DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
________________________________________
Claim Status
Claims 1–9, 11–13, 16, and 21–25 are pending. Claims 10, 14, 15, and 17–20 are canceled.
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statements were filed January 17, 2024 and April 17, 2025. The cited information was considered, as indicated by the examiner-signed forms dated April 22, 2026.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - US 20180004230 A1.
Reference 2 - US 10343653 B1.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A vehicle leveling system, comprising: (L2) a sensor for sensing a reference state of a vehicle and a local level state of the vehicle in three separate axes comprising a pitch axis, a roll axis, and a vertical axis, wherein the reference state is subtracted from the local level state to determine a difference angle in each of the three axes; and (L3) a smart device in communication with the sensor providing feedback to adjust orientation of the vehicle to level the vehicle in each of the three axes.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses a vehicle leveling system including RV 10, sensor device 22, and mobile smart device 24 (abstract; paragraphs 31–40; Figs. 1–6). (L2) Reference 1 discloses that sensor 22 includes multi-axis accelerometer and gyroscope hardware, including X, Y, and Z axes; that an initial level position is determined and stored as calibration data; that later current angle measurements are obtained; and that the stored calibration values are added to or subtracted from the current sensor data to determine the actual angle relative to the initial level position (paragraphs 32, 40–56; Figs. 6, 9–10; claims 9–10). Reference 2 further discloses a three-or-more-axis or six-axis sensor and identifies the vehicle's pitch, roll, and normal/third axes (sensor 122; axes 502–507; cols. 2–3 and 8–10; Fig. 5; claims 1 and 5–7). Using Reference 1's stored-reference subtraction for each Reference 2-measured axis determines the claimed difference in each of the three axes. (L3) Reference 1's smart device 24 communicates wirelessly with sensor 22 and displays current angles and calculated height changes for leveling (paragraphs 44–61; Figs. 4–6 and 9–12). Reference 2's remote device 700, processor 702, and user interface 708 receive multi-axis readings, determine jack-control signals, and continue correction until the desired attitude is reached (cols. 8–10; Figs. 7–8).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's three-axis sensing and powered jack-control architecture with Reference 1's stored calibration and smart-device feedback to automate Reference 1's displayed corrections, improve precision, and reduce repeated manual adjustment. Both references address leveling the same type of vehicle using multi-axis sensor feedback, so applying Reference 1's reference comparison to each Reference 2-measured axis is technically compatible with Reference 2's control loop. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of three-axis corrective feedback.
________________________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 1, wherein the feedback is an audible or human sensory feedback to a user.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 1. (L1) Reference 1's smart-device screens visibly present the current angles and calculated height changes needed to level the vehicle, including height changes at vehicle locations (screen 40; displays 42 and 44; values 92–98; paragraphs 44–61 and 83–86; Figs. 5 and 11–12). The visible display is human sensory feedback to the user. Reference 1 also identifies an audible output at paragraph 78.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Reference 1's calculated leveling information through the ordinary visual or audible outputs of the smart device so the user can perceive and act on the correction while Reference 2's system performs or supports the leveling operation. The references' display, sensing, and control functions are technically compatible because they concern the same leveling correction. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of jacks to level the vehicle in each of the three axes.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 1. (L1) Reference 2 discloses multiple jacks 12 and 16, and later jacks 490, connected to a vehicle and operated individually or in pairs based on multi-axis orientation data to change the vehicle attitude (Figs. 1–2, 5–6, and 8; cols. 3–10).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's plural powered jacks to carry out Reference 1's calculated leveling corrections because Reference 2 already uses those jacks for vehicle-height adjustment and Reference 1 supplies the needed corrections. Sending those corrections to the known actuators is technically a direct automation of Reference 1's displayed adjustment. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of jacks are controlled by the smart device or the sensor.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claims 1 and 3. (L1) Reference 2 discloses that remote-device processor 702 receives sensor readings, determines jack-control signals, and communicates the signals to controller 610, which operates the jacks (cols. 8–10; Figs. 7–8, steps 808–824).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the leveling calculation and command generation in the remote smart device or sensor processor because Reference 1 and Reference 2 identify those processors for orientation and control data. Performing the calculation where the relevant data is available is technically compatible with the combined remote-control architecture. The combination would have predictably reduced manual control steps.
