DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is response to communication filed on 12/03/2025.
Claims 1-3,5-13,15-19 are pending in this action.
Claims 4,14 and 20 have been canceled.
This Action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17, the limitation “wherein the first audio includes a white noise to increase privacy of a user of the first mobile device” fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regard as the invention. The claim recites output a first audio of a playlist at the volume via the first set, while the first mobile device is outside of the vehicle, but does not specify that the mobile device user is engage to any type of communication. It is not clear how the communication or information being protected, the mechanism by applying the white noise to increase the privacy of the mobile device user since the mobile device is not outputting any audio.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by U.S Patent No. 10,182,138 B2 to Motika et al. (hereinafter “Motika”).
Regarding claim 1, Motika teaches a vehicle, comprising: one or more wireless transceivers configured to establish one or more wireless communications with a mobile device (Fig. 2 and column 6, lines 16-34); a plurality of speakers configured to output audio (Abstract and column 3, line 48 through column 4, line 20; central system may also be configured to control volumes of speakers connected to the central system); and a controller programmed to measure a location of a user carrying the mobile device within a predefined range from the vehicle using the one or more wireless communications (Fig. 6 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 602, the apparatus determines that a user equipment (UE) connected to the apparatus receives a call. At 604, the apparatus determines a location of the UE), and adjust a volume of one or more of the plurality speakers using the location of the user (Fig. 6 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 606, the apparatus adjusts a volume of at least one of a plurality of speakers based on the location of the UE and locations of the plurality of speakers while the UE receives the call) such that the volume output by one of the speakers is inversely proportional to a distance between the user and the one of the speakers (Fig. 6, column 4, line 45 through column 5, line 2 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 606, the apparatus adjusts a volume of at least one of a plurality of speakers based on the location of the UE and locations of the plurality of speakers while the UE receives the call. A volume of a speaker that is closest to the mobile device receiving a call may be reduced the most, whereas a volume of a speaker that is farthest from the mobile device receiving a call may be reduced the least).
Regarding claim 5, Motika teaches the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the controller is further programed to adjust the volume of the one or more speakers such that a sum of volume output via each of the speaker is equal to a total volume (Fig.2 and column 6, line 34 through column 7, line 2; reduce volumes of the second closest speakers (e.g., the first speaker 230 and the fourth speaker 236) to a first level).
Regarding claim 6, Motika teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further programmed to: responsive to detecting the location of the user is beyond a predefined range from the vehicle, suspend outputting the audio (column 4, line 45 through column 5, line 2; central system may not reduce the volumes of one or more speakers that are located far from the user's mobile device as much as the volumes of the one or more speakers located near the user's mobile device).
Regarding claim 10, Motika teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising: one or more sensors, configured to detect the user and generate sensor data; wherein the controller is further configured to: measure the location of the user using the sensor data (column 5, line 52 through column 6, line 8; central system may implement location sensors to determine a location of a mobile device within the specific space).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 7 ,11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent No. 10,182,138 B2 to Motika et al. (hereinafter “Motika”) in view of U.S Patent No. 11,950,316 B1 to Nalevanko et al. (hereinafter “Nalevanko”).
Regarding claim 2, Motika teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the one or more wireless transceivers include at least three wireless transceivers each configured to establish one of the wireless communications with the mobile device (column 10, lines 48-67;lines 48-67; the speaker management component 710 adjusts the volume by reducing the volume of the at least one of the plurality of speakers while the UE 730 receives the call, a location of the at least one of the plurality of speakers corresponding to the location of the UE 730. In an aspect, the location of the UE 730 is a location relative to the locations of the plurality of speakers. In an aspect, the location of the UE 730 is determined based on detection of a wireless tag of the UE 730, the detection of the wireless tag indicating a specific location).
However, Motika does not teach the controller is further programmed to: measure the location of the user carrying the mobile device by trilaterating the wireless communications.
Nalevanko discloses the controller is further programmed to: measure the location of the user carrying the mobile device by trilaterating the wireless communications (column 10, lines 13-43; the arrow 149 may be directed based on an orientation of a mobile device through the use of internal Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs), external locating techniques (e.g., WiFi or millimeter wave trilateration, etc.)
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of the controller is further programmed to: measure the location of the user carrying the mobile device by trilaterating the wireless communications as taught by Nalevanko in order to provide event-based notification to initiate various measures based on information received from a passenger device (column 5, lines 20-34, Nalevanko).
Regarding claim 7, Motika teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further programmed to: responsive to detecting the location of the user is beyond a predefined range from the vehicle (Fig. 6 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 602, the apparatus determines that a user equipment (UE) connected to the apparatus receives a call. At 604, the apparatus determines a location of the UE), and adjust a volume of one or more of the plurality speakers using the location of the user (Fig. 6 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 606, the apparatus adjusts a volume of at least one of a plurality of speakers based on the location of the UE and locations of the plurality of speakers while the UE receives the call).
However, Motika does not teach autonomously operate the vehicle to drive toward the location of the user.
Nalevanko discloses autonomously operate the vehicle to drive toward the location of the user (column 5, lines 20-34, column 20, lines 42-63 and column 21, lines 11-24; component 336 can generate an instruction for guiding the autonomous vehicle along at least a portion of the route from the first location to the second location).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of autonomously operate the vehicle to drive toward the location of the user as taught by Nalevanko in order to provide driverless vehicle for those that are partially or fully autonomously controlled (column 17, lines 28-44, Nalevanko).
Regarding claim 11, Motika teaches a method for a vehicle, comprising: establishing, via a plurality of transceivers, wireless connections with a mobile device Fig. 2 and column 6, lines 16-34); adjusting, via the one or more controllers, volumes of a plurality of speakers exterior to the vehicle using the location of the mobile device such that the volume output by one of the speakers is inversely proportional to a distance between the location of the mobile device and a location of the one of the speakers (Fig. 6, column 4, line 45 through column 5, line 2 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 606, the apparatus adjusts a volume of at least one of a plurality of speakers based on the location of the UE and locations of the plurality of speakers while the UE receives the call. A volume of a speaker that is closest to the mobile device receiving a call may be reduced the most, whereas a volume of a speaker that is farthest from the mobile device receiving a call may be reduced the least); and outputting, via the plurality of speakers, an audio using the volumes (Fig. 6 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 602, the apparatus determines that a user equipment (UE) connected to the apparatus receives a call. At 604, the apparatus determines a location of the UE), and adjust a volume of one or more of the plurality speakers using the location of the user (Fig. 6 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 606, the apparatus adjusts a volume of at least one of a plurality of speakers based on the location of the UE and locations of the plurality of speakers while the UE receives the call).
However, Motika does not teach measuring, via one or more controllers, a location of the mobile device using the wireless connections through trilateration.
Nalevanko discloses the controller is further programmed to: measure the location of the user carrying the mobile device by trilaterating the wireless communications (column 10, lines 13-43; the arrow 149 may be directed based on an orientation of a mobile device through the use of internal Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs), external locating techniques (e.g., WiFi or millimeter wave trilateration, etc.)
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of measuring, via one or more controllers, a location of the mobile device using the wireless connections through trilateration as taught by Nalevanko in order to provide event-based notification to initiate various measures based on information received from a passenger device (column 5, lines 20-34, Nalevanko).
Regarding claim 15, Motika teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the volumes of the plurality of speakers are adjusted such that a sum of volume output via each of the speaker is equal to a total volume set by a user associated with the mobile device, and at least one of the plurality of the speakers is inactive with zero volume (Fig.2 and column 6, line 34 through column 7, line 2; reduce volumes of the second closest speakers (e.g., the first speaker 230 and the fourth speaker 236) to a first level).
Regarding claim 16, Motika teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising: responsive to detecting the location of the mobile device is beyond a predefined range from the vehicle, suspend outputting the audio (column 4, line 45 through column 5, line 2; central system may not reduce the volumes of one or more speakers that are located far from the user's mobile device as much as the volumes of the one or more speakers located near the user's mobile device).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent No. 10,182,138 B2 to Motika et al. (hereinafter “Motika”) in view of U.S Patent No. 11,950,316 B1 to Nalevanko et al. (hereinafter “Nalevanko”) in further view of U.S Pub. No. 2007/0135061 A1 to Buck et al. (hereinafter “Buck”).
Regarding claim 12, Motika does not teach the method of claim 11, wherein the wireless connections are established using ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol.
Buck discloses wherein the wireless connections are established using ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol (paragraph [0029]; transmissions between the transceiver 122 and a communication device may use one or more wireless protocols, such as,Ultra Wide Band).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of wherein the wireless connections are established using ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol as taught by Buck in order to process coded and uncoded data representing audio data or control data process by using wireless protocol such as Ultra Wide Band(paragraph [0029], Buck).
Regarding claim 13, Motika does not teach the method of claim 12, wherein at least one of the wireless connections are established using a wireless communication protocol other than UWB.
Buck discloses wherein at least one of the wireless connections are established using a wireless communication protocol other than UWB (paragraph [0029]; transmissions between the transceiver 122 and a communication device may use one or more wireless protocols, such as Ultra Wide, Bluetooth.RTM., 802.11b, 802.11j, 802.11x, Zigbee, Ultra Wide Band, Mobile FI, Wireless Local Area Network ("WLAN"), and/or Infrared Data Transmissions which may include the Infrared Data Association IrDa 1.0 standard which may provide high transfer rates, or the Infrared Data Association IrDa 1.1 standard which may provide higher transfer rates).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of wherein at least one of the wireless connections are established using a wireless communication protocol other than UWB as taught by Buck in order to process coded and uncoded data representing audio data or control data process by using wireless protocol such as Ultra Wide Band and other protocols (paragraph [0029], Buck).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent No. 10,182,138 B2 to Motika et al. (hereinafter “Motika”) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2007/0135061 A1 to Buck et al. (hereinafter “Buck”).
Regarding claim 3, Motika teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the one or more wireless transceivers are located at different locations of the vehicle (Fig. 2 and column 6, lines 16-34; the processing system 814 may be coupled to a transceiver 810. The transceiver 810 is coupled to one or more antennas 820. The transceiver 810 provides a means for communicating with various other apparatus over a transmission medium. The transceiver 810 receives a signal from the one or more antennas 820).
Motika does not teach configured to support an ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol.
Buck discloses configured to support an ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol (paragraph [0029]; transmissions between the transceiver 122 and a communication device may use one or more wireless protocols, such as,Ultra Wide Band).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of configured to support an ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol as taught by Buck in order to process coded and uncoded data representing audio data or control data process by using wireless protocol such as Ultra Wide Band(paragraph [0029], Buck).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent No. 10,182,138 B2 to Motika et al. (hereinafter “Motika”) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2016/0165031 A1 to Gopinath.
Regarding claim 8, Motika does not teach the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further programmed to: determine an identity of the user using a user profile stored in the mobile device; select a playlist using the identity of the user; and play the playlist through the audio.
Gopinath discloses controller is further programmed to: determine an identity of the user using a user profile stored in the mobile device; select a playlist using the identity of the user; and play the playlist through the audio (paragraphs [0019] and [0042]; mobile device application 344 may be operated to aggregate user data regarding interactions of the user with the mobile device. For example, mobile device application 344 may aggregate data regarding music playlists listened to by the user on the mobile device, telephone call logs (including a frequency and duration of telephone calls accepted by the user), positional information including locations frequented by the user and an amount of time spent at each location, etc).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of controller is further programmed to: determine an identity of the user using a user profile stored in the mobile device; select a playlist using the identity of the user; and play the playlist through the audio as taught by Gopinath in order to aggregate data regarding music playlists listened to by the user on the mobile device (paragraph [0042], Gopinath).
Regarding claim 9, Motika does not teach the vehicle of claim 8, further comprising: one or more cameras, configured to capture images of the user; wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the identity of the user using the images.
Gopinath discloses one or more cameras, configured to capture images of the user; wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the identity of the user using the images (paragraph [0040]; sensor subsystem 310 may additionally or alternatively include one or more cameras or other image sensors, such as a rear view camera for assisting a user in parking the vehicle and/or a cabin camera for identifying a user (e.g., using facial recognition and/or user gestures).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of one or more cameras, configured to capture images of the user; wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the identity of the user using the images as taught by Gopinath in order to aggregate data regarding music playlists listened to by the user on the mobile device (paragraph [0042], Gopinath).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent No. 10,182,138 B2 to Motika et al. (hereinafter “Motika”) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2007/0135061 A1 to Buck et al. (hereinafter “Buck”) in further view of U.S Patent No. 11,950,316 B1 to Nalevanko et al. (hereinafter “Nalevanko”) in further view of U.S Pub. No. 2018/0268836 A1 to KRASNOV.
Regarding claim 17, Motika teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising instructions that when executed by a vehicle, cause the vehicle to: establish a plurality of wireless connections with a first mobile device (Fig. 2 and column 6, lines 16-34; specific space 210 may be a car or a room, for example. The specific space 210 includes a central system 220 that is connected to a central speaker 228 and first to fifth speakers 230, 232, 234, 236, and 238, such that the central system 220 may be able to control audio outputs to such speakers connected to the central system 220. The specific space 210 may include first to fifth microphones 240, 242, 244, 246, and 248 that are connected to the central system. The first to fifth microphones 240, 242, 244, 246, and 248 may be used to help a user communicate when a user receives a call on a UE); adjust volumes of a first set of a plurality of speakers exterior to the vehicle using the first location of the first mobile device; and output a first audio of a playlist at the volumes via the first set (Fig. 6 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 606, the apparatus adjusts a volume of at least one of a plurality of speakers based on the location of the UE and locations of the plurality of speakers while the UE receives the call).
However, Motika does not teach wherein at least one of the wireless connections is under an ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol; measure a first location of the first mobile device exterior to the vehicle by trilaterating the plurality of wireless connections.
Buck discloses wherein at least one of the wireless connections is under an ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol (paragraph [0029]; transmissions between the transceiver 122 and a communication device may use one or more wireless protocols, such as,Ultra Wide Band).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika and Buck teaching with a feature of wherein at least one of the wireless connections is under an ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol as taught by Buck in order to process coded and uncoded data representing audio data or control data process by using wireless protocol such as Ultra Wide Band(paragraph [0029], Buck).
Nalevanko discloses measure a first location of the first mobile device exterior to the vehicle by trilaterating the plurality of wireless connections (column 10, lines 13-43; the arrow 149 may be directed based on an orientation of a mobile device through the use of internal Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs), external locating techniques (e.g., WiFi or millimeter wave trilateration, etc.)
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of the measure a first location of the first mobile device exterior to the vehicle by trilaterating the plurality of wireless connections as taught by Nalevanko in order to provide event-based notification to initiate various measures based on information received from a passenger device (column 5, lines 20-34, Nalevanko).
Furthermore, Motika does not explicitly teach wherein the first audio includes a while noise to increase privacy of a user of the first mobile device.
KRASNOV discloses wherein the first audio includes a while noise to increase privacy of a user of the first mobile device (paragraphs [0011]-[0012], [0040] and [0102]; speech privacy system… Various types of artificially-generated masking noises such as, for example, white, pink, brown, and other noises, also are used in this regard. A main purpose of these sound-masking techniques involves reducing annoyance of the surrounding noises, and such approaches can indeed obscure the irritation).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of wherein the first audio includes a while noise to increase privacy of a user of the first mobile device as taught by KRASNOV in order to help block irritating components and increase speech privacy and decrease disturbing to others while talking (paragraph [0003], KRASNOV).
Regarding claim 18, Motika teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, further comprising instruction when executed by a vehicle, cause the vehicle to: responsive to detecting the first location of the first mobile device is beyond a predefined range from the vehicle Fig. 6 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 602, the apparatus determines that a user equipment (UE) connected to the apparatus receives a call. At 604, the apparatus determines a location of the UE), and adjust a volume of one or more of the plurality speakers using the location of the user (Fig. 6 and column 9, lines 5-29; At 606, the apparatus adjusts a volume of at least one of a plurality of speakers based on the location of the UE and locations of the plurality of speakers while the UE receives the call).
However, Motika does not teach autonomously operate the vehicle to drive toward the first location of the first mobile device.
Nalevanko discloses autonomously operate the vehicle to drive toward the first location of the first mobile device (column 5, lines 20-34, column 20, lines 42-63 and column 21, lines 11-24; component 336 can generate an instruction for guiding the autonomous vehicle along at least a portion of the route from the first location to the second location).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Motika’s teaching with a feature of autonomously operate the vehicle to drive toward the first location of the first mobile device as taught by Nalevanko in order to provide driverless vehicle for those that are partially or fully autonomously controlled (column 17, lines 28-44, Nalevanko).
Regarding claim 19, Motika teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, further comprising instruction when executed by a vehicle, cause the vehicle to: responsive to establishing a plurality of wireless connections with a second mobile device, measure a second location of the second mobile device; and output a second audio different from the first audio via a second set of the plurality of speakers, wherein the second set includes at least one speaker that is not included in the first set (Fig.2 and column 6, line 34 through column 7, line 2; reduce volumes of the second closest speakers (e.g., the first speaker 230 and the fourth speaker 236) to a first level).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 6-8 in regarding a ground of rejection of claims 1 and 11, Motika fails to discloses, “such that the volume output by one of the speakers is inversely proportional to a distance between the user and the one of the speakers.”
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. In light of the specification, claims 1 and 11 was interpreted as follows:
Motika discloses when device is closer to speaker that the volume of the speaker is lowered. On the other hand, when the device is farther from the speaker, the volume of the speaker stays high (Fig. 6, column 4, line 45 through column 5, line 2 and column 9, lines 5-29). This dynamic, location-based volume controlling effectively teachers the limitation of the volume output by one of the speakers is inversely proportional to a distance between the user and the one of the speakers.
Based on the above clarifications, the examiner maintained the rejections of claims 1 and 11.
Regarding independent claim 17, applicant argues on page 8, in the rejections to claim 20, the Examiner relied on Motika Col. 4 lines 5-20 as allegedly satisfying the above feature. (Office Action at 17.) Applicant respectfully submits that Motika does
not disclose "a white noise to increase privacy of the user of the first mobile device" as claimed. Indeed, Motika's operation is quite the opposite - reducing the volume of the speaker which decreases the privacy. Therefore, claim 17 as currently amended is in condition for allowance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. Applicant's amendment “the first audio...” necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Dependent claims rejections are maintained at least for similar reasons and rejections above.
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 AKELAW A TESHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-5302. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6pm.
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, FAN TSANG can be reached at (571) 272-7547. 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.
AKELAW TESHALE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/AKELAW TESHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694