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
Claims 1 – 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Specification
The Examiner appreciates the correction to the abstract.
35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112 has been withdrawn.
35 U.S. C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendments.
Note that this action is being done by a new Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN [US 20200033147, now Ahn. in view of WAY [US 20190110174, now Way].
Regarding claim 1:
AHN discloses:
Apparatus, comprising:
a communication device; [see at least AHN, ¶ 0026 ("The communication technology may include 3G, LTE, and 5G communication standards, as a network communication standard being used by the plurality of V2X devices, and the key performance indicator (KPI) may include transmission/reception signal strength indicator, transmission/reception delay time”) Thus showing a robust communication device); 0140].
a processor; and storage storing information about a plurality of autonomous vehicles and a cross-driving rule associated with the plurality of autonomous vehicles, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0038, ("In still another aspect, a system for determining a driving mode and a path considering a communication environment is provided.”); 0069 (“processor 911”); 0333 ("a computer-readable medium in which program has been recorded. The computer-readable medium may include all kinds of recording devices capable of storing data readable by a computer system.”)];
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive, via the communication device, a driving path request from a first external autonomous vehicle associated with the apparatus; [see at least AHN, ¶ 0167 ("The autonomous device 260 can generate a route for self-driving on the basis of acquired data. The autonomous device 260 can generate a driving plan for traveling along the generated route. The autonomous device 260 can generate a signal for controlling movement of the vehicle according to the driving plan. The autonomous device 260 can provide the signal to the driving apparatus 250."); 0194 (discusses path data and trajectory based on probability )].
receive, from the first external autonomous vehicle via the communication device, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0140)
first information including at least one of an image of a second vehicle, identification information of the second autonomous vehicle, manufacturer information of the second autonomous vehicle, or information provided by the second autonomous vehicle, and [see at least AHN, ¶ 0139, ("A first vehicle transmits specific information to a second vehicle (S61).”)];
second information including a width of a passage on which the first vehicle vehicle vehicle vehicle at least a portion of; [see at least AHN, Abstract (“path”); ¶ 0154 (discusses “road profile” which can include the width of a passage); 0190 (discusses "road data…” which includes path and width); ¶ 0191, ("map data may include detailed topology information in units of lanes of roads, connection information of each lane, and feature information for vehicle localization…”); ¶ 0192 ("The dynamic data may include various types of dynamic information…” ); ¶ 0229 ("…the path provided by the server 503 includes various paths such as an optimal path which provides appropriate communication environment and path for the first vehicle 510 to perform the autonomous driving…” and further discusses a first and second vehicle and determining path)]
determine a driving path of the first vehicle and a driving path of the second vehicle based on: [see at least AHN, ¶ 0228 (discusses path information and determination and transmitting to vehicle); ¶ 0229];
at least a portion of: the stored information about the plurality of autonomous vehicles, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0139)
the first informationsecond information vehicleapparatus, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0139; 0190; 0191; 0192; 0229 (all discuss the concepts of a cross-driving rule); 0247 ("Moreover, as described above, the first and second vehicles 510 and 520 respectively correspond to a vehicle capable of performing the autonomous driving by the first and second devices, and the first and second vehicles 510 and 520 may be collectively referred to as a vehicle.")];
transmit, to each of the first vehicl vehicl vehicle a second apparatus second apparatus vehicle vehicle second apparatus vehicle vehicle. (see at least AHN, ¶ 0167; 0229)
EXAMINERS NOTE: While AHN does not explicitly cover vehicles crossing paths, AHN does anticipate vehicles clustering wherein the autonomous vehicles travel in groups with the same route.
AHN does not disclose, but WAY teaches:
based on a determination that the second external autonomous vehicle is associated with an external apparatus: [see at least WAY, ¶ 0017, "In particular, according to aspects of the present disclosure, a vehicle application programming interface (Vehicle API) platform can provide for a translation/transport layer as an interface between vehicle computing systems onboard vehicles within an entity's fleet and one or more remote clients and/or applications (e.g., fleet reporting, fleet management, fleet services/maintenance, remote vehicle assistance, routing, scheduling, etc.) operating within the entity's operations/control center.”; then further discussion of the communication between vehicles); ¶ 0034, "The systems and methods described herein provide a number of technical effects and benefits. For instance, the systems and methods can provide for abstracting a vehicle platform from an operations system infrastructure. For example, a Vehicle API platform according to the present disclosure can provide for reasoning about vehicles (e.g., autonomous vehicles and/or compute capable vehicles) more generically such that a service provider can easily introduce different vehicles (e.g., vehicles from different original equipment manufacturers (OEM)) and provide for bidirectional communication with such vehicles, thereby allowing for easier and/or faster expansion of the service provider's fleet.")];
receive, from the autonomous vehicl device,
a response to the control request; and [see at least WAY, ¶ 0082 (discusses communication between vehicles, an APAI system, authentication, and messaging)];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the communications between vehicles for route planning and clustering of AHN with the Vehicle API for multiplatform access of WAY to yield a safer autonomous driving environment wherein multiple different autonomous vehicles can communicate road and travel information between various manufacturers.
Regarding claim 2:
AHN in view of WAY teaches the limitations within claim 1.
AHN further discloses:
wherein the information about the plurality of autonomous vehicles comprises at least one of: (see at least AHN, ¶ 0139 (discusses " first vehicle transmits specific information to a second vehicle (S61). The second vehicle transmits a response to the specific information to the first vehicle (S62).")],
identification information of each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0076 (discusses information on multiple vehicles that includes identification); 0077 (discusses signal transmission and random access)]
AHN does not disclose, but WAY teaches:
manufacturer information of each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, size information of each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, information about a sensor configuration included in each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, or information about a margin of a predetermined sensor. [see at least WAY, ¶ 0025, "In some implementations, the Vehicle API platform can provide for aggregating data from multiple vehicles allowing for an understanding of what the vehicles are doing in that particular moment in time.”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the communications between vehicles for route planning of AHN to include additional information regarding vehicle type and sensor data within WAY to yield an effective V2V data sharing platform for vehicles to dynamically adjust paths based on collected data.
EXAMINERS NOTE: BRI of vehicle type would include make and model, which in turn would include dimensions.
Regarding claim 4:
AHN in view of WAY teaches the limitations within claim 1.
AHN further discloses:
based on the response indicating that it is able to control the second external autonomous vehicle to drive along the determined driving path of the second external autonomous vehicle, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0229 (discusses communication of navigation and “The path which can be provided by the server 503 is not limited to the above-described path and more various paths can be provided in the V2X device.")];
transmit, to the first external autonomous vehicle, the determined driving path of the first external autonomous vehicle. [see at least AHN, ¶ 0139 ("A first vehicle transmits specific information to a second vehicle (S61). The second vehicle transmits a response to the specific information to the first vehicle (S62).")].
Regarding claim 11:
With regards to claim 11, this is the method claim to the apparatus claim 1 and is substantially similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 12:
With regards to claim 12, the claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 14:
With regards to claim 14, the claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN [US 20200033147] in view of WAY [US 20190110174] in further view of HASE [US 20200130710, now Hase].
Regarding claim 3:
AHN in view of WAY teaches the limitations within claim 1.
AHN further discloses:
wherein the cross- driving rule comprises:
a criterion for determining, based on the information about the passage and the information about the plurality of autonomous vehicles, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0139 ( "A first vehicle transmits specific information to a second vehicle (S61). The second vehicle transmits a response to the specific information to the first vehicle (S62)."); 0190].
AHN in view of WAY does not disclose, but HASE teaches:
an autonomous vehicle to drive along the passage and an autonomous vehicle to move to an edge of the passage. (see at least HASE, ¶ 0143 ("In the situation in (A) in FIG. 14, when an unlocked state of the safety device is detected, the vehicle controller 130 requests the nearby autonomous vehicle MV through the inter-vehicle communication to change traffic lanes.”…allowing for change of lanes and moving to an edge)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the communications between vehicles for route planning, environment recognition, and clustering of AHN to include additional information regarding a vehicle being able to move for passing in HASE to yield efficient path planning which can account for safe autonomous vehicle passing.
Regarding claim 5:
AHN in view of WAY teaches the limitations within claim 1.
AHN further discloses:
move to a destination; and transmit, to the first external autonomous vehicle, the corrected driving path. [see at least AHN, ¶ 0167. (discusses generating a driving path); 0194 ( "The horizon path data may be explained as a trajectory through which the vehicle 10 can travel in a range from a position at which the vehicle 10 is located to the horizon.” Thus showing how to correct path using relative probability.)].
AHN in view of WAY does not disclose, but HASE teaches:
based on the response indicating that it is unable to control the second external autonomous vehicle to drive along the determined driving path of the second external autonomous vehicle: [see at least HASE, ¶ 0125 (discusses nearby vehicles and their status and how to safely travel within the same sphere.)];
change the driving path of the first external autonomous vehicle such that the first external autonomous vehicle is able to avoid a collision with the second external autonomous vehicle and [see at least HASE, ¶ 0125; 0126 (discusses deceleration to avoid contact)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the route planning and clustering of AHN in view of WAY to include the detection and driving behavior correction for non-autonomous vehicles in HASE to yield a safer autonomous driving environment wherein an autonomous vehicle can drive more cautiously near unpredictable non-autonomous vehicles.
Regarding claim 6:
AHN in view of WAY in further view of HASE teaches the limitations within claim 5.
AHN further discloses:
transmit, to the first external autonomous vehicle or an external manager device associated with the apparatus, a notification indicating that a safe driving route is unavailable. [see at least AHN, ¶ 0190 (discusses the best route (which would obviously be the safest route and ”The road data may be based on data received from an external server through the communication device 220.”); 0229 (“In this case, the path provided by the server 503 includes various paths such as an optimal path which provides appropriate communication environment and path for the first vehicle 510 to perform the autonomous driving, the shortest path on which the first vehicle 510 can arrive from the current position to the destination in the shortest time, and a cluster path on which the first vehicle 510 can drive in a cluster together with a vehicle other than the first vehicle 510, for example, the second vehicle 520. The path which can be provided by the server 503 is not limited to the above-described path and more various paths can be provided in the V2X device." Thus providing the safest route)].
AHN does not disclose, but HASE teaches:
based on a determination that the first external autonomous vehicle is unable to avoid a collision with the second external autonomous vehicle to reach the destination, (see at least HASE, ¶ 0125 ("When a nearby vehicle is traveling in front of or behind the autonomous vehicle MV in step S71, the process flow proceeds to step S72. In step S72, whether the nearby vehicle is an autonomous vehicle is determined. When the nearby vehicle is not an autonomous vehicle, the series of processes shown in FIG. 11 ends. In this case, the processes shown in FIG. 10 are performed, and thus the inter-vehicle distance to the nearby vehicle is increased."); 0126, "When a nearby vehicle traveling in front or behind the autonomous vehicle MV is an autonomous vehicle in step S72, the process of performing the inter-vehicle communication with the nearby vehicle (that is, the nearby autonomous vehicle) and thereby requesting the nearby vehicle to accelerate or decelerate is performed. When the nearby vehicle is traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle MV, the process of requesting the nearby vehicle to accelerate is performed. On the other hand, when the nearby vehicle is traveling behind the autonomous vehicle MV, the process of requesting the nearby vehicle to decelerate is performed. Thus, the inter-vehicle distance between the nearby vehicle and the autonomous vehicle MV is increased.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the route planning and clustering of AHN in view of WAY to include the detection and driving behavior correction for non-autonomous vehicles in HASE to yield a safer autonomous driving environment wherein an autonomous vehicle can drive more cautiously/slow down near unpredictable non-autonomous vehicles.