________________________________________
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 1, wherein the reference state is flat.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 1. (L1) Reference 1 determines the reference while the RV is at a known initial level position, optionally on a known level surface or using a digital or spirit level, and stores the corresponding sensor measurements as calibration data (paragraph 45; claims 9–10). That known level position is a flat reference state.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a flat known level position as Reference 1's calibration reference for Reference 2's vehicle-leveling system because that position defines the intended target attitude. Using the known-level position is technically appropriate for measuring later vehicle deviation. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 1, wherein the sensor includes a gyroscope providing multiple angles of orientation.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 1. (L1) Reference 1 expressly discloses that sensor device 22 may include one or more digital gyroscopes and multi-axis digital sensors for determining vehicle inclination and orientation (paragraphs 32 and 40–43). Reference 2 likewise identifies a three-axis gyroscope and a six-axis sensor.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the multi-axis gyroscope disclosed by Reference 1 and Reference 2 to provide the angular orientation data required by the combined leveling system. The sensor is technically suited to measuring the axes used for the stored-reference comparison and powered correction. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A vehicle leveling system, comprising: (L2) a sensor for sensing an orientation of a vehicle in multiple axes; (L3) a plurality of jacks connected to the vehicle to adjust the orientation of the vehicle in the multiple axes; (L4) a smart device that is separate from and in communication with the sensor, the smart device configured to remotely level the vehicle, the smart device configured to: (L5) store calibration positions of the vehicle for the multiple axes; (L6) receive current measurements of the orientation in each of the multiple axes from the sensor; (L7) determine a difference in each of the multiple axes between the current measurements and the calibration positions; and (L8) transmit signals to the jacks to adjust the orientation of the vehicle by the difference in each of the multiple axes to level the vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses RV 10, sensor device 22, and smart device 24 as a vehicle leveling system; Reference 2 discloses vehicle-leveling systems 10 and 610. (L2) Reference 1's sensor uses multiple accelerometer/gyroscope axes; Reference 2's sensor 122 or 706 supplies readings from three or more axes (Reference 1 paragraphs 32 and 40–43; Reference 2 Fig. 5 and claims 1 and 5–7). (L3) Reference 2's plural jacks 12/16 or 490 extend and retract to adjust vehicle attitude (Figs. 1–2, 6, and 8). (L4) Reference 1's smart device 24 is separate from vehicle sensor 22 and communicates wirelessly with it; Reference 2's mobile remote device 700 communicates wirelessly with controller 610 to initiate and control leveling (Reference 1 paragraphs 31–40 and 44–56; Reference 2 cols. 8–10 and Fig. 7). (L5) Reference 1 stores initial-level calibration positions on smart device 24 or sensor 22, and Reference 2 determines a zero leveling point for multi-axis monitoring (Reference 1 paragraphs 45–56 and 69–72; Reference 2 claim 4). (L6) Reference 1 receives later current measurements from sensor 22, while Reference 2 processor 702 receives multi-axis readings (Reference 1 paragraphs 45–56; Reference 2 Fig. 8, steps 808–814). (L7) Reference 1 adds or subtracts the calibration values from the current sensor data to determine the actual angle relative to the initial level position; Reference 2 compares current attitude to the desired attitude (Reference 1 paragraph 56; Reference 2 abstract, Fig. 8, and claims 4 and 7). (L8) Reference 2 processor 702 transmits jack-control signals to controller 610, which extends or retracts the jacks and repeats the correction until the desired attitude is reached (cols. 8–10; Fig. 8, steps 816–824; claims 1–7).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect Reference 1's calculated calibration differences to Reference 2's remote controller and powered jacks to replace manual response to Reference 1's display with automatic actuation. The modification technically uses known wireless vehicle-leveling components for their established sensing, command, and adjustment functions. The combination would have predictably improved accuracy and convenience while retaining Reference 1's separate sensor and smart device.
________________________________________
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 7, wherein the smart device provides feedback to adjust the orientation and level the vehicle.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 7. (L1) Reference 1's smart device displays current orientation and the calculated height change needed at the relevant vehicle side, end, or wheel location (paragraphs 44–61 and 83–86; Figs. 5 and 11–12). Reference 2's user interface 708 provides the user-facing interface for the multi-axis correction operation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to present Reference 1's calculated correction through the smart-device interface while Reference 2's remote architecture controls the leveling operation. The same correction data is technically suitable for both user monitoring and the associated adjustment. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 8, wherein the feedback is an audible or human sensory feedback to a user.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claims 7 and 8. (L1) Reference 1's calculated angle and height displays are visual human sensory feedback to the user (screen 40; values 92–98; Figs. 5 and 12), and Reference 1 separately identifies audible output at paragraph 78.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the smart device's ordinary visual or audible outputs for Reference 1's calculated correction while Reference 2 performs the corresponding leveling operation. Those established output functions are technically compatible with conveying the calculated status to the user. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 7, wherein the plurality of jacks are controlled by the smart device or the sensor.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 7. (L1) Reference 2's remote-device processor 702 determines and transmits jack-control signals to controller 610, which controls the plural jacks (cols. 8–10; Figs. 7–8).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to generate the jack commands in the smart-device or sensor processor because Reference 1 calculates the orientation error there and Reference 2 accepts commands for its powered leveling components. Producing the command at the point of calculation is technically compatible with the combined control path. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 7, wherein the calibration positions are flat.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 7. (L1) Reference 1 captures the calibration positions while the vehicle is at a known initial level position, optionally verified using a level or a known level surface (paragraph 45; claims 9–10).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a flat known level position for Reference 1's calibration reference in Reference 2's vehicle-leveling system because it supplies the target against which later orientation is compared. That reference is technically appropriate for defining zero attitude. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The vehicle leveling system of claim 7, wherein the sensor includes a gyroscope providing multiple angles of orientation.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 7. (L1) Reference 1 identifies one or more digital gyroscopes in sensor 22 for multi-axis orientation measurements (paragraphs 32 and 40–43); Reference 2 likewise identifies three-axis gyroscope and six-axis embodiments.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the disclosed multi-axis gyroscope to provide the multiple angular measurements used by Reference 1's calibration comparison and Reference 2's leveling control. The sensor is technically suited to the axes corrected by the combined system. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method of claim 21, further comprising transmitting human sensory feedback to the user while leveling the vehicle.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 21. (L1) Reference 1 transmits sensor and calculated correction information to smart device 24/84 and visually displays the current angles and required or remaining height corrections while the vehicle is being leveled (paragraphs 47–61 and 83–86; Figs. 5 and 11–12). The visual display is human sensory feedback.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to display the ongoing correction on Reference 1's remote smart device while Reference 2 performs the leveling operation so the user can monitor progress toward the stored reference. The display and control functions are technically compatible because they use the same measured correction. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A method of leveling a vehicle using a smart device that is remote from the vehicle, the method comprising: (L2) receiving calibration reference positions for the vehicle in multiple axes; (L3) after receiving the calibration reference positions, receiving a request from a user to level the vehicle; (L4) receiving a current orientation of the vehicle in each of the multiple axes; (L5) for each of the axes, determining a difference measurement between the current orientation and the calibration reference positions; and (L6) transmitting signals to jacks on the vehicle to adjust the vehicle by the respective difference measurement in each of the multiple axes and leveling the vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 uses mobile smart device 24, separate from vehicle-mounted sensor 22, to perform a vehicle-leveling method; Reference 2 identifies remote device 700 as a smartphone or tablet. (L2) Reference 1 receives and stores initial-level calibration measurements for the sensor axes (paragraphs 45–56 and 69–72; claims 9–10), and Reference 2 supplies a multi-axis zero point. (L3) Reference 1 performs the calibration as initial setup for future leveling. Reference 2's user interface permits the user to initiate the later attitude-correction operation (summary; cols. 1–2; Fig. 8). (L4) Reference 1 receives later current angle measurements from the sensor; Reference 2 receives readings from three or more axes (Reference 1 paragraphs 45–56; Reference 2 Fig. 8, steps 808–814). (L5) Reference 1 subtracts or adds the stored calibration from current sensor data to determine the actual difference from the initial level; Reference 2 compares current and desired attitudes (Reference 1 paragraph 56; Reference 2 claims 4 and 7). (L6) Reference 2 processor 702 transmits jack-control signals to controller 610 to extend or retract the vehicle jacks and continues until the desired attitude is reached (cols. 8–10; Fig. 8, steps 816–824; claims 1–7).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's user-initiated remote control loop to apply Reference 1's later calculated differences automatically. Reference 1 separates initial calibration from later vehicle leveling, and Reference 2's powered-jack loop is technically suited to executing those stored-reference corrections. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of remote jack leveling from previously stored calibration data.
________________________________________
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method of claim 21, further comprising receiving the current orientation in three axes, determining the difference measurement in the three axes, and transmitting the signals to the jacks to adjust the vehicle in the three axes.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 21. (L1) Reference 2 receives readings from three or more axes, including the normal/third axis shown in Fig. 5, determines control values from the multi-axis readings, and transmits jack-control signals. Reference 1 supplies the stored-reference subtraction used to determine the difference for each measured axis.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Reference 1's same reference comparison to each of Reference 2's three measured axes and use Reference 2's control signals for the resulting corrections. Repeating the disclosed calculation and control operation across the measured axes is technically compatible with the multi-axis sensing architecture. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method of claim 21, wherein receiving the calibration reference positions comprises receiving the calibration reference positions in three different axes.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claim 21. (L1) Reference 1 receives and stores calibration positions for its measured axes. Reference 2 measures three or more axes and identifies pitch, roll, and a normal/third axis (Fig. 5; claims 1 and 5–7). The combined method receives the reference position for each of those three axes.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calibrate every axis that Reference 2 measures so Reference 1's later per-axis comparison removes installation offset from each measurement. Applying the same calibration process to each sensed axis is technically appropriate for the combined multi-axis system. The combination would have predictably improved accuracy.
________________________________________
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method of claim 23, further comprising receiving the current orientation in three different axes.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claims 21 and 23. (L1) Reference 2's multi-axis sensor 122/706 supplies current readings in three or more axes, including the pitch, roll, and normal-axis set illustrated in Fig. 5 (claims 1 and 5–7).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to receive current data for the same three calibrated axes so Reference 1's stored-reference comparison can determine the error associated with every Reference 2-measured axis. The current measurements are technically necessary inputs to the combined per-axis correction process. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method of claim 24, further comprising transmitting the signals to the jacks to adjust the vehicle in each of the three different axes.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 are applied together for claims 21, 23, and 24. (L1) Reference 2's processor transmits jack-control signals based on the multi-axis readings, and controller 610 extends or retracts the jacks and continues the operation until the vehicle reaches the desired attitude (cols. 8–10; Fig. 8, steps 816–824; claims 1–7).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit the calculated correction for each measured axis to Reference 2's powered jacks so the actuators complete Reference 1's stored-reference comparison loop. The command and actuator functions are technically compatible parts of the combined leveling control. The combination would have produced the predictable desired attitude.
________________________________________
Response to Arguments
Applicant's August 13, 2026 remarks state that the amendment resolves the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the prior claim objections. The amendments remove the disputed "level state" and "to zero out" language from claim 7, cancel claim 14, revise the other affected claims, and remove "absolute" from claims 5 and 12. The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the prior claim objections are therefore not repeated in this action.
Applicant further argues that Reference 1 and Reference 2, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the amended features of independent claims 1 and 7 or new independent claim 21. The argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive for the following reasons.
For claim 1, Reference 1 discloses the separate sensor and smart device, a stored initial-level calibration, later current orientation measurements, subtraction or addition of the stored calibration values to determine angular difference from the reference, and smart-device leveling feedback. Reference 2 discloses three-or-more-axis sensing, including the pitch, roll, and normal/third-axis arrangement shown in Fig. 5, and remotely controlled powered jacks that correct vehicle attitude. The rejection relies on the combined teachings, not on either reference alone, and the reason for applying Reference 2's three-axis and jack-control teachings to Reference 1's calibration and feedback system is stated in the claim 1 rejection.
For claim 7, Reference 1 discloses a smart device 24 that is separate from and communicates with vehicle sensor 22, stores calibration positions, receives later current measurements, and determines the difference from the stored calibration. Reference 2 discloses remote device 700, processor 702, controller 610, and the transmission of control signals that operate plural jacks until the desired vehicle attitude is reached. The combination therefore teaches the claimed separate remote smart device, multi-axis calibration and difference calculation, and transmission of signals to the jacks.
For claim 21, Reference 1 discloses initial calibration for later vehicle-leveling operations, and Reference 2 discloses that a user initiates the later correction operation from a remote interface, after which current multi-axis readings are received and jack-control signals are transmitted. The combination therefore teaches the recited order of calibration, later user request, current-orientation receipt, per-axis difference determination, and jack-signal transmission. Claims 22-25 add three-axis steps that are taught by Reference 2's three-or-more-axis sensing and control process in combination with Reference 1's stored-reference comparison.
Accordingly, applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth above.
________________________________________
Finality
Applicant's August 13, 2026 amendment necessitated the grounds of rejection presented in this action. Claim 1 was amended to require differences and leveling in three separate axes; claim 7 was rewritten to require a separate remote smart device that stores multi-axis calibration positions, determines per-axis differences, and transmits signals to vehicle jacks; claim 16 was amended to depend from new claim 21; claims 21-25 were newly added; and the remaining dependent claims carry the amended limitations of their parent claims.
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.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Claims 1–9, 11–13, 16, and 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated above.
Art Considered but Not Applied
US 2025/0130043 A1 is the closest single disclosure but is compared-only and is not applied; common-ownership and 102(b)(2) eligibility are unresolved on the public record. US 2025/0044083 A1 was considered as facial 102(a)(2) art and is not applied because it does not transmit jack-control signals. DE 10 2021 004 647 A1 was considered and is not applied; it is sensor-calibration art without the claimed smart-device and remote jack-control arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights