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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 11/21/2025. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 21-28 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 have been amended. Claims 6-7, 11, 13-14, 18-20. Claims 21-28 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Step 1: The claims 1-5, 21-26 are a method, claims 8-10, 12, 15-16, 27-28 are a system, and claims 17 are a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 8 and 17, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
Claim 1: A method comprising:
implementing, by a vehicle system, a human machine interface operable to control one or more subsystems of a parked vehicle without receiving direct user inputs by:
collectingfrom one or more sensors of the vehicle system, input data associated with a proximal space within an environment outside and at least partially surrounding the parked vehicle;
collectingof the vehicle system or an information service remotely accessed by the vehicle system;
integrating, using a machine learning model, the input data with the contextual data to contextualize an event involving the parked vehicle and a person within the proximal space by predicting an intent of the person from a plurality of possible intents associated with the event;
and automatically actuating the one or more subsystems of the parked vehicle and causing an interaction between the person and the parked vehicle to satisfy the intent.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for receiving information that allows for the determination of intent associated with an event and based on that determination determining an interaction to provide to the user. As set forth in the specification in [0105] and [0106], the interactions can be related to services to provide to the user or performing transactions. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under marketing and sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A method comprising: (claim 1)
A system comprising: a processor configured to implement a human machine interface between a parked vehicle and people within an environment outside and at least partially surrounding the parked vehicle to control one or more subsystems of the parked vehicle without receiving direct commands by performing operations that include: (claim 8)
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: (claim 17)
implementing, by a vehicle system, a human machine interface operable to control one or more subsystems of a parked vehicle without receiving direct user inputs by:
collectingfrom one or more sensors of the vehicle system, input data associated with a proximal space within an environment outside and at least partially surrounding the parked vehicle;
collecting, contextual data from at least one of a time and date function of the vehicle system or an information service remotely accessed by the vehicle system;
integrating, using a machine learning model, the input data with the contextual data to contextualize an event involving the parked vehicle and a person within the proximal space by predicting an intent of the person from a plurality of possible intents associated with the event;
and automatically actuating the one or more subsystems of the parked vehicle and causing an interaction between the person and the parked vehicle to satisfy the intent.
The additional elements emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 8, and 17 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 8 and 17 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 8, and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9-10, 12, 15-16, and 21-28 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 8 and 17 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein the input data indicates at least one of an action or a behavior, of the person within the proximal space. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the contextual data includes at least one of: a geographical position of the person , a time- related factor, an environmental condition, or a geographic position of the parked vehicle The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein the intent is associated with the user person procuring a good or a service from the parked vehicle. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites further comprising authenticating, by the vehicle system, the person as an authorized user for the interaction based on whether facial recognition or voice pattern analysis of the input data matches a face or voice of the person to a user profile obtained from the contextual data. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites the operations further including: performing facial recognition or voice pattern analysis of the person based on the input data; determining whether the facial recognition or voice pattern analysis matches one of a plurality of user profiles created in response to previous interactions between people and the parked vehicle; when the facial recognition or voice pattern analysis does not match one of the plurality of user profiles, creating create a user profile for the person based on the interaction; when the facial recognition or voice pattern analysis corresponds to a matching profile of the plurality of user profiles, updating update the user the matching profile based on the aggregated data interaction. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites further comprising a security and authentication module executable by the processor to: encrypting and storing a user profile for the person continuously monitoring for an authentication cue from the person based on the input data; responsive to the authentication cue, authenticating the person based on the user profile via one or more secure authentication methods prior to the automatically controlling; The limitation further limits the abstract idea reciting encrypt and store user data associated with the user; continuously monitor for an authentication cue when the user interacts with the vehicle; responsive to the authentication cue, authenticate the user via one or more secure authentication methods; continuously monitor for an unusual or unauthorized access attempt; and responsive to detecting the unusual or unauthorized access attempt, initiate a security response which is merely the processing of data to determining if an interaction meets a rule (i.e. authenticated). The additional element of the security and authentication module executable by the processor is recited at a high level of generality and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites sensors comprise at least one of: one or more cameras configured to capture visual cues within the proximal space; one or more microphones configured to receive input sounds from the proximal space; and one or more lidar, radar, or ultrasonic sensors configured to track movements within the proximal space. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As discussed above, the sensors are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites wherein the machine learning model categorizes and prioritizes the plurality possible of intents when predicting the intent. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 16 recites the operations further including: determining the interaction to satisfy the intent based on a response strategy. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites wherein the intent of the person is to procure an object from a storage pod of the parked vehicle, and automatically actuating includes automatically opening an access panel or door into the storage pod to reveal the object for procurement from the proximal space within the environment. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements of the storage pod and the actuating of an opening access panel are recited at a high level of generality.