Regarding claim 8:
AHN in view of WAY teaches the limitations within claim 1.
AHN further discloses:
determine whether a width of the passage satisfies a reference width where it is possible for the first external autonomous vehicle to cross paths with the second external autonomous vehicle, (see at least AHN, ¶ 0188 ("The horizon map data may include at least one of topology data, road data, HD map data and dynamic data. According to an embodiment, the horizon map data may include a plurality of layers. For example, the horizon map data may include a first layer that matches the topology data, a second layer that matches the road data, a third layer that matches the HD map data, and a fourth layer that matches the dynamic data. The horizon map data may further include static object data."); 0190, "The road data may include at least one of road slope data, road curvature data and road speed limit data. The road data may further include no-passing zone data. The road data may be based on data received from an external server through the communication device 220. The road data may be based on data generated in the object detection device 210."); 0191, "The HD map data may include detailed topology information in units of lanes of roads, connection information of each lane, and feature information for vehicle localization (e.g., traffic signs, lane marking/attribute, road furniture, etc.). The HD map data may be based on data received from an external server through the communication device 220."); 0192, "The dynamic data may include various types of dynamic information which can be generated on roads. For example, the dynamic data may include construction information, variable speed road information, road condition information, traffic information, moving object information, etc. The dynamic data may be based on data received from an external server through the communication device 220. The dynamic data may be based on data generated in the object detection device 210.")];
based on the information about the plurality of autonomous vehicles and the information associated with the passage; and (see at least AHN, 0139 ("A first vehicle transmits specific information to a second vehicle (S61). The second vehicle transmits a response to the specific information to the first vehicle (S62)."); 0229 ("In this case, the path provided by the server 503 includes various paths such as an optimal path which provides appropriate communication environment and path for the first vehicle 510 to perform the autonomous driving, the shortest path on which the first vehicle 510 can arrive from the current position to the destination in the shortest time, and a cluster path on which the first vehicle 510 can drive in a cluster together with a vehicle other than the first vehicle 510, for example, the second vehicle 520. The path which can be provided by the server 503 is not limited to the above-described path and more various paths can be provided in the V2X device.")].
based on the width of the passage not satisfying the reference width, transmit, to the first external autonomous vehicle, (see at least AHN, ¶ 0190)].
AHN does not disclose, but HASE teaches:
a command to decrease a sensor margin of the first external autonomous vehicle to a specified rate. (see at least HASE, ¶ 0101 ("The process performed in step S42 subsequent to step S41 is substantially the same as the process performed in step S32 in FIG. 4. Note that the range of the restricted area DA that is set at this time may be changed according to the travel speed of the autonomous vehicle MV.”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the vehicle route planning based on road information and nearby autonomous vehicles of AHN to decrease restricted areas near other vehicles for passing within HASE to yield efficient autonomous vehicle traffic flow by allowing passing within areas narrower than usually allowed.
Regarding claim 9:
AHN in view of WAY in further view of HASE teaches the limitations within claim 8.
AHN further discloses:
based on the width of the passage not satisfying the reference width, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0188 (discusses map data and its use to determine location and width and other factors to control a vehicle); 0191, "The HD map data may include detailed topology information in units of lanes of roads,”); 0192 (discusses dynamic data.)];
AHN does not disclose, but HASE teaches:
transmit, to the first external autonomous vehicle, a command to decrease a driving speed of the first external autonomous vehicle. (see at least HASE, ¶ 0120 (discusses deceleration controls using “the probability of rear-end collision of the autonomous vehicle MV from behind is also reduced.”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the vehicle route planning based on road information and nearby autonomous vehicles of AHN in view of WAY to include the detection and driving behavior correction for autonomous vehicles in HASE to yield a safer autonomous driving environment wherein the target vehicle does not go faster than the front vehicle if road conditions do not allow passing.
Regarding claim 10:
AHN in view of WAY teaches the limitations within claim 1.
AHN further discloses:
receive, from the first external autonomous vehicle and the second external autonomous vehicle, information about autonomous driving results via the communication device; and [see at least AHN, ¶ 0232 (discusses gathering and collecting and communication vehicle data to provide the best path); 0237 ("In addition, the data analytics 5031 updates a result obtained by analyzing the 5G communication environment for each path to the electronic map and recommends the driving mode most suitable for the communication environment formed in the path so as to correspond with the driving model to be recommended for each path.”)].
update, based on the received information about autonomous driving results, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0239, "The analyzed data generated by the data analytics 5031, analyzed result data obtained by analyzing the communication environment for each path,”)];
AHN does not disclose, but HASE teaches:
the cross-driving rule. (see at least HASE, ¶ 0143 (discusses the same concept as Cross-driving rule)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the route data collection and updating within AHN to incorporate the passing conditions results within HASE to yield a safer autonomous vehicle that incorporates feedback regarding changes in traffic lanes.
Regarding claim 13:
With regards to claim 13, the claim is substantially similar to claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 15:
With regards to claim 15, the claim is substantially similar to claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 16:
With regards to claim 16, the claim is substantially similar to claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
With regards to claim 18, the claim is substantially similar to claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
With regards to claim 19, the claim is substantially similar to claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 20:
With regards to claim 20, the claim is substantially similar to claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN [US 20200033147, now AHN] in view of WAY [US 20190110174] in further view of CORRENTI [US 20210076010].
Regarding claim 7:
AHN in view of WAY teaches the limitations within claim 1.
AHN further discloses:
for using the determined driving path of the first external autonomous vehicle, [see at least AHN, ¶ 0152 (discusses the process of determining a driving path); 0229 ("In this case, the path provided by the server 503 includes various paths such as an optimal path which provides appropriate communication environment and path for the first vehicle 510 to perform the autonomous driving, the shortest path on which the first vehicle 510 can arrive from the current position to the destination in the shortest time, and a cluster path on which the first vehicle 510 can drive in a cluster together with a vehicle other than the first vehicle 510, for example, the second vehicle 520. The path which can be provided by the server 503 is not limited to the above-described path and more various paths can be provided in the V2X device.")];
determine the corrected driving path based on the API call result. [see at least AHN, ¶ 0229].
AHN does not disclose, but WAY teaches:
receive an API call result from the external facility device, and (see at least WAY, ¶ 0082 (discusses “offboard gateway”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the communications between vehicles for route planning and clustering of AHN with the Vehicle API of WAY to yield a safer autonomous driving environment wherein multiple different autonomous vehicles can communicate road and travel information between various manufacturers with different approaches to developing autonomous driving software.
AHN in view of WAY does not disclose, but CORRENTI teaches:
determine whether there is a need to manipulate an external facility device, (see at least CORRENTI, ¶ 0113 ("In response to the request to open the gate 106, the monitoring system control unit 110 (or monitoring application server 190) may determine that autonomous vehicle 150 has a human occupant and that the autonomous vehicle 150 has broadcasted a request to open the gate 106 so that the autonomous vehicle can enter the garage 105.”)];
call an application programming interface (API) for controlling the external facility device, based on a determination that there is the need to manipulate the external facility device, [see at least CORRENTI, ¶ 0043 (discusses ”an application programming interface (API) is used to facilitate communication between an autonomous vehicle and a monitoring unit (e.g., monitoring system control unit 110, monitoring application server 190, or the like)”); 0046 (discusses further on API and communication and manipulate data); 0049 ("Alternatively, or in addition, the autonomous vehicle 150 may broadcast data indicative of the particular task that the autonomous vehicle 150 is currently engaged in.”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the route planning with vehicle API support of AHN in view of WAY with the gate control API of CORRENTI to yield a more efficient autonomous car navigation that can communicate with authorized non-vehicular equipment such as a gate to avoid the need for direct user intervention to open.
Regarding claim 17:
With regards to claim 17, the claim is substantially similar to claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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 https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights