DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amendments to independent claim(s) 1, 13 and 20 are moot based on the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4,7,9-10,13-14,17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orellana et al. (US 9878665 B2) in view of Harter et al. (US 20060006988 A1), hereinafter Harter.
Regarding claim 1, Orellana discloses [Note: what Orellana fails to disclose is strike-through]
A vehicle system for monitoring a blind zone (see system of Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a monitoring system arranged to monitor an area rearward of the vehicle (Col. 2, lines 49-56, “A plurality of object-detecting devices is connected to the controller 14. These object-detecting devices are represented in FIG. 1 as a plurality of radar devices 16 and video cameras 18 mounted to the vehicle 12. The radar devices can be mounted to the rear bumper of the vehicle 12, for example, as part of a parking assist system. The radar devices 16 generate an object signal in response to the presence of an object within its field of view 20.”), wherein the monitoring system includes a spatial monitoring system having a plurality of spatial sensors arranged to monitor a viewable region that is peripheral to the vehicle (see Fig. 1, object-detecting devices 16, 18 are used to detect object that are peripheral to the vehicle 12);
an interior rearview mirror having a first controllable icon disposed on a rightward side thereof and a second controllable icon disposed on a leftward side thereof (see Fig. 2, further see Col. 4, lines 13-19, “Referring to FIG. 2, the view 40 of the environment as looking through a rear-view mirror 41 is shown. Three different vehicles 42, 44, 46 are shown in the mirror, indicating to the driver that three vehicles are behind and potentially approaching the driver's vehicle. Accompanying data 52, 54, 56 is provided that provides information for each respective vehicle 42, 44, 46.”); and
a controller (see Fig. 1, controller 14);
wherein the controller is in communication with the monitoring system and operatively connected to the first controllable icon and the second controllable icon (see Col. 4, lines 27-32, “The rear-view mirror includes a housing with a light source (such as LEDs, etc.) therein. The light source is coupled to the controller 14. Based on the distance the other vehicles are from the host vehicle, and based on the closing speed or actual speed of the other vehicles, the controller is programmed to illuminate a colored display on the mirror.”; see Fig. 2 where the icons are illuminated, further see Col. 4, lines 13-19, “Referring to FIG. 2, the view 40 of the environment as looking through a rear-view mirror 41 is shown. Three different vehicles 42, 44, 46 are shown in the mirror, indicating to the driver that three vehicles are behind and potentially approaching the driver's vehicle. Accompanying data 52, 54, 56 is provided that provides information for each respective vehicle 42, 44, 46.);
wherein the monitoring system is operative to execute a fusion algorithm based upon inputs from the plurality of spatial sensors to detect an object that is rearward to and proximal to the vehicle (see Fig. 1, data from object-detecting devices 16, 18 input into the controller to determine objects approaching the vehicle where the sensor data from these device 16 and 18 are “combined” and processed together using the controller which is “a fusion algorithm”, further see Col. 6, lines 39-43, “At 102, the controller receives signals from video cameras, radar devices, and/or other object-detecting devices explained above. These signals are processed by the processor to determine which objects or other vehicles are approaching from the rear.”);
wherein the monitoring system is operative to determine that the object that is rearward to and proximal to the vehicle is disposed on a rightward side of the vehicle or a leftward side of the vehicle (see Fig. 2, further see Col. 5, lines 18-27, “In yet another embodiment, one of the cameras is also part of a lane-detecting system such that the camera and the controller can determine lanes of travel. The field of view may be at least three lanes, including the lane the vehicle is traveling in, and the immediate left and immediate right lanes. The relative speed and distance of a car in that lane will cause a corresponding LED in the rear-view mirror in either a left, central, or right region of the mirror to align with what that lane as the driver would see it from the rear-view mirror.”);
wherein the controller illuminates the first controllable icon when the monitoring system determines that the object that is rearward to and proximal to the vehicle is disposed on the rightward side of the vehicle (see Fig. 2, further see Col. 5, lines 18-27, “The relative speed and distance of a car in that lane will cause a corresponding LED in the rear-view mirror in either a left, central, or right region of the mirror to align with what that lane as the driver would see it from the rear-view mirror.”);
wherein the controller illuminates the second controllable icon when the monitoring system determines that the object that is rearward to and proximal to the vehicle is disposed on the leftward side of the vehicle (see Fig. 2, further see Col. 5, lines 18-27, “The relative speed and distance of a car in that lane will cause a corresponding LED in the rear-view mirror in either a left, central, or right region of the mirror to align with what that lane as the driver would see it from the rear-view mirror.”); and
wherein the controller includes an illumination scheme to control the first controllable icon and the second controllable icon(see Fig. 2, further see Col. 4, lines 35-39, “The illuminated color display can be red, yellow, or green based on the determined closing speed of the approaching vehicle and its distance from the driver's vehicle (e.g., the anticipated collision time).”, where the illuminated color display is corresponding to the rearview mirror assembly icons, further see Col. 4, lines 13-26).
Harter discloses,
wherein the controller includes an illumination scheme to control an icon that includes a constant illumination with a controllable variable intensity to inform a driver of a risk of a collision (paragraph 0020, “The display 20 displays a warning icon 24 indicative of an object detected in the coverage zone 16 and presents the warning icon 24 to the driver of the host vehicle 10. The display 20 is adaptively controllable to provide differing levels of light illumination such that the light intensity of the illuminated warning icon 24 is increased when the host vehicle 10 is anticipated to be moving closer to a detected object”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Harter into the invention of Orellana. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a vehicle mirror assembly used to display an icon to warn a user of a collision. Orellana discloses a rear-view mirror assembly which displays multiple controllable icons to warn the vehicle user of a potential collision; however, Orellana fails to disclose the feature of: an illumination scheme to control the first controllable icon and the second controllable icon that includes a constant illumination with a controllable variable intensity. Harter discloses the feature of increasing the light illumination intensity of the mirror icon as the host vehicle moves closer to a detected object. As Orellana already discloses the feature of having multiple icons which are controllable based on risk of collision, it would have been obvious to incorporate the feature as disclosed by Harter to implement each of the icons in Orellana to have a constant illumination with variable intensity to inform a driver of a risk of a collision. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively provide a warning indication to the driver of the vehicle to warn of the presence of an object in a detection zone (see paragraph 0005 of Harter).
Regarding claim 2, Orellana further discloses
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of spatial sensors of the spatial monitoring system comprises a radar system (see Col. 2, lines 49-56, further see Fig. 1, radar devices 16, further see Col. 3, lines 17-20, “) It should be understood that the object-detecting devices are not limited to only radar devices and cameras. For example, lidar, sonar, and other such devices can be used according to the knowledge of one skilled in the art.”).
Regarding claim 3, Orellana further discloses
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of spatial sensors of the spatial monitoring system comprises a LiDAR system (Col. 3, lines 17-20, “It should be understood that the object-detecting devices are not limited to only radar devices and cameras. For example, lidar, sonar, and other such devices can be used according to the knowledge of one skilled in the art.”).
Regarding claim 4, Orellana further discloses
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the monitoring system being operative to determine that the object that is rearward to and proximal to the vehicle is disposed on the rightward side of the vehicle or the leftward side of the vehicle comprises the monitoring system being operative to detect that the object is disposed in a blind zone proximal to the vehicle (see Fig. 1, blind zone, Col. 3, lines 9-16, “The actual location and positioning of the object-detecting devices 16, 18 can vary and are not intended to be limited. And, the number of object-detecting devices 16, 18 provided throughout the vehicle can vary according to the specific configuration of the vehicle. The object-detecting devices 16, 18 can be arranged to detect vehicles approaching from the rear, as well as vehicles that may be in the blind zone that may be difficult for the driver to see by looking at mirrors.”).
Regarding claim 7, Orellana further discloses
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the first controllable icon disposed on the rightward side of the interior rearview mirror and the second controllable icon disposed on the leftward side of the interior rearview mirror comprise devices affixed onto a surface of the interior rearview mirror (see Fig. 2, further see Col. 4, lines 27-32, “The rear-view mirror includes a housing with a light source (such as LEDs, etc.) therein. The light source is coupled to the controller 14. Based on the distance the other vehicles are from the host vehicle, and based on the closing speed or actual speed of the other vehicles, the controller is programmed to illuminate a colored display on the mirror.”).
Regarding claim 9, Orellana further discloses
The vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the first controllable icon disposed on the rightward side of the interior rearview mirror and the second controllable icon disposed on the leftward side of the interior rearview mirror comprise devices embedded in the interior rearview mirror (see Fig. 2, further see Col. 4, lines 22-32, “This data can also be provided visually to the driver via LEDs or other light sources in the mirror. As provided above, the anticipated collision time can be determined based on the determined closing speed of the approaching vehicle and its distance from the driver's vehicle…The rear-view mirror includes a housing with a light source (such as LEDs, etc.) therein. The light source is coupled to the controller 14. Based on the distance the other vehicles are from the host vehicle, and based on the closing speed or actual speed of the other vehicles, the controller is programmed to illuminate a colored display on the mirror.”).
Regarding claim 10, Orellana further discloses
The vehicle system of claim 9, wherein the devices embedded in the interior rearview mirror comprise light-emitting diode devices (see Fig. 2, further see Col. 4, lines 22-32, “This data can also be provided visually to the driver via LEDs or other light sources in the mirror. As provided above, the anticipated collision time can be determined based on the determined closing speed of the approaching vehicle and its distance from the driver's vehicle…The rear-view mirror includes a housing with a light source (such as LEDs, etc.) therein. The light source is coupled to the controller 14. Based on the distance the other vehicles are from the host vehicle, and based on the closing speed or actual speed of the other vehicles, the controller is programmed to illuminate a colored display on the mirror.”).
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Claim(s) 5,6,8,15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orellana et al. (US 9878665 B2) in view of Harter et al. (US 20060006988 A1) further in view of Huizen et al. (US 11639134 B1), hereinafter Huizen.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Orellana and Harter discloses
The vehicle system of claim 1.
Orellana further discloses [Note: what the combination of Orellana and Harter fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
wherein the interior rearview mirror is (see Fig. 2, and Figs. 3a-3C where the rearview mirror is disposed on “a mounting frame”);
wherein the first controllable icon being disposed on the rightward side of the interior rearview mirror comprises the first controllable icon being disposed on a rightward side of the mirror (see Fig. 2, and further see Col. 5, lines 18-27, “In yet another embodiment, one of the cameras is also part of a lane-detecting system such that the camera and the controller can determine lanes of travel. The field of view may be at least three lanes, including the lane the vehicle is traveling in, and the immediate left and immediate right lanes. The relative speed and distance of a car in that lane will cause a corresponding LED in the rear-view mirror in either a left, central, or right region of the mirror to align with what that lane as the driver would see it from the rear-view mirror.”); and
wherein the second controllable icon being disposed on the leftward side of the interior rearview mirror comprises the second controllable icon being disposed on a leftward side of the mirror (see Fig. 2, and further see Col. 5, lines 18-27, “In yet another embodiment, one of the cameras is also part of a lane-detecting system such that the camera and the controller can determine lanes of travel. The field of view may be at least three lanes, including the lane the vehicle is traveling in, and the immediate left and immediate right lanes. The relative speed and distance of a car in that lane will cause a corresponding LED in the rear-view mirror in either a left, central, or right region of the mirror to align with what that lane as the driver would see it from the rear-view mirror.”).
Huizen discloses,
wherein the interior rearview mirror is a mirror lens disposed on a mounting frame (see Col. 67, lines 10-13, “For example, two separate 3 cm diameter lenses/optics could be accommodated within an interior mirror assembly, covert behind the transflective mirror reflector thereof.”, where these lens in the rearview mirror assembly are “mirror lens”);
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Huizen into the invention of Orellana in view of Harter. All three references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose a mirror assembly to alert a driver of proximal vehicles detected using radar. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the sensitivity of the backside illuminated sensor to visible light (see Col. 69, lines 20-22 of Huizen).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Orellana and Harter discloses
The vehicle system of claim 1.
Orellana further discloses [Note: what the combination of Orellana and Harter fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
wherein the interior rearview mirror is (see Fig. 2, and Figs. 3a-3C where the rearview mirror is disposed on “a mounting frame”);
wherein the first controllable icon being disposed on the rightward side of the interior rearview mirror comprises the first controllable icon being disposed on a rightward side of the mounting frame (see Fig. 2, and further see Col. 5, lines 18-27, “In yet another embodiment, one of the cameras is also part of a lane-detecting system such that the camera and the controller can determine lanes of travel. The field of view may be at least three lanes, including the lane the vehicle is traveling in, and the immediate left and immediate right lanes. The relative speed and distance of a car in that lane will cause a corresponding LED in the rear-view mirror in either a left, central, or right region of the mirror to align with what that lane as the driver would see it from the rear-view mirror.”); and
wherein the second controllable icon being disposed on the leftward side of the interior rearview mirror comprises the second controllable icon being disposed on a leftward side of the mounting frame (see Fig. 2, and further see Col. 5, lines 18-27, “In yet another embodiment, one of the cameras is also part of a lane-detecting system such that the camera and the controller can determine lanes of travel. The field of view may be at least three lanes, including the lane the vehicle is traveling in, and the immediate left and immediate right lanes. The relative speed and distance of a car in that lane will cause a corresponding LED in the rear-view mirror in either a left, central, or right region of the mirror to align with what that lane as the driver would see it from the rear-view mirror.”).
Huizen discloses,
wherein the interior rearview mirror is composed as mirror lens disposed on a mounting frame (see Col. 67, lines 10-13, “For example, two separate 3 cm diameter lenses/optics could be accommodated within an interior mirror assembly, covert behind the transflective mirror reflector thereof.”, where these lens in the rearview mirror assembly are “mirror lens”);
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Huizen into the invention of Orellana in view of Harter. All three references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose a mirror assembly to alert a driver of proximal vehicles detected using radar. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the sensitivity of the backside illuminated sensor to visible light (see Col. 69, lines 20-22 of Huizen).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Orellana and Harter discloses
The vehicle system of claim 7.
Orellana further discloses [Note: what the combination of Orellana and Harter fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
Huizen discloses,
wherein the devices affixed onto the surface of the interior rearview mirror comprise liquid-crystal display devices (see Col. 85, lines 52-56, “Both types of mirrors may be provided with a video display screen that is disposed behind and is viewable through the mirror reflective element. The video mirrors include a backlit LCD display screen, and a particular form of video mirror is a full display mirror”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Huizen into the invention of Orellana in view of Harter. All three references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose a mirror assembly to alert a driver of proximal vehicles detected using radar. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide higher resolution data (see Col. 70, lines 30-37 of Huizen).
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orellana et al. (US 9878665 B2) in view of Harter et al. (US 20060006988 A1) further in view of Bush et al. (US 20220410882 A1), hereinafter Bush.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Orellana and Harter discloses [Note: what the combination of Orellana and Harter fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The vehicle system of claim 1,
Bush discloses,
further comprising a driver’s seat having a leftward haptic device and a rightward haptic device affixed thereto, wherein the controller controls the rightward haptic device when the monitoring system determines that the object that is rearward to and proximal to the vehicle is disposed on the rightward side of the vehicle (see paragraph 0029, “The controller 34 can sound an alarm or provided a haptic warning, such as by vibrating an object in contact with the driver, such as the steering wheel 27 or the driver's seat 204. The driver's seat 204 can have haptic emitters at various places along the driver's seat 204. A haptic emitter corresponding to the direction of focus of the sensing system 30 can be selected when the driver's attention is not aligned with the focus of the sensing system 30. For example, a right-side haptic emitter can be activated to bring the driver's attention to the right side and a left-side haptic emitter can be activated to bring the driver's attention to the left side.”, further see paragraph 0052, “In box 1012, the selected road segment is mapped to a haptic actuator. The haptic signal can be assigned to one or many haptic actuators, for example, on a driver's seat. A selected haptic signal can be transmitted in order to focus the driver's attention to a selected location within the roadway. For example, the haptic actuators can include a first vibration device on a left side of the driver's seat and a second device on a right side of the driver's seat”); and
wherein the controller controls the leftward haptic device when the monitoring system determines that the object that is rearward to and proximal to the vehicle is disposed on the leftward side of the vehicle (see paragraph 0029, “The controller 34 can sound an alarm or provided a haptic warning, such as by vibrating an object in contact with the driver, such as the steering wheel 27 or the driver's seat 204. The driver's seat 204 can have haptic emitters at various places along the driver's seat 204. A haptic emitter corresponding to the direction of focus of the sensing system 30 can be selected when the driver's attention is not aligned with the focus of the sensing system 30. For example, a right-side haptic emitter can be activated to bring the driver's attention to the right side and a left-side haptic emitter can be activated to bring the driver's attention to the left side.”, further see paragraph 0052, “In box 1012, the selected road segment is mapped to a haptic actuator. The haptic signal can be assigned to one or many haptic actuators, for example, on a driver's seat. A selected haptic signal can be transmitted in order to focus the driver's attention to a selected location within the roadway. For example, the haptic actuators can include a first vibration device on a left side of the driver's seat and a second device on a right side of the driver's seat”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Bush into the invention of Orellana in view of Harter. All three references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose a driver alert system to alert a driver of proximal vehicles detected using radar. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success for collision avoidance (see paragraph 0049 of Bush).
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 11 is applied.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orellana et al. (US 9878665 B2) in view of Harter et al. (US 20060006988 A1) in view of Bush et al. (US 20220410882 A1) further in view of Katayama et al. (US 20190071081 A1), hereinafter Katayama.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Orellana and Harter and Bush discloses [Note: what the combination of Orellana and Harter and Bush fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The vehicle system of claim 11,
Katayama discloses,
an audio system having a leftward speaker and a rightward speaker affixed thereto, wherein the controller controls the rightward speaker to issue a chime when the monitoring system determines that the object that is rearward to and proximal to the vehicle is disposed on the rightward side of the vehicle (see paragraph 0102, “For example, the alarm output control unit 114 causes the speaker 24Lb installed on the left rear end side of a vehicle compartment interior to output an alarm sound when the adjacent vehicle V.sub.RS exists on the rear side of the left adjacent lane, causes the speaker 24La installed on the left front end side of the vehicle compartment interior to output an alarm sound when the adjacent vehicle V.sub.RS exists on the side of the left adjacent lane, causes the speaker 24Rb installed on the right rear end side of the vehicle compartment interior to output an alarm sound when the adjacent vehicle V.sub.RS exists on the side of the right adjacent lane, and causes the speaker 24Ra installed on the right front end side of the vehicle compartment interior to output an alarm sound when the adjacent vehicle V.sub.RS exists on the side of the right adjacent lane. As a result, it is possible to cause the driver to physically recognize in which direction a vehicle to which attention needs to be directed exists.”); and
wherein the controller controls the leftward speaker to issue a chime when the monitoring system determines that the object that is rearward to and proximal to the vehicle is disposed on the leftward side of the vehicle (see paragraph 0102, “For example, the alarm output control unit 114 causes the speaker 24Lb installed on the left rear end side of a vehicle compartment interior to output an alarm sound when the adjacent vehicle V.sub.RS exists on the rear side of the left adjacent lane, causes the speaker 24La installed on the left front end side of the vehicle compartment interior to output an alarm sound when the adjacent vehicle V.sub.RS exists on the side of the left adjacent lane, causes the speaker 24Rb installed on the right rear end side of the vehicle compartment interior to output an alarm sound when the adjacent vehicle V.sub.RS exists on the side of the right adjacent lane, and causes the speaker 24Ra installed on the right front end side of the vehicle compartment interior to output an alarm sound when the adjacent vehicle V.sub.RS exists on the side of the right adjacent lane. As a result, it is possible to cause the driver to physically recognize in which direction a vehicle to which attention needs to be directed exists.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Katayama into the invention of Orellana in view of Harter further in view of Bush. All four references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose known driver alert systems to alert a driver of proximal vehicles detected using radar. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success for collision avoidance using haptic alert systems within the vehicle (see paragraph 0052 of Katayama).
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 NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights