with a portable computing device with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yang teaches this allows the vehicle to interface with and obtain content from the mobile terminal (see at least Yang [112]).
Claim(s) 147 and 148 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Madigan et al. (US-20180059669-A1, hereinafter “Madigan”) and further in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 147, Amano teaches vehicle comprising:
a cabin including a driver's seat for an occupant of the vehicle and a user interface for interacting with the occupant (see at least Amano, Figure 2 and 6,, vehicle display device); and
a control system configured:
to operate the vehicle in a human-controlled mode in which the occupant drives the vehicle and an autonomous mode in which the vehicle is autonomously driven (see at least Amano Figure 6, autonomous driving control device 36 and [0010] “A vehicle display device of a third aspect of the disclosure is the vehicle display device of the first or second aspect, wherein the vehicle is switchable between manual driving and autonomous driving.),
change a usability of a screen, such that the screen is unusable by the occupant for work of the occupant performed using the portable computing device while the vehicle is in the human-controlled mode and the screen is usable by the occupant for the work of the occupant of the user interface to provide a workspace facilitating work of the occupant on the screen while the vehicle is autonomously driven in the autonomous mode (see at least Amano Figure 6, up/down actuator 22 and rotation actuator 24 See also [0055] “The control device 26 controls the operation of the navigation system 30, the entertainment system 32, the up/down actuator 22, and the rotation actuator 24 in response to operations performed by the occupants P and received via the input device 28. In a state in which the navigation system 30 is set as the foreground application system, a screen of a map showing the current position of the vehicle 12 and the route to the destination is displayed on the display surface 18A of the display 18. Furthermore, in a state in which the entertainment system 32 is set as the foreground application system, a screen of a TV program, a movie, a video clip, or the Internet is displayed on the display 18.” The examiner interprets the internet to be work of the occupant and to facilitate work of the occupant. See also Amano [0057] and [0065] as cited above with respect to claim 118. The examiner notes that the claim is a system claim and thus the term “to provide a workspace facilitating work of the occupant on the screen while the vehicle is autonomously driven in the autonomous mode” is intended use recitation. Such intended use limitations do not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the intended use did not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claims. See MPEP 2111.04. Further, the claim is a system claim. ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)” See MPEP 2114 (II) .)
monitor the occupant (see at least Amano Figure 6, occupant detection sensors 40 and [0036] “The autonomous driving control device 36 judges the non-driving state using information obtained from the occupant detection sensors 40. The occupant detection sensors 40 comprise various types of sensors and camera provided inside the cabin, for example, and detect the occupants P inside the cabin.)
monitor an environment of the vehicle (Amano Figure 6, area conditions detection device 38 and [0034-0035] “[0034] The autonomous driving control device 36 specifically controls switching between autonomous driving, in which it performs control of the vehicle 12 by judging the area information of the vehicle 12 and the conditions of the vehicle 12, and manual driving by an occupant P1 sitting in the driver's seat …[0035] When the vehicle 12 is driving autonomously, the autonomous driving control device 36 judges the vehicle 12 and the area information thereof on the basis of information obtained from the area conditions detection device 38, which comprises various types of sensors and cameras, in order to allow the vehicle 12 to travel autonomously. Additionally, in accordance with the judgment results, the autonomous driving control device 36 performs an autonomous driving control process that controls the actuator 46, which drives how much the accelerator pedal is depressed, how much the brake pedal is depressed, and the steering angle. …”
Amano teaches switching between autonomous mode and human-controlled mode, but does not explicitly disclose change from the autonomous mode to the human-controlled mode based on the environment of the vehicle.
Madigan teaches a control system configured to operate the vehicle in a human-controlled mode in which the occupant drives the vehicle and an autonomous mode in which the vehicle is autonomously driven and changing from the autonomous mode to the human-controlled mode based on the environment of the vehicle (see at least Madigan [0082] “As previously described, the computing device may send instructions to autonomous vehicles to control the vehicle, such as to increase or decrease the vehicle's speed. For example, the computing device may send an instruction to the vehicle to adjust the level of autonomy, such as to turn off autonomous mode (e.g., switch to manual mode), or to switch to an autonomous safe mode (e.g., a semi-autonomous mode). Similarly, the computing device may send an instruction to the autonomous vehicle to take a specific action, such as to brake, to slow down, or to speed up. The computing device may send the instruction in response to detecting an event at the intersection, such as unusual congestion, a traffic accident, an unusual number of pedestrians or bicycles, etc.” See at least [0031-0032] for data for the computing device including vehicle sensor information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amano with the teaching of Madigan to change from autonomous mode to a human controlled mode based on the environment of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Madigan teaches this helps improve safe driving conditions (see Madigan [0002], [0064]).
While the combination of Amano and Madigan teach a screen that facilitates work of the occupant, Amano does explicitly teach that the screen is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant and work is performed using the portable computing device.
Yang teaches the screen is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant and work is performed using the portable computing device (see at least Yang Figure 7 wherein the interface unit 131 is connected to the user interface apparatus 200, including the display module 251. See also Yang [0112-0113] “In addition, the interface unit 130 serves as a path allowing the vehicle 100 to interface with various types of external devices connected thereto. For example, the interface unit 130 can be provided with a port connectable with a mobile terminal, and connected to the mobile terminal through the port. In this instance, the interface unit 130 can exchange data with the mobile terminal.” See also Yang [0125] which teaches that the driving unrelated act may be a video conference which corresponds to a work.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Amano and Madigan with the teaching of Yang to have a screen connectable with a portable computing device with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yang teaches this allows the vehicle to interface with and obtain content from the mobile terminal (see at least Yang [112]).
Regarding claim 148, Amano teaches a vehicle comprising:
a cabin including a driver's seat for an occupant of the vehicle and a user interface for interacting with the occupant (see at least Amano, Figure 2 and 6, vehicle display device); and
a control system configured to:
operate the vehicle in a human-controlled mode in which the occupant drives the vehicle and an autonomous mode in which the vehicle is autonomously driven (see at least Amano Figure 6, autonomous driving control device 36 and [0010] “A vehicle display device of a third aspect of the disclosure is the vehicle display device of the first or second aspect, wherein the vehicle is switchable between manual driving and autonomous driving.),
change a usability of a screen, such that the screen is unusable by the occupant for work of the occupant performed using the portable computing device while the vehicle is in the human-controlled mode and the screen is usable by the occupant for the work of the occupant of the user interface to provide a workspace facilitating work of the occupant on the screen while the vehicle is autonomously driven in the autonomous mode (see at least Amano Figure 6, up/down actuator 22 and rotation actuator 24 See also [0055] “The control device 26 controls the operation of the navigation system 30, the entertainment system 32, the up/down actuator 22, and the rotation actuator 24 in response to operations performed by the occupants P and received via the input device 28. In a state in which the navigation system 30 is set as the foreground application system, a screen of a map showing the current position of the vehicle 12 and the route to the destination is displayed on the display surface 18A of the display 18. Furthermore, in a state in which the entertainment system 32 is set as the foreground application system, a screen of a TV program, a movie, a video clip, or the Internet is displayed on the display 18.” The examiner interprets the internet to be work of the occupant and to facilitate work of the occupant. See also Amano [0057] and [0065] as cited above with respect to claim 118. The examiner notes that the claim is a system claim and thus the term “to provide a workspace facilitating work of the occupant on the screen while the vehicle is autonomously driven in the autonomous mode” is intended use recitation. Such intended use limitations do not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the intended use did not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claims. See MPEP 2111.04. Further, the claim is a system claim. ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)” See MPEP 2114 (II) .)
monitor the occupant to determine a state of the occupant (see at least Amano Figure 6, occupant detection sensors 40 and [0036] “The autonomous driving control device 36 judges the non-driving state using information obtained from the occupant detection sensors 40. The occupant detection sensors 40 comprise various types of sensors and camera provided inside the cabin, for example, and detect the occupants P inside the cabin.)
Amano discloses monitoring the environment of the vehicle (see Amano Figure 6, area conditions detection device 38, and [0034-0035]) but does not explicitly disclose the monitoring an environment of the vehicle to detect an aspect involving at least one of police and an accident, and change from the autonomous mode to the human-controlled mode upon detecting the aspect involving the at least one of the police and the accident.
Madigan teaches a control system configured to operate the vehicle in a human-controlled mode in which the occupant drives the vehicle and an autonomous mode in which the vehicle is autonomously driven and further teaches monitoring an environment of the vehicle to detect an aspect involving at least one of police and an accident, and change from the autonomous mode to the human-controlled mode upon detecting the aspect involving the at least one of the police and the accident (see at least Madigan [0082] “As previously described, the computing device may send instructions to autonomous vehicles to control the vehicle, such as to increase or decrease the vehicle's speed. For example, the computing device may send an instruction to the vehicle to adjust the level of autonomy, such as to turn off autonomous mode (e.g., switch to manual mode), or to switch to an autonomous safe mode (e.g., a semi-autonomous mode). Similarly, the computing device may send an instruction to the autonomous vehicle to take a specific action, such as to brake, to slow down, or to speed up. The computing device may send the instruction in response to detecting an event at the intersection, such as unusual congestion, a traffic accident, an unusual number of pedestrians or bicycles, etc.” See at least [0031-0032] for data for the computing device including vehicle sensor information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amano with the teaching of Madigan to change from autonomous mode to a human controlled mode based on an accident with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Madigan teaches this helps improve safe driving conditions (see Madigan [0002], [0064]).
While the combination of Amano and Madigan teach a screen that facilitates work of the occupant, Amano does explicitly teach that the screen is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant and work is performed using the portable computing device.
Yang teaches the screen is connectable to a portable computing device of the occupant and work is performed using the portable computing device (see at least Yang Figure 7 wherein the interface unit 131 is connected to the user interface apparatus 200, including the display module 251. See also Yang [0112-0113] “In addition, the interface unit 130 serves as a path allowing the vehicle 100 to interface with various types of external devices connected thereto. For example, the interface unit 130 can be provided with a port connectable with a mobile terminal, and connected to the mobile terminal through the port. In this instance, the interface unit 130 can exchange data with the mobile terminal.” See also Yang [0125] which teaches that the driving unrelated act may be a video conference which corresponds to a work.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Amano and Madigan with the teaching of Yang to have a screen connectable with a portable computing device with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yang teaches this allows the vehicle to interface with and obtain content from the mobile terminal (see at least Yang [112]).
Claim(s) 149 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view Wasiek et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0054933, hereinafter Wasiek).
Regarding claim 149, while the examiner asserts that Amano teaches
the vehicle of 118, wherein the control system is configured to alter the screen based on the state of the occupant, the examiner further relies upon Wasiek for this teaching.
Wasiek teaches wherein the control system is configured to alter the screen based on the state of the occupant (see at least Wasiek [0114] wherein the screen is altered based on whether the occupant is speaking or not. [0114] “The video conference system can, in addition, include several microphones for identifying a speaker from amongst the occupants, and a decision unit which is arranged to identify the image of the speaker and to emit it to the display instrument and, if applicable, to the screen.”).
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 JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