Clam 22 recites the storage pod is a first storage pod from a plurality of storage pods of the parked vehicle, each storage pod from the plurality of storage pods is accessible from the environment via a respective access panel or door, the access panel or door is a first access panel or door into the first storage pod; and the automatically actuating includes automatically controlling the one or more subsystems to open the first access panel or door and reveal the object while maintaining closed the respective access panel or door of each other storage pod from the plurality of storage pods. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements of the storage pod and the actuating of an opening access panel are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 23 recites wherein the storage pod is a refrigerated storage pod and the object is a grocery item, a medical item, a plant, or a beverage. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements of the storage pod is recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 24 recites wherein the storage pod is configured as a tool chest, and the object is at least one of a hand tool, a power tool, or a building material. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements of the storage pod is recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 25 recites wherein the implementing includes implementing the human machine interface to control the one or more subsystems and cause the interaction without communicating with external devices. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements of the interface and subsystem interaction are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 26 recites wherein the parked vehicle is fully autonomous ground vehicle, and the external devices comprise a mobile device or a key fob in possession of the person. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements of the ground vehicle and external device are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 27 recites wherein the intent of the person is to procure a package from a storage pod of the parked vehicle, and the automatically controlling includes automatically opening an access panel or door into the storage pod to reveal the package in response to the authenticating the person based on the user profile. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements of the storage pod and the actuating of an opening access panel are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 28 recites wherein the authenticating includes authenticating the person based on the user profile via the one or more secure authentication methods prior to the automatically controlling and without communicating with external devices, the external devices including a mobile device or a key fob in possession of the person. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements of the external devices are recited at a high level of generality.
For these reasons claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel Rayan (US20190143936) in view of Banvait (US20170074000).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Abel Rayan discloses:
A method (claim 1)
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: (claim 17) (214 microprocessor)
implementing, by a vehicle system, a human machine interface operable to control one or more subsystems of a parked vehicle without receiving direct user inputs by: [0044] The vehicle management module 216 uses the rules/user preferences 215, in step 408, to identify actions to be performed or features or settings to be implemented in the vehicle 100 based on the sensor information received in step 406. a determined walking pattern of the person may cause the vehicle to deactivate manual driving mode in favor of an autonomous driving mode, the determined specific items and/or sizes of items being carried by the person may cause the vehicle enable access to a cargo area of the vehicle 100, a determined weather condition around the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to preset HVAC settings or enable access to the vehicle interior, a determined time of day when the mobile device 201 is in proximity to the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to activate vehicle lighting to provide illumination for the person,
The examiner interprets the system of Abel not requiring input at the time of the requested operation to be "without receiving direct user inputs" also noting the interface is merely required to be operable or capable of the recited function and the claim language is not positively recited.
collecting, from one or more sensors of the vehicle system, (Vehicle sensors 212), input data associated with a proximal space within an environment outside and at least partially surrounding the parked vehicle; (figure 4 ref. 406, [0043], "The vehicle sensors 212 sends collected sensor information to the vehicle management module 216 in step 406. [...] For example, the vehicle management module 216 may digitally process the sensor information to determine a gesture made by a person approaching the vehicle 100 [...] a verbal command made by the person in proximity to the vehicle 100 [...]", and see for example "determine an outside temperature or weather detection" [0024]); The examiner notes that examples such as the determined specific items and/or sizes of items being carried by the person may cause the vehicle enable access to a cargo area of the vehicle 100 would not occur with the car in motion, but rather in a parked car situation
collecting, contextual data from at least one of a time and date function of the vehicle system (figure 4 ref. 406, [0043],"The vehicle sensors 212 sends collected sensor information to the vehicle management module 216 in step 406. [...] For example, the vehicle management module 216 may digitally process the sensor information to determine [...] a weather condition around the vehicle 100 [...] determine a time of day when the mobile device 201 is in proximity to the vehicle 100 [...] a temperature when the mobile device is in proximity to the vehicle 100 [...] a spatial location of the vehicle [...]"): or an information service remotely accessed by the vehicle system;
integrating, [….], the input data with the contextual data to contextualize an event (figure 4 ref. 406, [0043], "The vehicle management module 216 may process the sensor information to determine various actions to be performed in the vehicle 100.", figure 4 ref. 408, [0044], "The vehicle management module 216 uses the rules/user preferences 215, in step 408, to identify actions to be performed or features or settings to be implemented in the vehicle 100 based on the sensor information received in step 406."); involving the parked vehicle and a person within the proximal space by predicting an intent of the person from a plurality of possible intents associated with the event; and (figure 4 ref. 408, [0044], "For example, a specific gesture may cause a specific action to be implemented in the vehicle 100 [...] a determined verbal command made by the person in proximity to the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to execute the command [...] determining a type of clothing worn by the person may cause the vehicle to preset HVAC settings within the vehicle before the person sends a command to the vehicle [...] the determined specific items and/or sizes of items being carried by the person may cause the vehicle enable access to a cargo area of the vehicle 100, a determined weather condition around the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to preset HVAC settings or enable access to the vehicle interior, a determined time of day when the mobile device 201 is in proximity to the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to activate vehicle lighting to provide illumination for the person, a determined temperature when the mobile device is in proximity to the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to preset HVAC settings or enable access to the vehicle interior [...]"): The examiner notes that examples such as the determined specific items and/or sizes of items being carried by the person may cause the vehicle enable access to a cargo area of the vehicle 100 would not occur with the car in motion, but rather in a parked car situation
automatically actuating the one or more subsystems of the parked vehicle and causing an interaction between the person and the parked vehicle to satisfy the intent. (figure 4 ref. 410, [0045], "Based on the determined action(s), the vehicle management module 216 send one or more commands to implement the action(s) to the vehicles subsystem(s) 211 in step 410. The vehicle subsystem(s) 211 then implement the command(s).").
While Abel discloses determining intent of a user from learning rules/preferences, the reference does not expressly disclose:
using a machine learning model
However Banvait teaches:
using a machine learning model [0028] The method accesses previous door unlocking behavior at 318 associated with the vehicle access device. For example, data may be accessed from memory 206 in vehicle lock manager 104, from database 114 or from any other storage device. Method 300 determines, at 320, a likely intent of the user carrying the vehicle access device by considering a variety of data. The likely intent includes, for example, unlocking a trunk to put packages into the trunk, unlocking the driver's door for vehicle access, or unlocking both the driver's door and the rear driver's-side door to put a briefcase in the back seat and enter the driver's door. When determining the likely intent of the user, the method may consider any one or more of the following: previous door unlocking behavior by the user, current geographic location of the vehicle, time of day, day of the week, environmental conditions, and the direction from which the vehicle access device is approaching the vehicle. In particular embodiments, one or more machine learning or neural network algorithms are used to determine the probabilistic intent of the user and predict the vehicle door(s) to unlock.
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 learning of rule preferences in Abel Rayan to include using a machine learning model, as taught in Banvait, in order to prevent unauthorized access (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 2, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above and Abel Rayan further discloses:
wherein the input data indicates at least one of an action or a behavior, of the person within the proximal space. ([0043], gesture, verbal command-"For example, the vehicle management module 216 may digitally process the sensor information to determine a gesture made by a person approaching the vehicle 100, determine an identity of the person approaching the vehicle 100, determine a verbal command made by the person in proximity to the vehicle 100, compare a voiceprint of a person approaching the vehicle 100 to a stored voiceprint of the person")
Regarding claim 3, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above and Abel Rayan further discloses:
wherein the contextual data includes at least one of: a geographical position of the person , a time- related factor, an environmental condition, or a geographic position of the parked vehicle ([0043], weather condition, temperature, location, time of day)
Regarding claim 5, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above and Abel Rayan further discloses:
further comprising authenticating, by the vehicle system, the person as an authorized user for the interaction based on whether facial recognition or voice pattern analysis of the input data matches a face or voice of the person to a user profile obtained from the contextual data. (figure 4 refs. 400, 402, [0042], figure 4 refs. 406, 408, [0043-0044] "For example, the vehicle management module 216 may digitally process the sensor information to determine a gesture made by a person approaching the vehicle 100, determine an identity of the person approaching the vehicle 100, determine a verbal command made by the person in proximity to the vehicle 100, compare a voiceprint of a person approaching the vehicle 100 to a stored voiceprint of the person"),
Regarding claim 8, Abel Rayan discloses:
A system comprising:
a processor configured to implement a human machine interface between a parked vehicle and people within an environment outside and at least partially surrounding the parked vehicle to control one or more subsystems of the parked vehicle without receiving direct commands by performing operations that include: [0044] The vehicle management module 216 uses the rules/user preferences 215, in step 408, to identify actions to be performed or features or settings to be implemented in the vehicle 100 based on the sensor information received in step 406. a determined walking pattern of the person may cause the vehicle to deactivate manual driving mode in favor of an autonomous driving mode, the determined specific items and/or sizes of items being carried by the person may cause the vehicle enable access to a cargo area of the vehicle 100, a determined weather condition around the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to preset HVAC settings or enable access to the vehicle interior, a determined time of day when the mobile device 201 is in proximity to the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to activate vehicle lighting to provide illumination for the person,
The examiner interprets the system of Abel not requiring input at the time of the requested operation to be "without receiving direct user inputs" also noting the interface is merely required to be operable or capable of the recited function and the claim language is not positively recited.
collecting, from one or more sensors of the parked vehicle,(Vehicle sensors 212), input data associated with a proximal space within the environment; (figure 4 ref. 406, [0043], "The vehicle sensors 212 sends collected sensor information to the vehicle management module 216 in step 406. [...] For example, the vehicle management module 216 may digitally process the sensor information to determine a gesture made by a person approaching the vehicle 100 [...] a verbal command made by the person in proximity to the vehicle 100 [...]");
collecting contextual data by accessing a local or remote executed information service;(figure 4 ref. 406, [0043],"The vehicle sensors 212 sends collected sensor information to the vehicle management module 216 in step 406. [...] For example, the vehicle management module 216 may digitally process the sensor information to determine [...] a weather condition around the vehicle 100 [...] determine a time of day when the mobile device 201 is in proximity to the vehicle 100 [...] a temperature when the mobile device is in proximity to the vehicle 100 [...] a spatial location of the vehicle [...]"):
integrating, […], the input data with the contextual data to contextualize an event involving the parked vehicle and a person within the proximal space by predicting an intent of the person from a plurality of possible intents associated with the event; and(figure 4 ref. 406, [0043], "The vehicle management module 216 may process the sensor information to determine various actions to be performed in the vehicle 100.", figure 4 ref. 408, [0044], "The vehicle management module 216 uses the rules/user preferences 215, in step 408, to identify actions to be performed or features or settings to be implemented in the vehicle 100 based on the sensor information received in step 406."); (figure 4 ref. 408, [0044], "For example, a specific gesture may cause a specific action to be implemented in the vehicle 100 [...] a determined verbal command made by the person in proximity to the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to execute the command [...] determining a type of clothing worn by the person may cause the vehicle to preset HVAC settings within the vehicle before the person sends a command to the vehicle [...] the determined specific items and/or sizes of items being carried by the person may cause the vehicle enable access to a cargo area of the vehicle 100, a determined weather condition around the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to preset HVAC settings or enable access to the vehicle interior, a determined time of day when the mobile device 201 is in proximity to the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to activate vehicle lighting to provide illumination for the person, a determined temperature when the mobile device is in proximity to the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to preset HVAC settings or enable access to the vehicle interior [...]"; The examiner notes that examples such as the determined specific items and/or sizes of items being carried by the person may cause the vehicle enable access to a cargo area of the vehicle 100 would not occur with the car in motion, but rather in a parked car situation
automatically controlling the one or more subsystems by initiating an interaction between the person and the parked vehicle to satisfy the intent (figure 4 ref. 410, [0045], "Based on the determined action(s), the vehicle management module 216 send one or more commands to implement the action(s) to the vehicles subsystem(s) 211 in step 410. The vehicle subsystem(s) 211 then implement the command(s).").
While Abel Rayan discloses determining intent of a user from learning rules/preferences, the reference does not expressly disclose:
using a machine learning model
However Banvait teaches:
using a machine learning model [0028] The method accesses previous door unlocking behavior at 318 associated with the vehicle access device. For example, data may be accessed from memory 206 in vehicle lock manager 104, from database 114 or from any other storage device. Method 300 determines, at 320, a likely intent of the user carrying the vehicle access device by considering a variety of data. The likely intent includes, for example, unlocking a trunk to put packages into the trunk, unlocking the driver's door for vehicle access, or unlocking both the driver's door and the rear driver's-side door to put a briefcase in the back seat and enter the driver's door. When determining the likely intent of the user, the method may consider any one or more of the following: previous door unlocking behavior by the user, current geographic location of the vehicle, time of day, day of the week, environmental conditions, and the direction from which the vehicle access device is approaching the vehicle. In particular embodiments, one or more machine learning or neural network algorithms are used to determine the probabilistic intent of the user and predict the vehicle door(s) to unlock.
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 learning of rule preferences in Abel Rayan to include using a machine learning model, as taught in Banvait, in order to prevent unauthorized access (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 12, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above and Abel Rayan further discloses:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of: one or more cameras configured to capture visual cues within the proximal space; one or more microphones configured to receive input sounds from the proximal space; and one or more lidar, radar, or ultrasonic sensors configured to track movements within the proximal space. [0013]Examples of the various sensors and systems may include, but are in no way limited to, one or more of cameras (e.g., independent, stereo, combined image, etc.), infrared (IR) sensors, radio frequency (RF) sensors, ultrasonic sensors (e.g., transducers, transceivers, etc.), RADAR sensors (e.g., object-detection sensors and/or systems), LIDAR (Light Imaging, Detection, And Ranging) systems, microphones,
Regarding claim 15, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above and Abel Rayan further discloses:
wherein the […] categorizes and prioritizes the plurality of possible intents. ([0048] The rules/user preferences 215 define that Joe is authorized to drive the vehicle 100 and that Sally is a known (learned) passenger of Joe's is not authorized to drive the vehicle 100. The rules/user preferences 215 define to unlock the driver's door when Joe is within twenty feet of the vehicle 100. The rules/preferences 215 also defines that if a second passenger is present, to unlock the passenger's door. In addition, the rules/preferences 215 also define a rule to enable window/seat heating when the temperature is below 40 degrees. The rules/preferences 215 also define a rule to enable four-wheel drive when snow is present. [0049] Based on the defined rules/preferences, the vehicle management module 216 sends commands, in step 410 to unlock the driver's and passenger's side doors, turns on the window/seat heating systems (for Joe's seat, to Joe's defined heat seating preferences), and automatically turns on 4-wheel drive for the vehicle 100. If Sally sits in the driver's seat, the system does not let Sally drive the vehicle 100 because Sally is not authorized to drive the vehicle 100.)
While Abel discloses determining intent of a user from learning rules/preferences, the reference does not expressly disclose:
using a machine learning model
However Banvait teaches:
using a machine learning model [0028] The method accesses previous door unlocking behavior at 318 associated with the vehicle access device. For example, data may be accessed from memory 206 in vehicle lock manager 104, from database 114 or from any other storage device. Method 300 determines, at 320, a likely intent of the user carrying the vehicle access device by considering a variety of data. The likely intent includes, for example, unlocking a trunk to put packages into the trunk, unlocking the driver's door for vehicle access, or unlocking both the driver's door and the rear driver's-side door to put a briefcase in the back seat and enter the driver's door. When determining the likely intent of the user, the method may consider any one or more of the following: previous door unlocking behavior by the user, current geographic location of the vehicle, time of day, day of the week, environmental conditions, and the direction from which the vehicle access device is approaching the vehicle. In particular embodiments, one or more machine learning or neural network algorithms are used to determine the probabilistic intent of the user and predict the vehicle door(s) to unlock.
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 learning of rule preferences in Abel to include using a machine learning model, as taught in Banvait, in order to prevent unauthorized access (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 16, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above and Abel Rayan further discloses:
the operations further including: determining the interaction to satisfy the intent based on a response strategy.([0048] The rules/user preferences 215 define that Joe is authorized to drive the vehicle 100 and that Sally is a known (learned) passenger of Joe's is not authorized to drive the vehicle 100. The rules/user preferences 215 define to unlock the driver's door when Joe is within twenty feet of the vehicle 100. The rules/preferences 215 also defines that if a second passenger is present, to unlock the passenger's door. In addition, the rules/preferences 215 also define a rule to enable window/seat heating when the temperature is below 40 degrees. The rules/preferences 215 also define a rule to enable four-wheel drive when snow is present. [0049] Based on the defined rules/preferences, the vehicle management module 216 sends commands, in step 410 to unlock the driver's and passenger's side doors, turns on the window/seat heating systems (for Joe's seat, to Joe's defined heat seating preferences), and automatically turns on 4-wheel drive for the vehicle 100. If Sally sits in the driver's seat, the system does not let Sally drive the vehicle 100 because Sally is not authorized to drive the vehicle 100.)
Claims 4, 10 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel Rayan (US20190143936) in view of Banvait (US20170074000) in further view of Fuke (US20190047513).
Regarding claim 4, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above. While the reference discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, the reference does not expressly disclose:
wherein the intent is associated with the user procuring a good or a service from the parked vehicle.
However Fuke teaches:
wherein the intent is associated with the user procuring a good or a service from the parked vehicle. [0051] The identification information A of the user 5 and the identification information B of the home delivery driver 6 may be unique information capable of specifying the personals, As the biological information, a face, a fingerprint,[…] a voiceprint, [0080] The disclosure can be used in order to control unlocking of a storage, such as a trunk of a vehicle, and in particular, can be suitably used in a service where a home-delivered cargo is received using the storage of the vehicle.
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 inputs and corresponding actions of Abel Rayan in view of Banvait to include wherein the intent is associated with the user procuring a good or a service from the parked vehicle, as taught in Fuke, in order to improve security (paragraph 008).
Regarding claim 10, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above and Abel Rayan further discloses:
continuously monitoring for an authentication cue from the person based on the input data; responsive to the authentication cue, authenticating the person based on the user profile via one or more secure authentication methods prior to the automatically controlling; (see figure 4 refs.400 through 406, [0041], " The process starts in step 400 when the mobile device 201 comes within a predetermined spatial proximity to the vehicle 100 or a vehicle received signal from the mobile device 201 has at least a minimum signal-to-noise ratio or other indicator of received signal strength.", [0042], "In one embodiment, the vehicle management module 216 determines, in step 402, whether the identifier is valid. [...] therwise, if the identifier is valid in step 402 (as the received identifier matches the identifier stored in the vehicle), the vehicle management module 216 may optionally send a message/command to activate one or more vehicle sensors 212 in step 404. [...] therwise, if the identifier is valid in step 402 (as the received identifier matches the identifier stored in the vehicle), the vehicle management module 216 may optionally send a message/ command to activate one or more vehicle sensors 212 in step 404.", [0043], "The vehicle sensors 212 sends collected sensor information to the vehicle management module 216 in step 406. [...] For example, the vehicle management module 216 may digitally process the sensor information to determine [...] an identity of the person approaching the vehicle 100 [...] compare a voiceprint of a person approaching the vehicle 100 to a stored voiceprint of the person [...]"; "[0047]The vehicle management module 216 determines the identities of Joe and Sally based on stored facial profiles (in the rules/user preferences 215) in step 408.)
continuously monitoring for an unusual or unauthorized access attempt from the person based on the input data; and responsive to detecting the unusual or unauthorized access attempt, initiate a security response that prevents the interaction. (figure 4 ref. 406, [0043], "determine other persons located around the vehicle 100 (e.g., a robber)", figure 4 ref. 408, [0044], "The vehicle management module 216 uses the rules/user preferences 215, in step 408, to identify actions to be performed or features or settings to be implemented in the vehicle 100 based on the sensor information received in step 406. [...] determining other persons located around the vehicle 100 may cause the vehicle to deny or block access to the vehicle interior [...]".)
While the reference discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, the reference does not expressly disclose:
encrypting and storing a user profile for the person;
However Fuke teaches:
encrypting and storing a user profile for the person; [0065] In a case where the received identification information A is confirmable to be authentic, the authentication information generation unit 13 generates the encryption code for transmission using the identification information A acquired from the terminal device 1 along with the unlocking approval, the identification information B and the identification information C acquired from the terminal device 2 along with the unlocking request, and the encryption code for unlocking stored in the storage unit 10 (Step 3.6, see FIG. 2). [0032] The storage unit 10 stores an encryption code for unlocking as first authentication information. The encryption code for unlocking is data that is generated based on the identification information A unique to the user 5 when the user 5 performs initial registration for receiving a cargo using the storage 20 of the vehicle 4. The examiner interprets the storage unit as the profile as it is described as a mechanism for storing unique information to the user from a registration process.
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait to include encrypting and storing a user profile for the person , as taught in Fuke, in order to further improve security (paragraph 008).
Regarding claim 27, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait in further view of Fluke discloses the limitations set forth above.
While the references of Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, the combination does not expressly disclose:
wherein the intent of the person is to procure a package from a storage pod of the parked vehicle, and the automatically controlling includes automatically opening an access panel or door into the storage pod to reveal the package in response to the authenticating the person based on the user profile.
However Fuke teaches:
wherein the intent of the person is to procure a package from a storage pod of the parked vehicle, and the automatically controlling includes automatically opening an access panel or door into the storage pod to reveal the package in response to the authenticating the person based on the user profile. [0080] The disclosure can be used in order to control unlocking of a storage, such as a trunk of a vehicle, and in particular, can be suitably used in a service where a home-delivered cargo is received using the storage of the vehicle.
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait to include wherein the intent of the person is to procure a package from a storage pod of the parked vehicle, and the automatically controlling includes automatically opening an access panel or door into the storage pod to reveal the package in response to the authenticating the person based on the user profile, as taught in Fuke, in order to further improve security (paragraph 008).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel Rayan (US20190143936) in view of Banvait (US20170074000) in further view of Chi (US 20180147986).
Regarding claim 9, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above. Abel Rayan further discloses:
performing facial recognition or voice pattern analysis of the person based on the input data; determining whether the facial recognition or voice pattern analysis matches one of a plurality of user profiles created in response to previous interactions between people and the parked vehicle; (figure 4 refs. 400, 402, [0042], figure 4 refs. 406, 408, [0043-0044] "For example, the vehicle management module 216 may digitally process the sensor information to determine a gesture made by a person approaching the vehicle 100, determine an identity of the person approaching the vehicle 100, […] compare a voiceprint of a person approaching the vehicle 100 to a stored voiceprint of the person"),
While the combination discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, the combination does not expressly disclose:
when the facial recognition or voice pattern analysis does not match one of the plurality of user profiles, creating
when the facial recognition or voice pattern analysis corresponds to a matching profile of the plurality of user profiles, updating the matching profile based on the interaction.
However Chi teaches:
when the facial recognition or voice pattern analysis does not match one of the plurality of user profiles, creating[0048] In some embodiments, one or components of system 12 may determine each occupant's identity, by executing a software such as an image recognition software, a voice recognition software […]If an occupant does not have a stored profile, processing unit 104 may generate a profile based on the accessed data
The examiner notes the language of “when the facial recognition or voice pattern analysis does not match one of the plurality of user profiles, creatingis conditional language and not positively recited, however the language has been addressed with prior art.
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait to include when the facial recognition or voice pattern analysis does not match one of the plurality of user profiles, creating.
Claims 21-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel Rayan (US20190143936) in view of Banvait (US20170074000) in further view of Brady (US20180024554).
Regarding claim 21, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above.
While the Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, the Abel Rayan in view of Banvait does not expressly disclose:
wherein the intent of the person is to procure an object from a storage pod of the parked vehicle, and automatically actuating includes automatically opening an access panel or door into the storage pod to reveal the object for procurement from the proximal space within the environment.
However Brady teaches:
wherein the intent of the person is to procure an object from a storage pod of the parked vehicle, and automatically actuating includes automatically opening an access panel or door into the storage pod to reveal the object for procurement from the proximal space within the environment. [0036] In various implementations, the locking mechanism 277 may be controlled by the AGV control system 210, either through wired or wireless communication, to effect locking and unlocking of a door 275 of a storage compartment 257
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait to wherein the intent of the person is to procure an object from a storage pod of the parked vehicle, and automatically actuating includes automatically opening an access panel or door into the storage pod to reveal the object for procurement from the proximal space within the environment., as taught in Brady, in order to further provide more efficient delivery operations (paragraph 002).
Regarding claim 22, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait in further view of Brady discloses the limitations set forth above.
While the Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, the Abel Rayan in view of Banvait does not expressly disclose:
the storage pod is a first storage pod from a plurality of storage pods of the parked vehicle,
each storage pod from the plurality of storage pods is accessible from the environment via a respective access panel or door, the access panel or door is a first access panel or door into the first storage pod; and
the automatically actuating includes automatically controlling the one or more subsystems to open the first access panel or door and reveal the object while maintaining closed the respective access panel or door of each other storage pod from the plurality of storage pods.
However Brady teaches:
the storage pod is a first storage pod from a plurality of storage pods of the parked vehicle, [0047] In various implementations, the two storage compartments 257A and 257B may allow the AGV 200B to securely transport different items for different user orders and/or to have a separate storage compartment for different environmental or other needs (e.g., one of the storage compartments may be refrigerated, etc.).
each storage pod from the plurality of storage pods is accessible from the environment via a respective access panel or door, the access panel or door is a first access panel or door into the first storage pod; and [0036] In various implementations, the locking mechanism 277 may be controlled by the AGV control system 210, either through wired or wireless communication, to effect locking and unlocking of a door 275 of a storage compartment 257
the automatically actuating includes automatically controlling the one or more subsystems to open the first access panel or door and reveal the object [0036] In various implementations, the locking mechanism 277 may be controlled by the AGV control system 210, either through wired or wireless communication, to effect locking and unlocking of a door 275 of a storage compartment 257while maintaining closed the respective access panel or door of each other storage pod from the plurality of storage pods. [0063]The AGV 200-2 may then deliver the items to the delivery locations 308-2 and 308-3, wherein at the delivery location 308-2 only the first storage compartment may be opened, and at the delivery location 308-3 only the second storage compartment may be opened.
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait to include the storage pod is a first storage pod from a plurality of storage pods of the parked vehicle, each storage pod from the plurality of storage pods is accessible from the environment via a respective access panel or door, the access panel or door is a first access panel or door into the first storage pod; and the automatically actuating includes automatically controlling the one or more subsystems to open the first access panel or door and reveal the object while maintaining closed the respective access panel or door of each other storage pod from the plurality of storage pods, as taught in Brady, in order to further provide more efficient delivery operations (paragraph 002).
Regarding claim 23, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait in further view of Brady discloses the limitations set forth above.
While the Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, the Abel Rayan in view of Banvait does not expressly disclose:
wherein the storage pod is a refrigerated storage pod and the object is a grocery item, a medical item, a plant, or a beverage.
However Brady teaches:
wherein the storage pod is a refrigerated storage pod [0047] In various implementations, the two storage compartments 257A and 257B may allow the AGV 200B to securely transport different items for different user orders and/or to have a separate storage compartment for different environmental or other needs (e.g., one of the storage compartments may be refrigerated, etc.). and the object is a grocery item, a medical item, a plant, or a beverage. [0040]For example, items that need to be chilled or frozen at specified temperatures, such as groceries or medical supplies, may be stored in refrigerated storage compartments.
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait to include wherein the storage pod is a refrigerated storage pod and the object is a grocery item, a medical item, a plant, or a beverage, as taught in Brady, in order to further provide more efficient delivery operations (paragraph 002).
Regarding claim 25, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses the limitations set forth above.
While the Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, the Abel Rayan in view of Banvait does not expressly disclose:
wherein the implementing includes implementing the human machine interface to control the one or more subsystems and cause the interaction without communicating with external devices.
However Brady teaches:
wherein the implementing includes implementing the human machine interface to control the one or more subsystems and cause the interaction without communicating with external devices. [0097] In some implementations, with respect to the operations of the user interface 211 and/or operations for accessing the storage compartment(s), receiving items, etc., the input/output devices 918 may include one or more display terminals, keyboards, keypads, touchpads, scanning devices, voice or optical recognition devices, sensors, or any other devices suitable for entering or retrieving data or sensing inputs. Multiple input/output devices 918, some of which may be included as part of the user interface 211, may be present in or otherwise controlled by the AGV control system 210 or may be distributed on various nodes of the AGV control system 210.
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait to include wherein the implementing includes implementing the human machine interface to control the one or more subsystems and cause the interaction without communicating with external devices, as taught in Brady, in order to further provide more efficient delivery operations (paragraph 002).
Regarding claim 26, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait in further view of Brady discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait does not expressly disclose:
wherein the parked vehicle is fully autonomous ground vehicle, and the external devices comprise a mobile device or a key fob in possession of the person.
However Brady teaches:
wherein the parked vehicle is fully autonomous ground vehicle, [Abstract] Autonomous ground vehicles (“AGVs”) are utilized to retrieve items from transportation vehicles (e.g., delivery trucks) for delivery to specified locations (e.g., user residences, etc.). and the external devices comprise a mobile device or a key fob in possession of the person. [0034] the AGV 200A may have capabilities for directly receiving such signals from a user device. It is noted by the examiner the AGV can be implemented in a wired manner such as in [0033] and [0097]
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait to include wherein the parked vehicle is fully autonomous ground vehicle, and the external devices comprise a mobile device or a key fob in possession of the person, as taught in Brady, in order to further provide more efficient delivery operations (paragraph 002).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel Rayan (US20190143936) in view of Banvait (US20170074000) in view of Fuke (US20190047513) in further view of Brady (US20180024554).
Regarding claim 28, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait in further view of Fluke discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Abel Rayan in view of Banvait discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs, the references of Abel Rayan in view of Banvait does not expressly disclose:
wherein the authenticating includes authenticating the person based on the user profile via the one or more secure authentication methods prior to the automatically controlling and without communicating with external devices, the external devices including a mobile device or a key fob in possession of the person.
However Fluke teaches:
wherein the authenticating includes authenticating the person based on the user profile via the one or more secure authentication methods [0065] In a case where the received identification information A is confirmable to be authentic, the authentication information generation unit 13 generates the encryption code for transmission using the identification information A acquired from the terminal device 1 along with the unlocking approval, the identification information B and the identification information C acquired from the terminal device 2 along with the unlocking request, and the encryption code for unlocking stored in the storage unit 10 (Step 3.6, see FIG. 2). [0032] The storage unit 10 stores an encryption code for unlocking as first authentication information. The encryption code for unlocking is data that is generated based on the identification information A unique to the user 5 when the user 5 performs initial registration for receiving a cargo using the storage 20 of the vehicle 4. The examiner interprets the storage unit as the profile as it is described as a mechanism for storing unique information to the user from a registration process.
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait to include encrypting and storing a user profile for the person , as taught in Fuke, in order to further improve security (paragraph 008).
While the reference discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs to include authentication measures, the references of Abel Rayan in view of Banvait in further view of Fluke does not expressly disclose:
prior to the automatically controlling and without communicating with external devices, the external devices including a mobile device or a key fob in possession of the person.
However Brady teaches:
prior to the automatically controlling and without communicating with external devices, the external devices including a mobile device or a key fob in possession of the person. [0097] In some implementations, with respect to the operations of the user interface 211 and/or operations for accessing the storage compartment(s), receiving items, etc., the input/output devices 918 may include one or more display terminals, keyboards, keypads, touchpads, scanning devices, voice or optical recognition devices, sensors, or any other devices suitable for entering or retrieving data or sensing inputs. Multiple input/output devices 918, some of which may be included as part of the user interface 211, may be present in or otherwise controlled by the AGV control system 210 or may be distributed on various nodes of the AGV control system 210
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait in further view of Fluke to include prior to the automatically controlling and without communicating with external devices, the external devices including a mobile device or a key fob in possession of the person, as taught in Brady, in order to further provide more efficient delivery operations (paragraph 002).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel Rayan (US20190143936) in view of Banvait (US20170074000) in view of Brady (US20180024554) in further view of Bloomfield (US 20210318463).
Regarding claim 24, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait in further view of Brady discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Abel Rayan in view of Banvait in further view of Brady discloses determining an action to execute based on received inputs and access to a compartment with an object to be retrieved, Abel Rayan in view of Banvait in further view of Brady does not expressly disclose:
wherein the storage pod is configured as a tool chest, and the object is at least one of a hand tool, a power tool, or a building material.
However Bloomfield teaches:
wherein the storage pod is configured as a tool chest, and the object is at least one of a hand tool, a power tool, or a building material. [0093] The first operational sequence may comprise opening the lid of a tool container (or box) and selecting a tool therefrom. This may be automated.
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 inputs and corresponding actions of authentication of Abel Rayan in view Banvait in further view of Brady to include wherein the storage pod is configured as a tool chest, and the object is at least one of a hand tool, a power tool, or a building material, as taught in Bloomfield, in order to automate the tool alignment and retrieval process (paragraphs 006 and 008).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, the examiner has updated the rejection above in view of the claim amendments. It is noted the amended step of actuating the one or more subsystem of the parked vehicle is recited at a high level of generality. The step lacks sufficient detail on the sensor in combination with the actuation and detail to the subsystem’s interaction with the actuation implementation. For this reason, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102, the examiner has updated the rejection above and in view of the claim amendments, the claims are now rejected under 35 USC 103. While the teachings of Abel Rayan are maintained, the examiner does assert that the reference does not disclose “using machine” learning in the independent claims. The rejection now relies on the additional teachings of Banvait to teach the machine learning as claimed. The newly added claims have also been addressed with newly cited prior art including Brady, Fluke and Bloomfield. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Related Art Not Cited
Gonzalez (US20250010816) discloses collecting data from a vehicle and providing the user personalized recommendations based on the collected data.
“Intent Inference for Hand Pointing Gesture-Based Interactions in Vehicles” discloses the utilization of intent aware displays that use gestures as input in vehicle displays in order to increase safety.
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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/29/2026