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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
No claims have been amended, canceled or added.
Claims 1-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Independent Claim 1—Applicant argues that cited prior art, HACI et al, fails to “reveal anything relevant to the pending claims” and misinterpreted the claim feature “user-selectable control” which is “a component of a user interface (such as a GUI) that may be selected by a user” also known as “USC”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A user-selectable control is a graphical interface element that gives users the ability to make choices, select options, or change settings (on/off) within an application based on their preferences by using various types of input modes, including checkboxes for multiple choices, radio buttons, dropdown lists, or toggle switches. HACI et al clearly and explicitly teach the embodiments which include a graphical user interface (GUI) generated by a software application program and “user input functionalities capable of interacting with software applications” (para 0148); the user interface displayed on the mobile devices may have “an access menu displaying access code options for the user. The access code options in the access menu may include a first button or a first tab, for the user’s check in access code and a second button, or a second tab, for the user’s check out access code” (para 0151). The cited prior art further details that “access code options may be displayed as tabs having in and out signs, barcodes or RFIDs, or the like on the mobile computing devices. The tabs may be displayed as QRcodes which are barcodes having button functionality on the user interface of the mobile computing device. Pressing or touching these tabs cause the touched selection to be processed by the system server” (para 0159); and “Based on user inputs on the mobile computing device, commands may be sent from the first cloud server to the second cloud server” (para 0190). It is clear that the user interface has controls that are selectable by the user (para 0161). The functionality of “user-selectable controls” is clearly taught and evident in the cited prior art. The absence of the term “USC” does not invalidate the teachings of the claimed feature when the prior art clearly teaches and suggest the functionality of the feature according to the definition of said feature.
Furthermore the “certification credential of the certified user function” is achieved by the teaching that after reception of the access codes option “the system server may validate user ID and assignment status” (para 0159) such that the user credentials are validated to confirm the user’s credentials. The claim language of “configuring the user-selectable control based on whether the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential for the certified user function” is achieved through the validation process, the prior art discloses authentication/validation and authorization techniques. HACI et al teach a system that checks the user ID to associate it with the user activity status for validation and authentication, which determines if “the user is selected “out” option when transmitting the access code signal…or “in” option” (para 0087) and “Based on this authentication, the servers…may either approve user event or invalidate it” (para 0203, 0205). When the servers determine that the user access credentials are invalid, “the reported invalid operation…may be recorded as an unauthorized entry” (paras 0084, 0095-96, 0098), such that “if the user cannot be authenticated, the server of the used system may mark the event as an invalid operation” (para 0216) then the user assignment status is “not approved” and is recorded with a “lower score” in the record (para 0085), which sufficiently fulfills the functionality of the claimed “depreciating the user-selectable control”.
Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive. The rejection under the cited prior art is therefore maintained for teaching the functionality of the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
II. 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.
III. CLAIMS 1-19, 21-23, 28-29, 33-34 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by HACI et al (US 2021/0174624).
Per claim 1, HACI et al teach a method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a user interface selected to be used at a computing system includes a user-selectable control corresponding to a certified user function, wherein the computing system includes program instructions executable to perform the certified user function (paras 0148, 0151, 0154—user interface and field access utilized by the user to navigate to the user interface for user input functionalities);
determining, by the processor, whether a user identifier, received at the computing system, corresponds to a certification credential for the certified user function (paras 0145-147, 0154, 0159, 0232—user credentials and user ID authenticated for compliance with access control); and
configuring the user-selectable control based on whether the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential for the certified user function (paras 0146, 0149, 0151, 0213-217—user access control based on authentication of user credential using compliance monitoring), wherein:
configuring the user-selectable control includes enabling the user-selectable control if the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential, or deprecating the user-selectable control if the user identifier does not correspond to the certification credential (paras 0151-154, 0157, 0159, 0164, 0193, 0199-201—authentications of user ID and credential and display of access code options and suspension of functionalities if user is unable to communicate over the Internet),
enabling the user-selectable control configures the user-selectable control to be usable to trigger execution of the program instructions to perform the certified user function (paras 0201-206, 0217-219, 0223, 0227—verification of user event based on user approval based on user credentials and authentication of user’s assignment status and activity status), and
deprecating the user-selectable control configures the user-selectable control to be unusable to trigger execution of the program instructions to perform the certified user function (paras 0045, 0050, 0054, 0084-85, 0092, 0095-99—identifying noncompliant user entries, exits and unauthorized users wherein if a user is invalid or not approved the user is not assigned for scheduled work, users given visual warnings for invalid operations).
Claims 39 and 40 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 1, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 2, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface includes a graphical user interface selected to be output on a display of the computing system, and the method further comprises outputting, on the display, the graphical user interface with the configured user-selectable control (paras 0148, 0161—GUI display).
Per claim 3, HACI et al teach the method of claim 2, wherein the graphical user interface includes a first graphical user interface, wherein the method further comprises: determining a vehicle identifier of a vehicle-under-service; outputting, on the display, a second graphical user interface for selecting a vehicle system or component of the vehicle-under-service; and determining a selection of the vehicle system or component occurs while the second graphical user interface is output on the display, wherein the first graphical user interface is displayed after the selection of the vehicle system or component occurs, and wherein a performance of the certified user function on the vehicle-under-service occurs by and/or to the vehicle system or component (paras 0010-11, 0101-102, 0105-109, 0113, 0133-136—vehicle recognition and event data tracked by vehicle sensor to detect access by a user associated with the vehicle).
Per claim 4, HACI et al teach the method of claim 3, wherein: the user-selectable control includes a first user-selectable control, the method further comprises outputting, on the display, a third graphical user interface in response to the selection of the vehicle system or component of the vehicle-under-service and prior to outputting the first graphical user interface, and the third graphical user interface includes a field for entering or a second user-selectable control to request data that the processor uses to determine the certification credential for the certified user function (paras 0051, 0071, 0145-146, 0148—GUI and user interfaces include display of field access icon).
Per claim 5, HACI et al teach the method of claim 2, wherein determining the user interface selected to be used at the computing system includes the user-selectable control corresponding to the certified user function: determining a list of functions corresponding to the graphical user interface, and determining the list of functions includes an identifier of the certified user function and a first tag that indicates the certification credential for the certified user function (Figure 20B-20C, paras 0034, 0065, 0151—list of user assignment status with user’s identification associated with access code device and user ID, access menu with access code options displayed in a user interface).
Per claim 6, HACI et al teach the method of claim 5, wherein determining the list of functions includes determining each function in the list of functions corresponds to a particular vehicle identifier and to a second tag indicative of a particular system or component on a vehicle associated with the particular vehicle identifier (paras 0111-114, 0130, 0200—vehicle detection triggers, recognition and License Plate Reading capabilities for associating vehicle event activity with authenticated users, identified components).
Per claim 7, HACI et al teach the method of claim 5, further comprising: determining, by the processor based on data contained in a vehicle data message received from a vehicle operatively connected to the computing system, an identifier of a component on the vehicle, wherein determining the list of functions includes determining the list of functions corresponds to the identifier of the component on the vehicle (paras 0106-107, 0113, 0131, 0174, 0200—vehicle event data, vehicle sensors and recognition for associating user event with vehicle activity).
Per claim 8, HACI et al teach the method of claim 2, wherein determining the user interface selected to be used at the computing system includes the user-selectable control corresponding to the certified user function comprises: receiving a mark-up language file that defines the graphical user interface and that includes a definition of the user-selectable control, and determining the definition of the user-selectable control includes a tag that indicates the certification credential for the certified user function (paras 0065, 0073, 0075, 0079-80, 0083, 0171-172, 0174, 0177—assignment data file includes assignment data table, assignment schedules, activity status and user identification for association with access code device and activity logs).
Per claim 9, HACI et al teach the method of claim 2, wherein: the graphical user interface includes a first graphical user interface, the method further comprises: outputting a second graphical user interface on the display, the second graphical user interface being configured for inputting the certification credential into the processor, and writing, by the processor into a memory, data that indicates the certification credential corresponds to the user identifier (paras 0058-59, 0091, 0093, 0096-98, 0145, 0232—user ID in the assignment data table, user enters credentials on web page displayed, GUI).
Per claim 10, HACI et al teach the method of claim 9, further comprising: accessing, via use of the second graphical user interface, an application programming interface at a remote computing device to obtain the certification credential, wherein the certification credential is input into the processor in response to receiving the certification credential from the remote computing device (paras 0104, 0130, 0199-201, 0203, 0232—user credentials, GUI and monitoring at a remote location, user activated wireless remote device).
Per claim 11, HACI et al teach the method of claim 9, wherein determining the user interface selected to be used at a computing system includes the user-selectable control corresponding to the certified user function is based on a particular instance of selecting the graphical user interface, and wherein the second graphical user interface is displayed before the particular instance of selecting the graphical user interface (paras 0034, 0055-56, 0071-72, 0148, 0151, 0154, 0159-161—GUI and user interface displayed on mobile device).
Per claim 12, HACI et al teach the method of claim 2, wherein: the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential, outputting the graphical user interface with the configured user-selectable control occurs during a first use of the computing system, and the method further comprises: receiving a request to output the graphical user interface on the display during a second use of the computing system, the second use of the computing system is by an uncertified user; deprecating the user-selectable control based on the request; and outputting, on the display during the second use of the computing system, the graphical user interface with the deprecated user-selectable control (paras 0034, 0055-56, 0071-72, 0148, 0151, 0154, 0159-161—GUI and user interface displayed on mobile device).
Per claim 13, HACI et al teach the method of claim 2, wherein: the graphical user interface includes an additional user-selectable control, the additional user-selectable control corresponds to a non-certified user function, and performance of the non-certified user function via use of the additional user-selectable control is not conditioned on an existence of any certification credential (paras 0084-85, 0092-93, 0095-99, 0117, 0235—invalid operation determined by unauthorized entry, no access if vehicle not present, requires a vehicle presence in order to approve user operations when entering or exiting a checkpoint location).
Per claim 14, HACI et al teach the method of claim 2, wherein the graphical user interface includes a web-based graphical user interface (paras 0148, 0151, 0161, 0232-233—GUI includes web bases user interface).
Per claim 15, HACI et al teach the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining, by the processor, a vehicle selection; and determining, by the processor, a system or component selection corresponding to the vehicle selection; wherein determining the user interface selected to be used at the computing system includes the user-selectable control corresponding to the certified user function comprises determining, by the processor executing a state machine within a state based on the vehicle selection and the system or component selection, the state includes a conditional node corresponding to the user-selectable control and/or the certified user function (paras 0010, 0052-54, 0113-116, 0120-124—determining state and status operational conditions based on vehicle detection triggers).
Per claim 16, HACI et al teach the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining, by the processor, a vehicle selection; determining, by the processor, a system or component selection corresponding to the vehicle selection; determining, by the processor, the graphical user interface corresponds to the vehicle selection and the system or component selection; and determining, by the processor, the graphical user interface or a database includes metadata indicating the certified user function corresponds to the certification credential (paras 0104, 0130, 0199-201, 0203, 0232—user credentials, GUI and monitoring at a remote location, user activated wireless remote device).
Per claim 17, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein deprecating the user-selectable control includes configuring a state machine executed by the processor to be a state machine in which the processor ignores or disables an input corresponding to selection of the user-selectable control (paras 0084-85, 0092-93, 0095-99, 0117, 0235—invalid operation determined by unauthorized entry, no access if vehicle not present, requires a vehicle presence in order to approve user operations when entering or exiting a checkpoint location).
Per claim 18, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the processor outputs service information corresponding to the certified user function while the user-selectable control is enabled, and wherein the processor is restricted from outputting the service information corresponding to the certified user function while the user-selectable control is deprecated (para 0233—user type restriction).
Per claim 19, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein: the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential, and the method further comprises: determining an electronic signal received at the processor, while the user-selectable control is enabled, indicates a selection of the user-selectable control occurred; and transmitting, by the processor to a vehicle-under-service operatively connected to the computing system, a vehicle data message for requesting the vehicle-under-service to perform or initiate performing the certified user function (paras 0054, 0092, 0103, 0109, 0111-112, 0115-117, 0134—receiving request from check point monitors regarding activity status updates and operations, alert messages to vehicle users to initiate/perform the check in or check out process, warning indication lights and audible notifications).
Per claim 21, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the certified user function includes a function to perform a functional or component test of a component in a vehicle under service, and wherein the component is configured to control connecting an electrical circuit to a high voltage component, disconnecting an electrical circuit from the high voltage component, sending an electrical signal to the high voltage component, or receiving an electrical signal from the high voltage component (paras 0057, 0072, 0090, 0118, 0206—power supply unit connection, test program for detecting and testing checkpoint monitors).
Per claim 22, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the certified user function includes function to perform a functional or component test of one or more of the following: a battery pack and battery management system, an electric motor, a motor control unit, a power distribution unit, an electrical power converter, an on-board charger, an electric air conditioning compressor, a high voltage heater, or a high voltage cable (paras 0057, 0072, 0090, 0109, 0118, 0206—power supply unit connection, motor, test program for detecting and testing checkpoint monitors).
Per claim 23, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, further comprising one or more of the following: determining a password received at the processor corresponds to the user identifier; determining a profile access code received at the processor corresponds to the user identifier; determining a two-factor authentication was performed via a companion device corresponding to the user identifier, or determining a first biometric input received at the processor matches a second biometric input corresponding to the user identifier (paras 0064, 0203, 0205—user identification includes authentication and biometric input for biometric reading devices).
Per claim 28, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein: the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential, and the method further comprises: receiving a selection of the user-selectable control, and transmitting, by the processor to a vehicle in response to the selection of the user-selectable control, a vehicle data message requesting initiation or performance of the certified user function (paras 0106-107, 0113, 0131, 0174, 0200—vehicle event data, vehicle sensors and recognition for associating user event with vehicle activity).
Per claim 29, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein: the computing system includes a test device including a meter or an oscilloscope, the certified user function includes performing a guided component test using the test device, and the user interface includes a graphical user interface configured to display guidance for performing the guided component test (paras 0057, 0072, 0090, 0109, 0118, 0145-146, 0148 0206—GUI and power supply unit connection, motor, test program for detecting and testing checkpoint monitors).
Per claim 33, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the processor, a selection of the user-selectable control has occurred, wherein configuring the user-selectable control occurs after determining the selection of the user- selectable control has occurred (paras 0059, 0062, 0066—user selects activity codes and indicators via user interface).
Per claim 34, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein configuring the user-selectable control occurs after determining the user interface is selected to be used at the computing system, but before a selection of the user-selectable control occurs after determining the user interface is selected to be used at the computing system (paras 0059, 0062, 0066, 0151-155—user selects activity codes and indicators via user interface).
Per claim 36, HACI et al teach the method of claim 35, further comprising: arranging enabled user-selectable controls at a first common portion of the user interface and/or arranging deprecated user-selectable controls at a second common portion of the user interface (paras 0051, 0071, 0145-146, 0148—GUI and user interfaces include display of field access icon).
Per claim 37, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential for the certified user function includes: transmitting, by the processor to a server, a request to check the certification credential for the certified user function, wherein the request includes the user identifier; and receiving, by the processor from the server, a response to the request, wherein the response includes data indicating whether the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential for the certified user function (paras 0058-60, 0065, 0075, 0084-85—determining if user ID credentials are authorized and authenticated).
Per claim 38, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential for the certified user function includes the processor checking a database contained in a memory operatively connected to the processor for data that indicates whether the user identifier corresponds to the certification credential for the certified user function (paras 0057, 0075, 0077-78—database with assignment data table for storing assignment status data and user identification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
IV. 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.
V. CLAIMS 20, 24-27, 30 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HACI et al (US 2021/0174624) in view of JOHNSON et al (US 2019/0158353).
a. Per claim 20, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, yet fail to explicitly teach the method wherein the certified user function includes a function to: perform a test of a high voltage system or component in a vehicle-under-service, perform a test of an advance driver assistance system or component in the vehicle-under-service, program an electronic control unit in the vehicle-under-service, calibrate an electronic control unit in the vehicle-under-service, program a key or key fob for locking and unlocking a lock in the vehicle-under-service or for starting the vehicle-under-service, or perform a subscription-based user function.
However, JOHNSON et al teach providing testing features (paras 0157, 0796) and vehicle control systems that use key fobs and electronic locks (para 0142). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of HACI et al with JOHNSON et al for the purpose of testing/simulation features and providing key fobs for locking and unlocking access to the vehicle, which are well-known services in the art for administering vehicle access.
Per claim 24, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, yet fail to explicitly teach the method further comprising: comparing, by the processor, a first temporal indicator to a second temporal indicator to determine whether the certification credential for the certified user function has expired.
However, JOHNSON et al teach determining that tokens and transaction codes are valid and not expired (paras 0836, 0848). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of HACI et al with JOHNSON et al for the purpose of credentials/tokens that are time dependent and active for specific time periods. Use of timed credentials that expire are well-known in the networking art.
Per claim 25, HACI et al and JOHNSON et al teach the method of claim 24, JOHNSON et al further teach the method further comprising: outputting, by the processor, on a display a notification indicating the certification credential for the certified user function has expired if the processor determines the certification credential for the certified user function has expired, or outputting, by the processor on the display, a notification indicating the certification credential for the certified user function is set to expire within a threshold amount of time if the processor determines the certification credential for the certified user function is not expired and a current time is within the threshold amount of time (paras 0119, 0329, 0478, 0710, 0714, 0738-740, 0798, 0822, 0848, 0923, page 85 Table 66—notification notices and alerts displayed based on expired and timeout threshold, token may expire based on service usage and security settings).
Per claim 26, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, yet fail to explicitly teach the method wherein: the user-selectable control includes a first user-selectable control, the certified user function includes a first certified user function, the certification credential includes a first level certification credential, the user interface includes a second user-selectable control that corresponds to a second certified user function, the second certified user function corresponds to a second level certification credential, the first level certification credential covers certified user functions corresponding to the second level certification credential, and the method further comprises: determining whether the user identifier corresponds to the first level certification credential or the second level certification credential, and configuring the second user-selectable control based on whether the user identifier corresponds to the first level certification credential or the second level certification credential, wherein configuring the second user-selectable control includes enabling the second user-selectable control if the user identifier corresponds to the first level certification credential or the second level certification credential, or deprecating the second user-selectable control if the user identifier does not correspond to the first level certification credential or the second level certification credential.
However, JOHNSON et al teach user interfaces which present a list of actions for login and service access options (paras 0531-533, 0680-687) authenticating user login credentials to requesting new credentials from the user if the authentication/identification fails (paras 0253, 0329, 0583, 0585) and authenticating/verification access credentials (paras 0638, 0834) for registration and establishing connections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of HACI et al with JOHNSON et al for the purpose of providing user interfaces that comprise user-selectable control options for user identification login authentications and access which is well-known in networking technology.
Per claim 27, HACI et al teach the method of claim 1, yet fail to explicitly teach the method wherein: the certified user function includes a first user-range and a second user-range, the certification credential corresponds to a first level certification credential or a second level certification credential, the first level certification credential includes the second level certification credential, and configuring the user-selectable control includes one of the following: enabling use of the user-selectable control for both the first user-range and the second user-range if the certification credential corresponds to the first level certification credential, enabling use of the user-selectable control for the first user-range and deprecating use of the user-selectable control for the second user-range if the certification credential corresponds to the second level certification credential, or deprecating the user-selectable control if the user identifier does not correspond to the first level certification credential or the second level certification credential.
However, JOHNSON et al teach configurations to respond only to requests from specific user IP address range (page 0255), a list of actions for login and service access options (paras 0531-533, 0680-687) authenticating user login credentials to requesting new credentials from the user if the authentication/identification fails (paras 0253, 0329, 0583, 0585) and authenticating/verifying access credentials (paras 0638, 0834) for registration and establishing connections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of HACI et al with JOHNSON et al for the purpose of providing user ranges and user-selectable controls for authenticating/verifying credentials and restricting access when authentication fails, which is a well-known technique used in network communication.
Claim 35 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claims 26 and 27, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 30, HACI et al and JOHNSON et al teach the method of claim 29, JOHNSON et al further teach the method wherein: the user-selectable control includes a first user-selectable control, and determining that the user interface includes the user-selectable control corresponding to the certified user function includes determining the first user-selectable control or a second user-selectable control is used to select a parameter setting above a threshold parameter setting (paras 0276, 0343, 0704, 0710, 0714-716l, page 73 Table 41—setting configurable parameters, display terminal device options user interface).
VI. CLAIMS 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HACI et al (US 2021/0174624) in view of JOHNSON et al (US 2019/0158353) and RICCI et al (US 2014/0310739).
Per claim 31, HACI et al and JOHNSON et al teach the method of claim 30, yet fail to explicitly teach the method wherein: the parameter setting includes an electrical parameter setting and the threshold parameter setting includes a threshold electrical parameter setting, the parameter setting includes a temperature parameter setting and the threshold parameter setting includes a threshold temperature parameter setting, or the parameter setting includes a pressure parameter setting and the threshold parameter setting includes a threshold pressure parameter setting.
However, RICCI et al teach personal settings of the vehicle occupants which include climate control, lighting, HVAC, display, driving mode, instrument configuration, etc. (paras 0123, 0198, 0309-311, 0343-345, 0421, 0423) and threshold value measuring and management (paras 0575, 0622, 0624, 0693, 0699). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of HACI et al with JOHNSON et al and RICCI et al for the purpose of provisioning the ability to configure and set parameters and enforcing threshold values, which is are well-known techniques used in the art.
Claim 32 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 31, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
VII. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2012/0330769, US 2016/0180647, US 2019/0114334, 2022/0027440).
VIII. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
IX. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D. SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453