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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 have been amended. Claim 13 has been canceled and claim 21 has been added.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner distinguishes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “lane change location” as presented in claim 21. In particular, examiner notes that the claim includes “wherein the lane change ratio of the driving route is determined based on a first quantity of lanes before the lane change location and a second quantity of lanes after the lane change location”. As a result, the “lane change location” is not interpreted as a location where a vehicle changes lanes as is traditionally understood in the art, but rather a location where the number of lanes changes, of which the lane change ratio is determined corresponding to this location thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 includes that the vehicle is programmed to “obtain, based on a determination that a driving route of the vehicle comprises a lane change location, road information about a road on the driving route”. This lacks proper support in applicant’s disclosure as a “determination that a driving route of the vehicle comprises a lane change location” is not supported, and while obtaining “road information about a road on the driving route” is supported, it is not supported that this obtaining is “based on a determination that a driving route of the vehicle comprises a lane change location”. Furthermore, applicant’s specification states that the number of lanes is included in the road information ([0056] and [0068]). Therefore, as the lane change location has been interpreted as the location where the number of lanes changes according to the interpretation above, it is unclear how road information can be obtained based on a determination that a driving route comprises a lane change location if the lane change location is necessarily comprised in the road information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 1-4, 6, 11-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh (US 20220176831 A1) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20170066443 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huh teaches a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a controller ([0031]);
and memory storing instructions ([0035]) that, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
obtain, based on a determination that a driving route of a vehicle comprises a tollgate, road information about a road on the driving route ([0031]);
determine, based on the road information, a target speed for driving control of the vehicle ([0041]);
and control the vehicle to travel at a target speed ([0041], deaccelerated to a target speed).
Huh teaches controlling the vehicle to travel at a target speed, but does not teach controlling the vehicle to travel at a target rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate. It additionally does not teach that the target speed is determined based on an acceleration weight that is inversely proportional to a lane change ratio of the driving route, wherein the lane change ratio of the driving route is determined based on a first quantity of lanes before a lane change location and a second quantity of lanes after the lane change location.
In the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches:
controlling a vehicle at a target rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate ([0048-0049] and [0067], the control of the vehicle acceleration is based on a current or target speed),
controlling a vehicle speed based on an acceleration weight that is inversely proportional to a lane change ratio of the driving route ([0048] and [0065], the vehicle speed is controlled according to max/min accelerations and acceleration change rate; [0049], [0063], and [0066], the min/max accelerations and acceleration change rate are determined “immediately when the switch condition is satisfied (when a change from the single-lane road to the multiple-lane road or vice versa is detected) “ based on the changing number of lanes so that the max/min accelerations and the change rate of acceleration may be increased/decreased when the number of lanes becomes smaller/larger),
wherein the lane change ratio of the driving route is determined based on a first quantity of lanes before a lane change location and a second quantity of lanes after the lane change location ([0049], the moment of the change is captured, such as “when a change from the single-lane road [first quantity of lanes before a lane change location] to the multiple-lane road [second quantity of lanes after the lane change location] or vice versa is detected”; [0040], [0063], and [0066], the quantity of lanes is determined such that the min/max accelerations and change rate of accelerations can be determined based on whether the number of lanes is increasing or decreasing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Huh so that the controlled target speed of the vehicle is additionally determined based off the acceleration weights of Kobayashi based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Kobayashi, of adapting the acceleration values to enhance the feelings of drivers according to regional differences ([0064]), and to enable the vehicle to accelerate and/or deaccelerate at a pace corresponding to the road it is currently traveling on ([0066]).
Regarding claim 2, Huh teaches the apparatus further comprising:
a communication device ([0031] and [0033]), wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
receive, from a navigation device via the communication device, an indication of a location of the tollgate ([0031, receives tollgate information);
and determine, based on the location of the tollgate, that the driving route comprises the tollgate ([0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Huh teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to obtain the road information by receiving the road information from the navigation device via the communication device ([0031] and [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Huh teaches wherein the road information comprises information about at least one of: a curved section in the driving route, or a number of lanes in the driving route ([0017] and [0052], information is used to determine if a tollgate is on the highway by analyzing if it has two or more roads).
Regarding claim 6, Huh teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the target speed by: determining the target speed further based on a posted speed limit ([0031] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Huh teaches a vehicle control method comprising:
obtaining, by a controller and based on a determination that a driving route of a vehicle comprises a tollgate, road information about a road on the driving route ([0031]);
determining, by the controller and based on the road information, a target speed for driving control of the vehicle ([0041]);
and controlling, by the controller, the vehicle to travel at a target speed ([0041], deaccelerated to a target speed).
Huh teaches controlling the vehicle to travel at a target speed, but does not teach controlling the vehicle to travel at a target rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate. It additionally does not teach that the target speed is determined based on an acceleration weight that is inversely proportional to a lane change ratio of the driving route, wherein the lane change ratio of the driving route is determined based on a first quantity of lanes before a lane change location and a second quantity of lanes after the lane change location.
In the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches
controlling a vehicle at a target rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate ([0048-0049] and [0067], the control of the vehicle acceleration is based on a current or target speed),
controlling a vehicle speed based on an acceleration weight that is inversely proportional to a lane change ratio of the driving route ([0048] and [0065], the vehicle speed is controlled according to max/min accelerations and acceleration change rate; [0049], [0063], and [0066], the min/max accelerations and acceleration change rate are determined “immediately when the switch condition is satisfied (when a change from the single-lane road to the multiple-lane road or vice versa is detected) “ based on the changing number of lanes so that the max/min accelerations and the change rate of acceleration may be increased/decreased when the number of lanes becomes smaller/larger),
wherein the lane change ratio of the driving route is determined based on a first quantity of lanes before a lane change location and a second quantity of lanes after the lane change location ([0049], the moment of the change is captured, such as “when a change from the single-lane road [first quantity of lanes before a lane change location] to the multiple-lane road [second quantity of lanes after the lane change location] or vice versa is detected”; [0040], [0063], and [0066], the quantity of lanes is determined such that the min/max accelerations and change rate of accelerations can be determined based on whether the number of lanes is increasing or decreasing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination so that the controlled target speed of the vehicle is additionally determined based off the acceleration weights of Kobayashi based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Kobayashi, of adapting the acceleration values to enhance the feelings of drivers according to regional differences ([0064]), and to enable the vehicle to accelerate and/or deaccelerate at a pace corresponding to the road it is currently traveling on ([0066]).
Regarding claim 12, Huh teaches the method further comprising:
receiving, by the controller and from a navigation device via a communication device, an indication of a location of the tollgate ([0031, receives tollgate information);
and determining, by the controller and based on the location of the tollgate, that the driving route comprises the tollgate ([0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Huh teaches wherein the road information comprises information about at least one of: a curved section in the driving route, or a number of lanes in the driving route ([0017] and [0052], information is used to determine if a tollgate is on the highway by analyzing if it has two or more roads).
Regarding claim 16, Huh teaches wherein determining the target speed comprises: determining, by the controller, the target speed further based on a posted speed limit ([0031] and [0045]).
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh in view of Kobayashi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Foster et al. (US 20230020966 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the prior combination does not teach the limitations of claim 7.
In the same field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the target speed by: based on the road information indicating that there is a curved section after the tollgate and within a threshold distance away from the tollgate ([0111] and [0115], endpoint determined based on lanes merging after the tollgate and angles within a predetermined departure zone along a length of the roadway after the toll both facility), setting the target speed to a posted speed limit ([0137]).
As Foster is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle along different road sections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the process of Foster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the vehicle to safely return to a maximum speed once it has exited the toll booth to subsequently enable safe operation as the vehicle returns to the highway.
Regarding claim 8, the prior combination does not teach the limitations of claim 8.
In the same field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the target speed by: based on the road information indicating that there is a curved section before the tollgate and within a threshold distance away from the tollgate ([0062, [0115], [0119]), setting the target speed to be a smaller value of: an exit speed of the curved section, and a posted speed limit ([0123], “the autonomous vehicle may select the smaller of these two values as the final actual speed”).
As Foster is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle along different road sections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the process of Foster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to enable the vehicle to safely slow its speed in order to safely proceed through the tollgate.
Regarding claim 17, the prior combination does not teach the limitations of claim 17.
In the same field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the determining of the target speed comprises: based on the road information indicating that there is a curved section after the tollgate and within a threshold distance away from the tollgate ([0111] and [0115], endpoint determined based on lanes merging after the tollgate and angles within a predetermined departure zone along a length of the roadway after the toll both facility), setting, by the controller, the target speed to a posted speed limit ([0137]).
As Foster is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle along different road sections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the process of Foster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the vehicle to safely return to a maximum speed once it has exited the toll booth to subsequently enable safe operation as the vehicle returns to the highway.
Regarding claim 18, the prior combination does not teach the limitations of claim 18.
In the same field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the determining of the target speed comprises: based on the road information indicating that there is a curved section before the tollgate and within a threshold distance away from the tollgate ([0062, [0115], [0119]), setting the target speed to be a smaller value of: an exit speed of the curved section, and a posted speed limit ([0123], “the autonomous vehicle may select the smaller of these two values as the final actual speed”).
As Foster is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle along different road sections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the process of Foster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to enable the vehicle to safely slow its speed in order to safely proceed through the tollgate.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh in view of Kobayashi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Sugawara (JP 2000168393 A).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi teaches wherein the target rate of acceleration is a first target rate of acceleration, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to control the vehicle to travel at the first target rate of acceleration ([0048-0049] and [0067]).
The prior combination does not explicitly teach that this first target rate of acceleration is further based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugawara teaches that a first target speed is applied to a vehicle based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance ([0018] and [0020]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to apply this teaching to the prior combination by setting a vehicle’s target speed to a first target speed when it is within a first threshold distance. This would be mean that setting the target speed of the prior combination to a first target speed would correspondingly set the target acceleration of the prior combination to a first target acceleration as the target acceleration value of Kobayashi is coincided with the target speed.
Sugawara is analogous to the art of speed control systems for vehicle operation through tolling stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the setting of a vehicle target speed to a first target speed when within a first distance threshold based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Sugawara, of ensuring that the vehicle is traveling, at most, at a passing speed so that its signal is effectively processed and any required tolls are paid before the vehicle exits the tollgate ([0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi teaches that a target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, the current driving speed of the vehicle, or a control gain ([0048-0049] and [0067]).
Sugawara teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to: based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a second threshold distance that is less than the first threshold distance, control the vehicle to travel at a second target rate of acceleration ([0022], sets the vehicle to travel at a second target speed, in which the target rate of acceleration is set correspondingly; see Figure 5 of Sugawara included below, where it is illustrated that the second distance threshold, which is applied at gate 19, is closer to the main toll gate 12 than the first distance is, which is applied at gate 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Sugawara
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi teaches wherein the target rate of acceleration is a first target rate of acceleration, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to control the vehicle to travel at the first target rate of acceleration ([0048-0049] and [0067]).
The prior combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controlling of the vehicle to travel at the first target rate of acceleration is further based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugawara teaches that a first target speed is applied to a vehicle based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance ([0018] and [0020]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to apply this teaching to the prior combination by setting a vehicle’s target speed to a first target speed when it is within a first threshold distance. This would be mean that setting the target speed of the prior combination to a first target speed would correspondingly set the target acceleration of the prior combination to a first target acceleration as the target acceleration value of Kobayashi is coincided with the target speed.
Sugawara is analogous to the art of speed control systems for vehicle operation through tolling stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the setting of a vehicle target speed to a first target speed when within a first distance threshold based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Sugawara, of ensuring that the vehicle is traveling, at most, at a passing speed so that its signal is effectively processed and any required tolls are paid before the vehicle exits the tollgate ([0004]).
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi teaches that a target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, the current driving speed of the vehicle, or a control gain ([0048-0049] and [0067]).
Sugawara teaches based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a second threshold distance that is less than the first threshold distance, controlling, by the controller, the vehicle to travel at a second target rate of acceleration ([0022], sets the vehicle to travel at a second target speed, in which the target rate of acceleration is subsequently based on; see Figure 5 of Sugawara included below, where it is illustrated that the second distance threshold, which is applied at gate 19, is closer to the main toll gate 12 than the first distance is, which is applied at gate 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Sugawara
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 20170066443 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kobayashi teaches a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a processor ([0024]); and
memory storing instructions ([0024], ROM and RAM) that, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to perform operations of:
obtaining, based on a determination that a driving route of the vehicle comprises a lane change location ([0049], change in the number of lanes is detected and triggers the operations that update the distance Dtr and max/min acceleration), road information about a road on the driving route ([0039-0040], included in those operations is a determination of road information, including the number of lanes);
determining, based on the road information and based on an acceleration weight that is inversely proportional to a lane change ratio of the driving route, a target speed for driving control of the vehicle ([0048] and [0065], the vehicle speed is controlled according to max/min accelerations and acceleration change rate in which these acceleration values are based off the number of lanes from the road information; [0049], [0063], and [0066], the min/max accelerations and acceleration change rate are determined “immediately when the switch condition is satisfied (when a change from the single-lane road to the multiple-lane road or vice versa is detected) “ based on the changing number of lanes so that the max/min accelerations and the change rate of acceleration may be increased/decreased when the number of lanes becomes smaller/larger),
wherein the lane change ratio of the driving route is determined based on a ratio of a first quantity of lanes before the lane change location and a second quantity of lanes after the lane change location ([0049], the moment of the change is captured, such as “when a change from the single-lane road [first quantity of lanes before a lane change location] to the multiple-lane road [second quantity of lanes after the lane change location] or vice versa is detected”; [0040], [0063], and [0066], the quantity of lanes is determined such that the min/max accelerations and change rate of accelerations can be determined based on whether the number of lanes is increasing or decreasing);
and wherein the acceleration weight is determined based on a mapping table that maps the number of lanes to the acceleration weight ([0033], the min/max acceleration values are stored as setting values “corresponding to the vehicle speed V for each number of lanes N” and may “also be stored as a table”; [0067-0068], the change rate of acceleration is also stored as a fixed setting value “corresponding to the vehicle speed V for each number of lanes N” which, absent showing to the contrary, is via a table just as the min/max accelerations are stored in a table); and
controlling a vehicle at a target rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate ([0048-0049] and [0067], the control of the vehicle acceleration is based on a current or target speed).
Although taught in multiple embodiments, Kobayashi states that “The embodiments described above can also be combined” ([0069]), and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the embodiments for the motivation of realizing the advantages of both embodiments, including to better accounting for feelings of drivers and regional differences when controlling the vehicle ([0064]), and to allow for an enhanced control of the vehicle when rapid changes to the vehicle speed are required, such as a sudden stoppage on a high-speed highway.
The mapping table stored by Kobayashi is for the acceleration values corresponding to the vehicle speed for each number of lanes and is not explicitly for a lane change ratio. However, when consulted immediately subsequent to a lane change, the table stored by Kobayashi is considered functionally equivalent to the mapping table as claimed. The functionality of both inventions when encountering an exemplary change in the number of lanes is considered below.
The claimed invention operates with a first acceleration weight from before a lane change. Then, upon experiencing a change in the number of lanes, the claimed invention detects the number of lanes before and after the lane change. Finally, the claimed invention consults the table to determine a second acceleration weight after the lane change based on the ratio of the number of lanes before and after the change.
The invention according to Kobayashi operates with min/max accelerations and an acceleration change rate according to first setting values corresponding to the number of lanes before a lane change. Then, the invention of Kobayashi detects and “immediately” changes the acceleration values when a switch in the number of lanes is detected ([0049]). Finally, based on the new number of lanes, the invention of Kobayashi consults the table and sets the value of the min/max accelerations and the acceleration change rate based on second setting values corresponding to the number of lanes after a lane change.
Thus, determining an acceleration weight based off a table that maps the acceleration weight to the lane change ratio is considered functionally equivalent to determining an acceleration weight (i.e. min/max accelerations and an acceleration change rate) based off a table that maps the acceleration weight to a number of lanes, which is consulted before and after a number of lanes changes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objections previously presented were persuasive. Thus, the objections were removed.
Regarding the amendments to the independent claims, applicant argues that Kobayashi fails to teach the claimed lane change ratio as it performs “a binary or stepped determination based solely on the current lane count, not a ratio comparing lanes before and after a transition point.” This argument is unpersuasive. As stated in the rejection above, Kobayashi explicitly determines when the number of lanes changes ([0049]), and changes the acceleration weights, e.g. the max/min accelerations and the acceleration change rate, by reducing/increasing their values based on the changing number of lanes ([0063] and [0066]). By definition, an increase or decrease involves changing a value from a first state to a second state. If, arguendo, it were to be considered that the change in acceleration weights was based solely on the current lane count, as applicant argues, with no regard for the previous lane count before the number of lanes changed, the acceleration weights would not be “increased” or “decreased” as they are explicitly taught to be ([0063] and [0066]), and no such gradual change of these values as additionally disclosed would be possible either ([0049]).
Conclusion
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 JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights