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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2024 and 12/13/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 13-14 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 11 are currently amended.
Claims 4, 7, 10 and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 13 and 14 are newly added claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsumi et al. (US 10970952 B2), and herein after will be referred to as Atsumi, in view of Penilla et al. (US 9229905 B1), herein after will be referred to as Penilla.
Regarding Claim 1, Atsumi teaches a mobile object setting system including a setting device configured to perform a process of setting equipment provided in a mobile object (The main control unit (ECU) is a setting device that controls the on-board devices; see at least Atsumi, Col 21 lines 4-15) and a plurality of terminal devices capable of communicating with the setting device (A smart key and a portable terminal (e.g., a phone) communicating with the vehicle ECU system; see at least Atsumi, Col 6 lines 4-31),
wherein the setting device includes a storage device configured to store a program and setting information of the equipment and a hardware processor (The user identification ECU contains nonvolatile RAM/ROM memory for storing information; see at least Atsumi, Col 11 lines 47-54),
wherein the hardware processor manages the setting information in association with a user of the mobile object by executing the program stored in the storage device (The system stores profile information with a user ID and their specific setting information; see at least Atsumi, Col 14 lines 53-58),
identifies the user of the mobile object (The boarding user identification unit identifies the user of the vehicle; see at least Atsumi, Col 19 lines 64-67),
detects a specific action to be performed when the user of the mobile object boards the mobile object (The system detects a range of specific user boarding actions; see at least Atsumi, Col 12 lines 34-46), and acquires setting information of the equipment associated with the identified user from the storage device to set the equipment based on the acquired setting information (The main control unit acquires the pre-set conditions for the identified user to control on-board devices (seat position, steering wheel position, door mirror position, navigation device settings, etc.); see at last Atsumi, Col 21 lines 4-67), and
wherein the hardware processor identifies the user of the mobile object based on user information received from a terminal device of the user (The system identifies the probability of users by terminal devices such as a smart key or a portable terminal; see at least Atsumi, Col 15 lines 28-35),
receives a selection manipulation of the user until a predetermined manipulation is performed after the specific action is detected (The user manually selects their profile (driver selection) prior to the engine ignition (IG-ON) sequence; see at least Atsumi, Col 13 lines 34-42; Col 17 lines 17-21)
Atsumi does not explicitly teach overwrites the user information of the user before a change stored in the terminal device with the user information of the user after the change when the selection manipulation of the user has been received.
However, Penilla teaches that when a user makes modifications and changes in the vehicle, those changes are saved to a central user database managed by cloud services (see at least Penilla, Col 9 lines 47-51), which can be synchronized with the user’s mobile devices (see at least Penilla, Col 12-13 lines 63-3). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because updating or syncing adjustments to the user’s phone device necessitates replacing or overwriting the outdated previous user information stored on the terminal device.
Atsumi and Penilla are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of managing vehicle user profile settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the system of Atsumi to incorporate the teachings of managing the user profiles in a central database and syncing the updated settings to the vehicle or portable device as taught by Penilla based on the motivation to improve the data consistency of user profile settings between the portable device, the vehicle, and the central database. This provides the benefit of ensuring that the terminal device contains the most recent changes to the settings.
Regarding Claim 2, Atsumi and Penilla remain as applied above in claim 1. Atsumi further teaches the predetermined manipulation is a manipulation of starting up the mobile object (Atsumi teaches “IG-ON” operation as a predetermined manipulation of starting up the vehicle; see at least Atsumi, FIG. 10, Col 12 lines 38-46).
Regarding Claim 3, Atsumi and Penilla remain as applied above in claim 2. Atsumi further teaches the hardware processor determines the user when the prescribed manipulation has been performed and sets the equipment based on setting information associated with the determined user (When the IG-ON (startup) is performed, the system makes its final determination of the users and sets the equipment based on the setting information; see at least Atsumi, Col 27-28 lines 59-47).
Regarding Claim 8, Atsumi and Penilla remain as applied above in claim 1. Atsumi further teaches the hardware processor identifies a user of the mobile object using a display device including a display configured to display a list of users registered in the setting device and an inputter configured to receive a manipulation of selecting a user among the users displayed on the display (Boarding display information includes showing a plurality of users displayed on a screen from which a driver can be selected; see at least Atsumi, Col 13 lines 34-42).
Regarding Claim 11, Atsumi teaches managing, by the setting device, the setting information of the equipment in association with a user of the mobile object (The main control unit manages the various equipment settings by presetting and storing them to a specific user; see at least Atsumi Col 21 line 4-63);
identifying, by the setting device, the user of the mobile object based on user information received from a terminal device of the user (The boarding probability calculating unit uses the portable terminal’s attribute information to the vehicle system to identify the user; see at least Atsumi Col 15 lines 28-35);
detecting, by the setting device, a specific action to be performed when the user of the mobile object boards the mobile object (The motion detecting unit detects a specific user boarding actions; see at least Atsumi, Col 12 lines 34-46);
acquiring, by the setting device, setting information of the equipment associated with the identified user to set the equipment based on the acquired setting information (The control unit performs the step of acquiring the identified user’s present information and controlling the on-board devices; see at least Atsumi, Col 21 lines 28-32); and
receiving, by the setting device, a selection manipulation of the user until a predetermined manipulation is performed after the specific action is detected (A selection screen allowing the user to select their profile prior to the engine ignition sequence; see at least Atsumi, Col 13 lines 34-42; Col 17 lines 17-21).
Atsumi does not explicitly teach overwriting, by the setting device, the user information of the user before a change stored in the terminal device with the user information of the user after the change when the selection manipulation of the user has been received.
However, Penilla teaches that when a user makes modifications and changes in the vehicle, those changes are saved to a central user database managed by cloud services (see at least Penilla, Col 9 lines 47-51), which can be synchronized with the user’s mobile devices (see at least Penilla, Col 12-13 lines 63-3). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because updating or syncing adjustments to the user’s phone device necessitates replacing or overwriting the outdated previous user information stored on the terminal device. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the system of Atsumi to incorporate the teachings of managing the user profiles in a central database and syncing the updated settings to the vehicle or portable device as taught by Penilla based on the motivation to improve the data consistency of user profile settings between the portable device, the vehicle, and the central database. This provides the benefit of ensuring that the terminal device contains the most recent changes to the settings.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsumi in view of Sullivan et al. (US 4682088), and herein after will be referred to as Sullivan.
Regarding Claim 5, Atsumi teaches a mobile object setting system including a setting device configured to perform a process of setting equipment provided in a mobile object and a plurality of terminal devices capable of communicating with the setting device (An on-board device ECU controlling equipment like seats and interacts with multiple users’ portable terminals via smart keys for performing the setting processes; see at least Atsumi, Col 18-19 lines 52-18; Col 6 lines 4-10),
wherein the setting device includes a storage device configured to store a program and setting information of the equipment and a hardware processor (Hardware processor utilizing nonvolatile storage unit to executed stored programs and retain configuration setting data for the equipment; see at least Atsumi Col 6 lines 36-47; Col 11-12 lines 65-2),
wherein the hardware processor manages the setting information in association with a user of the mobile object by executing the program stored in the storage device, identifies the user of the mobile object, (Correlates the setting information directly to the user IDs and identifies the user boarding the vehicle; see at least Atsumi Col 14 lines 53-58; Col 19 lines 64-67),
detects a specific action to be performed when the user of the mobile object boards the mobile object, and acquires setting information of the equipment associated with the identified user from the storage device to set the equipment based on the acquired setting information (Detects specific boarding motions like opening a door and utilizes the identified user’s pre-configured settings to subsequently adjust the on-board devices; Col 12 lines 34-46; Col 21 lines 11-15), and
wherein the hardware processor receives a selection manipulation of the user until a predetermined manipulation is performed after the specific action is detected (A display screen allowing the user to perform an identification operation to select their profile prior to the engine ignition sequence; see at least Atsumi, Col 13 lines 34-42; Col 17 lines 17-21), and
sets the equipment other than the seat after the predetermined manipulation is performed (After the “IG-ON” operation is performed, the system adjusts the various vehicle components; see at least Atsumi, Col 27-28 lines 59-47).
Atsumi does not explicitly teach the hardware processor sets a position of a seat of the mobile object based on setting information of the user until the predetermined manipulation is performed after the specific action is detected.
However, Sullivan teaches a system that is designed to recall and adjust the user’s memorized seat position (see at least Sullivan, Col 8 lines 11-55) while the vehicle’s ignition is off (see at least Sullivan, Col 7 lines 57-65). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the seat adjusts to the stored position based on the user information while the ignition is off and prior to the engine start-up.
Atsumi and Sullivan are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of managing vehicle user profile settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system of Atsumi to incorporate the seat positioning from the values stored in the NVM memory while the ignition switch is off as taught by Sullivan based on the motivation to improve the user convenience by adjusting the seat to their desired driving position prior to starting the vehicle. This provides the benefit of adjusting critical equipment such as mirrors and the steering wheel until after the driver is properly seated and positioned.
Regarding Claim 13, Atsumi teaches a mobile object setting method for use in a mobile object setting system including a setting device configured to perform a process of setting equipment provided in a mobile object and a plurality of terminal devices capable of communicating with the setting device , the mobile object setting method comprising (An on-board device ECU controlling equipment like seats and interacts with multiple users’ portable terminals via smart keys for performing the setting processes; see at least Atsumi, Col 18-19 lines 52-18; Col 6 lines 4-10):
managing, by the setting device, the setting information of the equipment in association with a user of the mobile object; identifying, by the setting device, the user of the mobile object (Manages the setting information directly to the user IDs and identifies the user boarding the vehicle; see at least Atsumi Col 14 lines 53-58; Col 19 lines 64-67);
detecting, by the setting device, a specific action to be performed when the user of the mobile object boards the mobile object; acquiring, by the setting device, setting information of the equipment associated with the identified user to set the equipment based on the acquired setting information (Detects specific boarding motions like opening a door and utilizes the identified user’s pre-configured settings to subsequently adjust the on-board devices; Col 12 lines 34-46; Col 21 lines 11-15);
receiving, by the setting device, a selection manipulation of the user until a predetermined manipulation is performed after the specific action is detected (A display screen allowing the user to perform an identification operation to select their profile prior to the engine ignition sequence; see at least Atsumi, Col 13 lines 34-42; Col 17 lines 17-21); and
setting, by the setting device, the equipment other than the seat after the predetermined manipulation is performed (After the “IG-ON” operation is performed, the system adjusts the various vehicle components; see at least Atsumi, Col 27-28 lines 59-47).
Atsumi does not explicitly teach setting, by the setting device, a position of a seat of the mobile object based on setting information of the user until the predetermined manipulation is performed after the specific action is detected.
However, Sullivan teaches a system that is designed to recall and adjust the user’s memorized seat position (see at least Sullivan, Col 8 lines 11-55) while the vehicle’s ignition is off (see at least Sullivan, Col 7 lines 57-65). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the seat adjusts to the stored position based on the user information while the ignition is off and prior to the engine start-up. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system of Atsumi to incorporate the seat positioning from the values stored in the NVM memory while the ignition switch is off as taught by Sullivan based on the motivation to improve the user convenience by adjusting the seat to their desired driving position prior to starting the vehicle. This provides the benefit of adjusting critical equipment such as mirrors and the steering wheel until after the driver is properly seated and positioned.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsumi in view of Boger et al. (US 20080306652 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Boger.
Regarding Claim 6, Atsumi teaches a mobile object setting system including a setting device configured to perform a process of setting equipment provided in a mobile object and a plurality of terminal devices capable of communicating with the setting device (An on-board device ECU controlling equipment like seats and interacts with multiple users’ portable terminals via smart keys for performing the setting processes; see at least Atsumi, Col 18-19 lines 52-18; Col 6 lines 4-10),
wherein the setting device includes a storage device configured to store a program and setting information of the equipment and a hardware processor (Hardware processor utilizing nonvolatile storage unit to executed stored programs and retain configuration setting data for the equipment; see at least Atsumi Col 6 lines 36-47; Col 11-12 lines 65-2),
wherein the hardware processor manages the setting information in association with a user of the mobile object by executing the program stored in the storage device, identifies the user of the mobile object, (Correlates the setting data directly to the user IDs and identifies the user boarding the vehicle; see at least Atsumi Col 14 lines 53-58; Col 19 lines 64-67),
detects a specific action to be performed when the user of the mobile object boards the mobile object, and acquires setting information of the equipment associated with the identified user from the storage device to set the equipment based on the acquired setting information (Detects specific boarding motions like opening a door and utilizes the identified user’s pre-configured settings to subsequently adjust the on-board devices; Col 12 lines 34-46; Col 21 lines 11-15), and
wherein the hardware processor receives a selection manipulation of the user until a predetermined manipulation is performed after the specific action is detected (A display screen allowing the user to perform an identification operation to select their profile prior to the engine ignition sequence; see at least Atsumi, Col 13 lines 34-42; Col 17 lines 17-21),
wherein the storage device stores setting information of a previous user of the mobile object (A mutual boarding frequency updating unit that tracks boarding history and mutual boarding information of multiple users necessitates storing the settings profiles and states of previous users; Col 20 lines 54-60), and
wherein, when the selection manipulation of the user has not been performed, the hardware processor sets a position of a seat of the mobile object based on setting information received from the terminal device, and sets the equipment other than the seat…(The system uses a boarding probability calculating unit that identifies a user based on a smart key and/or portable terminal device and adjust the seat position based on the identified users. After adjusting the seat at time t4, the system adjusts the steering and door mirror angle after ignition is started IG-ON; see at least Atsumi, Col 16 lines 48-60, Col 21 lines 28-32, Col 26 lines 20-53, Col 27-28 lines 59-34).
Atsumi does not explicitly teach when the selection manipulation of the user has not been performed, the hardware processor…sets the equipment…based on the setting information of the previous user.
However, Boger discloses a personalization system that utilizes a method of a multi-stage activation profile where the control unit defaults to the settings of the last user unless the new user actively identifies themselves. Boger teaches a two-stage method of acting the current user where the control units defaults to the last user unless the identification step is checked successfully ([0017] [0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the limitation because the system performs the function of defaulting back to the last user unless the identification step is successfully checked.
Atsumi and Boger are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of managing vehicle user profile settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Atsumi to incorporate the teachings of maintaining the profile of the last user until a successful ID check has been performed as taught by Boger based on the motivation to ensure that the vehicle equipment has a setting to fallback when the user fails or declines to confirm profile settings. This provides the benefit of a secondary fallback default action and avoids system errors or blank default states in the system.
Regarding Claim 14, Atsumi teaches a mobile object setting method for use in a mobile object setting system including a setting device configured to perform a process of setting equipment provided in a mobile object and a plurality of terminal devices capable of communicating with the setting device, the mobile object setting method comprising (An on-board device ECU controlling equipment like seats and interacts with multiple users’ portable terminals via smart keys for performing the setting processes; see at least Atsumi, Col 18-19 lines 52-18; Col 6 lines 4-10):
wherein the setting device includes a storage device configured to store a program and setting information of the equipment and a hardware processor (Hardware processor utilizing nonvolatile storage unit to executed stored programs and retain configuration setting data for the equipment; see at least Atsumi Col 6 lines 36-47; Col 11-12 lines 65-2),
managing, by the setting device, the setting information of the equipment in association with a user of the mobile object; identifying, by the setting device, the user of the mobile object (Manages the setting information directly to the user IDs and identifies the user boarding the vehicle; see at least Atsumi Col 14 lines 53-58; Col 19 lines 64-67);
detecting, by the setting device, a specific action to be performed when the user of the mobile object boards the mobile object; acquiring, by the setting device, setting information of the equipment associated with the identified user to set the equipment based on the acquired setting information (Detects specific boarding motions like opening a door and utilizes the identified user’s pre-configured settings to subsequently adjust the on-board devices; Col 12 lines 34-46; Col 21 lines 11-15);
receiving, by the setting device, a selection manipulation of the user until a predetermined manipulation is performed after the specific action is detected (A display screen allowing the user to perform an identification operation to select their profile prior to the engine ignition sequence; see at least Atsumi, Col 13 lines 34-42; Col 17 lines 17-21);
storing, by the setting device, setting information of a previous user of the mobile object (A mutual boarding frequency updating unit that tracks boarding history and mutual boarding information of multiple users necessitates storing the settings profiles and states of previous users; Col 20 lines 54-60); and setting, by the setting device, a position of a seat of the mobile object based on setting information received from the terminal device, and setting the equipment other than the seat...(The system uses a boarding probability calculating unit that identifies a user based on a smart key and/or portable terminal device and adjust the seat position based on the identified users. After adjusting the seat at time t4, the system adjusts the steering and door mirror angle after ignition is started IG-ON; see at least Atsumi, Col 16 lines 48-60, Col 21 lines 28-32, Col 26 lines 20-53, Col 27-28 lines 59-34).
Atsumi does not explicitly teach setting the equipment other than the seat based on the setting information of the previous user, when the selection manipulation of the user has not been performed.
However, Boger discloses a personalization system that utilizes a method of a multi-stage activation profile where the control unit defaults to the settings of the last user unless the new user actively identifies themselves. Boger teaches a two-stage method of acting the current user where the control unit defaults to the last user unless the identification step is checked successfully ([0017] [0019]). This teaching is equivalent to the limitation because the system performs the function of defaulting back to the last user unless the identification step is successfully checked. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Atsumi to incorporate the teachings of maintaining the profile of the last user until a successful ID check has been performed as taught by Boger based on the motivation to ensure that the vehicle equipment has a setting to fallback when the user fails or declines to confirm profile settings. This provides the benefit of a secondary fallback default action and avoids system errors or blank default states in the system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsumi and Penilla, as applied in claim 8, and in further view of Obradovich et al. (US 6131060), and herein after will be referred to as Obradovich.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 8. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the display device includes a sound output device configured to output a sound for prompting the user to perform the selection manipulation.
However, Obradovich, in the same field of endeavor teaches managing user preferences (see at least Obradovich, Col 18 lines 14-18) and controlling equipment through a user interface touchscreen display (Obradovich, Col 6 lines 55-56). The system allows a user, identified by a PIN (Obradovich, Col 9 lines 10-14), to control vehicle functions like a seat position and climate control (Obradovich, Col 7 lines 52-65) and provides audio prompts to assist with selections (Obradovich, Col 14 lines 18-27).
Atsumi, Penilla, and Obradovich are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of managing vehicle user profile settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system of Atsumi and Penilla to incorporate the touchscreen display to output an audio prompt to assist with the menu selections as taught by Obradovich based on the motivation to provide a preview of the option before the user commits to it and provides the benefit of avoiding unnecessary backtracking.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Tashiro (US 4707788)
Morehouse (US 20020069002 A1)
Maney (US 11351941 B1)
Asai (US 12221066 B2)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 9 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment of claim 9 to be dependent on claim 8, where “the display device” is first introduced.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8 through 11, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, 9, and 11 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant alleges that the combination of Atsumi and Penilla fails to teach identifying the user based on terminal information, receiving a selection manipulation until a predetermined manipulation is performed, and overwriting the user information stored in the terminal device. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Atsumi explicitly teaches predicting/identifying the target user by the boarding probability calculating unit and comparing the attribute information of the portable terminal (Col 15 lines 28-35). Furthermore, Atsumi teaches an identification operation presented on a screen before the vehicle is subjected to the ignition start-up (IG-ON) (Col 17 lines 17-21). Penilla discloses a data synchronization process where user modifications are saved to the user database and automatically syncs with the user’s portable device (Col 9 lines 47-51 and Col 12-13 lines 63-3). Syncing an updated profile to a terminal device necessarily requires replacing (overwriting) the outdate information stored on that device. Atsumi and Penilla teaches the limitations at issue. The rejection of claims 1 and 11 are maintained.
Applicant alleges that Sullivan fails to make up for the deficiencies of Atsumi and Penilla for dependent claim 5 and that the references fail to teach setting the seat until the predetermined manipulation and setting the other equipment after the predetermined manipulation is performed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that claim 5 was amended to be an independent claim and does not include the amendments of claim 1. Atsumi teaches setting other equipment such as steering position, door mirror angle, and A/C after the predetermined manipulation (IG-ON) operation on the vehicle (Col 27-28 lines 59-47). Sullivan teaches a system that recalls and adjusts the seat position before the predetermined manipulation while the ignition switch is turned off (Col 7 lines 57-65; Col 8 lines 11-55). Atsumi and Sullivan teaches the limitations at issue and the rejection of claim 5 is maintained.
Applicant alleges that claim 9 depends on independent claim 1 and that Obradovich fails to make up for the deficiencies of Atsumi and Penilla in the context of claim 1. The Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 has been address by the Examiner above and the rejection of the base claim stands. Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663