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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed on 05/18/2026. Claims 1-10, 12-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 for the prior art rejection are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
The applicant argues that Spencer does not teach the zoom level of a lens of a camera.
In response to the argument, the examiner notes that Spencer is not used to teach this limitation. Spencer is used to teach limitations in dependent claims which were not argued.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20140132770 and hereafter referred to as “Lee”) in view of Slama (US 2020/0282924).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses an automotive vehicle, comprising:
a camera positioned to capture images with a field of view of a vehicle side-view mirror (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033);
an additional camera positioned to capture images with an additional field of view of an opposite vehicle side-view mirror, wherein the additional field of view has a different angle from the field of view of the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033, Figure 3, 110, narrow view camera – different angle as it using the narrow viewing angle lens); and
a display device configured to present the images captured by the camera to present, to a driver of the automotive vehicle, the field of view of the vehicle side-view mirror (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display).
Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on the processor configured to1adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the automotive vehicle.
Slama discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and configured to adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Page 1, paragraph 0009, Abstract – driving direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Slama in order to have an adaptable viewing angle (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Slama.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee wherein the images presented on the display device provide a view of corresponding to a view of the vehicle side-view mirror of the automotive vehicle (Figure 3, right display, Figure 4, Page 3, paragraph 0033-0036, 0046, 0047, Page 1, paragraph 0014).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee discloses wherein the camera is mounted on the automotive vehicle at a side-view mirror location (Page 2, paragraph 0032, See also paragraphs 0046-0047).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee discloses the camera is configured as a replacement of a physical mirror of the automotive vehicle (Page 2, paragraph 0032, See also paragraphs 0046-0047).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee discloses wherein the display device includes a screen configured inside of the automotive vehicle (Figure 9, 119, 120).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a virtual side-view mirror having:
a camera configured at a side-mirror location of the vehicle (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033); and
a display device configured to present images captured by the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display) and
an additional virtual side-view mirror having a differently angled field of view from the virtual side view mirror (Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033, Figure 3, 110, different angle as it using the narrow viewing angle lens).
Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on the processor configured to1adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the automotive vehicle.
Slama discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and configured to adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Page 1, paragraph 0009, Abstract – driving direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Slama in order to have an adaptable viewing angle (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Slama.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. Lee discloses further comprising: a processor further configured to adjust an angle of field of view of the images captured by the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0039, Page 3, paragraph 0052, 0056, Page 1, paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed in a computing system configured on a vehicle, cause the vehicle to perform a method, comprising:
capturing, using a camera configured on the vehicle, images having a field of view of a vehicle side-view mirror (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033);
capturing, using an additional camera configured on the vehicle, additional images having a differently angled field of view of an additional vehicle side-view mirror, w from the field of view of the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033, Figure 3, 110, narrow view camera – different angle as it using the narrow viewing angle lens); and
presenting, on a display device, the images to a driver of the vehicle, the field of view of the vehicle side-view mirror (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display).
Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on the processor configured to1adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the automotive vehicle.
Slama discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and configured to adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Page 1, paragraph 0009, Abstract – driving direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Slama in order to have an adaptable viewing angle (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Slama.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 18. Lee discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the computing system, an operating condition of the vehicle (Page 3, paragraph 0056); and adjusting, based on the operating conditions, an angle of the field of view camera (Page 6, paragraph 0056, 0052, Page 2, paragraph 0039, Page 1, paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 19. Slama discloses wherein the angle of the field of view is adjusted based on the zoom level of the lens of the camera (Page 1, paragraph 0009). See motivation above.
Claim 6-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Slama as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Spencer et al (US 2018/0154831 and hereafter referred to as “Spencer”).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee discloses presenting on a display device but does not explicitly disclose presenting on an area. Spencer discloses wherein the display device is configured to present the images on an area of the automotive vehicle (paragraph 0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to have a broader field of view (Page 1, paragraph 0034) as disclosed by Spencer and to save costs on a display device or save space for another display.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee, Slama and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 6. Spencer discloses further comprising: a windshield, wherein the area is configured on the windshield (paragraph 0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to have a broader field of view (Page 1, paragraph 0034) as disclosed by Spencer and to save costs on a display device or save space for another display.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee, Slama and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 6. Spencer discloses wherein the area is substantially transparent to the driver of the automotive vehicle (paragraph 0020). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee, Slama and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 6. Spencer discloses wherein the display device is configured to present the images via projection (paragraph 0020). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. The combination is silent on speed. Spencer discloses wherein the operating condition comprises a speed of the vehicle (Page 5, paragraph 0034, Page 6, paragraph 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to determine automated driving routes ( Page 2, paragraph 0016 as disclosed by Spencer.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. The combination is silent on presence in vicinity of vehicle. Spencer discloses wherein the operating condition comprises presence of objects in vicinity of the vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0029, Page 5, paragraph 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to determine automated driving routes ( Page 2, paragraph 0016 as disclosed by Spencer.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee and Slama disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. The combination is silent on presence or absence in vicinity of vehicle. Spencer discloses wherein the operating condition comprises absence of or presence of a nearby vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0027, 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to determine automated driving routes ( Page 2, paragraph 0016 as disclosed by Spencer.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Slama and Spencer as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Farb (US 2015/0228066).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee, Slama and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 14. Slama discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and configured to adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Page 1, paragraph 0009, Abstract – driving direction). The combination does not teach a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period. Farb discloses a vehicle with a camera and a processor/system (Figure 1, Figure 2, 110, 130) and the operating condition comprises the presence of the nearby vehicle and a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period (Page 4, paragraph 0091, 0093, 0097). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Farb in order to provide information to the driver by determining if a collision is likely (Page 4, paragraph 0093) as disclosed by Farb.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee, Slama, Spencer and Farb disclose all the limitations of Claim Lee discloses a predetermined time period including within 4 seconds. See motivation above. Lee does not explicitly say it is within five to thirty seconds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include a predetermined time period within 4 seconds which approaches the claimed range of five to thirty seconds, since it has been held that where they approach the range so closely that there out to be a noticeable difference. In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) (“Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys.”); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., “not substantially less than 13%,” “not substantially below 17%,” and “between about 13[%] and 20%”); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of “less than 6 pounds per cubic feet” and the prior art range of “between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3” were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).
See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Spencer, Slama and Farb.
Regarding Claim 21, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a virtual side-view mirror having:
a camera configured at a side-mirror location of the vehicle (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033); and
a display device configured to present images captured by the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display) and
Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on configured to adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle, wherein the operating condition comprises a presence of a nearby vehicle, and wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period.
Spencer discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Figure 1, 110, 114, 106, Page 2, paragraph 0017) and configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Figure 5B, Page 4, paragraph 0029, lines 3-15, lines 29-35, zooming the input of cameras, 0030, vehicles that are present, Figure 5B, 570-575, changing the display, Page 5, paragraph 0034-0036, Page 6-7, paragraph 0039, vehicles nearby/approaching, 0040, bottom of page 6 last 3 lines to end of paragraph 0040, f), wherein the operating condition comprises a presence of a nearby vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0027, 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to determine automated driving routes ( Page 2, paragraph 0016 as disclosed by Spencer.
The combination is silent on adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle, and wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period.
Slama discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and configured to adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Page 1, paragraph 0009, Abstract – driving direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Slama in order to have an adaptable viewing angle (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Slama.
The combination is silent on wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period.
Farb discloses a vehicle wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period (Page 4, paragraph 0091, 0093, 0097).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Farb in order to provide information to the driver by determining if a collision is likely (Page 4, paragraph 0093) as disclosed by Farb.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Spencer, Slama and Frazier et al (US 11,124,114 and hereafter referred to as “Frazier”).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a virtual side-view mirror having:
a camera configured at a side-mirror location of the vehicle (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033); and
a display device configured to present images captured by the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display) and
Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on configured to adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle, wherein the operating condition comprises a presence of a nearby vehicle, and wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period.
Spencer discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Figure 1, 110, 114, 106, Page 2, paragraph 0017) and configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Figure 5B, Page 4, paragraph 0029, lines 3-15, lines 29-35, zooming the input of cameras, 0030, vehicles that are present, Figure 5B, 570-575, changing the display, Page 5, paragraph 0034-0036, Page 6-7, paragraph 0039, vehicles nearby/approaching, 0040, bottom of page 6 last 3 lines to end of paragraph 0040, f), wherein the operating condition comprises a presence of a nearby vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0027, 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to determine automated driving routes ( Page 2, paragraph 0016 as disclosed by Spencer.
The combination is silent on adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle, and wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period.
Slama discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and configured to adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Page 1, paragraph 0009, Abstract – driving direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Slama in order to have an adaptable viewing angle (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Slama.
Slama discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and configured to adjust a zoom level of a lens of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Page 1, paragraph 0009, Abstract – driving direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Slama in order to have an adaptable viewing angle (Page 1, paragraph 0009) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Slama.
The combination is silent on wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period.
Frazier discloses wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period (Column 6, line 42-54, Figure 8, advancing or retreating for a period time Column 8, lines 29-52, Column 7, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Frazier in order to provide information to the driver if the vehicle is advancing or retreating for reasons such as merging (Column 6, lines 56-67, Column 7, lines 1-4) as disclosed by Frazier.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
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 FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights