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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-24 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the rejection under U.S.C. 101, firstly arguing that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but rather “defines a specific, integrated technical architecture that constitutes an improvement to the existing technology of vehicle infotainment systems”. The examiner disagrees, as the claim does not actually encompass what the applicant’s representative describes as the technological improvement. The specification may describe an improvement, but the claim must actually claim that which makes the improvement. The Claims as presented do not represent an “an improvement to the existing technology of vehicle infotainment systems” as they instead claim a conventional vehicle infotainment system carrying out the series of abstract ideas. The infotainment system technology is unchanged and unimproved, the claimed invention merely receives and outputs information in ways well-understood, routine, and conventional, and makes abstract idea information determination and processings based on this information.
The argued improvements of the claims are also not all even present in the specification. The applicant’s specification is silent regarding alleged improvement to “the technical performance of the system by reducing latency, improving responsiveness to time-based triggers, and enabling operation in environments where cloud connectivity may be intermittent”, this is not an improvement the present application address or claims to be making. Reading the specification makes it apparent that the intended benefit of the application is the ability to set up the user’s custom trigger rules and cascading queue, improvements which derive from what is currently claimed as mental processes to determine the queue of actions and the triggers of such based on received information.
Second regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 101, applicant asserts the amended claims cannot be performed in the human mind, alleging that the “creation of a time-ordered cascading queue of actions with time-based trigger conditions and multiple action types, the real-time monitoring of those triggers by a vehicle control system, the automatic execution of corresponding action sets, and the generation of control signals to vehicle actuators and sub-systems - all processed locally at the vehicle control system without cloud routing - constitute a specific, integrated computational and physical process that cannot practically be performed in the human mind”, however the examiner does not point to all of these as abstract idea, nor do the additional elements contained in this section integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Every one of these is a mental process being performed on a generic vehicle computer, rather than “specific system architecture” as argued here- the recited structure serves to link the abstract ideas present to the field of automotive infotainment, and perform the mental processes via computer.
Third regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 101, the applicant argues that the generation of control signals “is a physical act that transforms the state of the vehicle” and as such cannot be an abstract idea nor an insignificant extra-solution activity. The examiner disagrees- though notes the claim may overcome the rejection under U.S.C. 101 with a minor amendment regarding this. Firstly, the generation of a control command is a mental process, that of determining the control that needs to be done by a certain system. Providing the control command is a transmission of this step, it s transmission of the abstract idea rather than actually causing the vehicle to perform a specific activity- this crucial step is not claimed as written. It would instead overcome the rejection to amend to a verbiage such as generating the control signal, and performing the vehicle control based on the system, a limitation which does positively recite the physical actions. The wording may appear minor, but does make the difference between reciting the physical control and simply determining the control step. The examiner agrees that “actuation of vehicle hardware in response to trigger conditions is not merely outputting data - it is a physical transformation of the vehicle's operational state”, however minor amendment is required to achieve this.
Finally regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 101, applicant asserts the claims amount to significantly more than any abstract idea, as the combined additional elements are not “not well- understood, routine, or conventional in the field of vehicle infotainment systems” and depart from the conventional infotainment system. The examiner disagrees, however, as these are made obvious by the references applied to the rejection under U.S.C. 103, precluding them from being outside of the well- understood, routine, or conventional; see the arguments and rejection below.
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C.112(b), applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 8/26/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 18 and 22 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 103, applicant alleges the amended claims overcome the rejection under Fang ‘817, Fang ‘245, and Liu by adding the limitations “and wherein the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server”. This is asserted to be because Fang ‘817 discloses the cascading queue in a cloud-based system, while Liu is not performing the exact same processing on the vehicle computer as in the applicant’s claims. The examiner recognizes that the Liu references does not perform the exact processing of Fang ‘817 on it’s vehicle side processor, however to say this makes the claim non-obvious is a severe oversimplification- a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention would find the claim to be plainly obvious in view of Fang ‘817 and Liu. The added limitations to simply perform processing on the vehicle side, when similar vehicle settings customization and control is known in the art, is obvious in view of the two references. Put simply, the amendment is no more than taking the system of Fang ‘817 and doing on the vehicle computer- and Liu demonstrates that setting and processing this type of user-customized and trigger-based operational settings is already known in the art. Therefore, one with an ordinary skill in the art would find this an obvious modification in view of the combination.
Finally regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 103, the applicant alleges that the combination of Fang ‘817 with Liu is not proper for the amended limitation, stating “it does not provide a motivation to restructure the Fang '817 reference's cloud-routing architecture so that the cascading queue is processed entirely locally at the vehicle without cloud routing.” This is an overstatement of what would be required to make the modification obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The alleged “restructure” of the system is simply to perform a data processing on a different computer; Liu discloses using the vehicle’s own computer to carry out the entirety of the user customization, task processing trigger monitoring, and actuating process. The present application makes zero claim of an actual structure outside the norm, that is the present claims make no mention of structure- the system is that of a conventional vehicle infotainment system, not one more advanced than Liu. As such, a person would find it obvious to combine the system of Fang ‘817 which discloses the applicant’s cascading queue with the Liu system which may perform all user customization and control onboard the vehicle, and perform the processing onboard to resolve the natural issues that come with using a server as middlemen, such as poor connectivity, privacy/security, and the like.
For the reasons above, the examiner maintains the rejections under U.S.C. 101 and 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites a user connectivity system for a vehicle, the user connectivity system comprising
an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features;
a communication system configured to communicate with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs);
and a control system configured to :establish a user connectivity platform that enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of a set of respective actions by the vehicle, wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features; [abstract idea – mental process]
receive, by the user connectivity platform and from a user, user input defining a plurality of user-customized sequences each defining a set of time-based trigger conditions and a corresponding set of actions; [abstract idea – mental process]
wherein the establishment of the user connectivity platform and the user customization of the plurality of user-customized sequences are both performed without a software update of the vehicle;
create, by the user connectivity platform, a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions, and including at least two actions having a different type; [abstract idea – mental process]
and handle, by the user connectivity platform, execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions [abstract idea – mental process] and (ii) automatically execute executing the corresponding sets of actions for the user-customized sequences.
wherein the automatic execution of the corresponding sets of actions of the user-customized sequences includes generating and providing a control signal to at least one actuator or sub-system of the vehicle to achieve one or more respective vehicle-based actions. [abstract idea – mental process]
and wherein the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers limitations which may be performed in the human mind. Regarding the limitations of this claim, the limitations “enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of a set of respective actions by the vehicle, wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features;” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining a custom set of sequences for their vehicle to perform automatically, these things different from a . Regarding the limitations of this claim, the limitations “create, … a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions, and including at least two actions having a different type” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining a sequence of cascading actions in a time order and destringing the time-based trigger, in which there is more than one type of action. The limitations “and handle, …execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions” in the context of this claim encompass a person monitoring for a trigger or signal to begin an action. The limitations “wherein the automatic execution of the corresponding sets of actions of the user-customized sequences includes generating … a control signal to at least one actuator or sub-system of the vehicle to achieve one or more respective vehicle-based actions” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining what control is needed for an actuator or subsystem in order to perform a task. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features; [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field]
a communication system configured to communicate with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs); [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
and a control system configured to :establish a user connectivity platform that [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of a set of respective actions by the vehicle, wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features; [abstract idea – mental process]
receive, by the user connectivity platform [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]and from a user, user input defining a plurality of user-customized sequences each defining a set of time-based trigger conditions and a corresponding set of actions; [abstract idea – mental process]
wherein the establishment of the user connectivity platform and the user customization of the plurality of user-customized sequences are both performed without a software update of the vehicle; [generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field]
create, by the user connectivity platform, [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions, and including at least two actions having a different type; [abstract idea – mental process]
and handle, by the user connectivity platform, [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions [abstract idea – mental process] and (ii) automatically execute executing the corresponding sets of actions for the user-customized sequences. [insignificant extra-solution activity; post-solution data transmitting]
wherein the automatic execution of the corresponding sets of actions of the user-customized sequences includes generating and providing [insignificant extra-solution activity; post-solution data transmitting] a control signal to at least one actuator or sub-system of the vehicle to achieve one or more respective vehicle-based actions. [abstract idea – mental process]
and wherein the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations “an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features”, “a communication system configured to communicate with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs);”, “and a control system configured to: establish a user connectivity platform that”, “by the user connectivity platform” and “and wherein the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server”, are in the context of this claims recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a vehicle and geofence’s location in relation to each other, and whether this is acceptable). Further, the limitations “an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features”, “wherein the establishment of the user connectivity platform and the user customization of the plurality of user-customized sequences are both performed without a software update of the vehicle”, and “and wherein the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server” represent an example of generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). IN this case generally linking the abstract idea to the field of vehicle communication systems. The limitation to “and (ii) automatically execute executing the corresponding sets of actions for the user-customized sequences” is a mere post-solution activity of transmitting the results of a determination, as per the specification this set of actions may be simply outputting data to the user in response to a trigger action being detected- merely outputting the response to a determination. Similarly, the limitation “and providing” the control signal is another recitation of the mere post-solution activity of transmitting the results of a determination, as under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification this represents merely sending the determines commands to the recipients.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “and (ii) automatically execute executing the corresponding sets of actions for the user-customized sequences” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities, and as above the limitations “an infotainment system of the vehicle, wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features”, “wherein the establishment of the user connectivity platform and the user customization of the plurality of user-customized sequences are both performed without a software update of the vehicle”, and “and wherein the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server” amounts to nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of technology, which does not provide an inventive concept. IN this case, the field of technology being typical in-vehicle technology. Finally as discussed above, the additional limitations of the to perform the abstract idea using a “communication system”, “connectivity platform” and the like including cloud servers are mere instructions to apply the exemption using a generic computer; the same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 17-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 17-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative Claim 1 above, as the claim is
substantially identical to the examined claims with only minor changes to the limitations; being a method rather than a system, changes which do not affect the analysis as demonstrated above.
Dependent claims 10, 12-14, 16, and 21-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 10, 12-14, 16, and 21-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 9.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US 20230316817), herein after referred to as Fang, in view of Fang (US 20230154245), herein after referred to as 4245, and Liu (US 20220092889), herein after referred to as Liu.
Regarding Claim 1, Fang discloses:
an infotainment system of the vehicle, (see at least [0716] “a vehicle’s infotainment system”)
wherein the infotainment system is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features; (see at least [0471] “Additionally, each feature container can associate a container manifest, which is defined and controlled by the OEM.”)
a communication system configured to communicate with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, (see at least [Fig. 13] [0287] “ Referencing FIG. 13, an example system schematically depicts the centralized controller (ECU), an SOA manager, SOA plugins, and communication between vehicle controllers (e.g., ECU, ADAS) and external devices (e.g., cloud).”)
and a control system (see at least [0292] “a centralized controller having an automation manager that determines a customized operation”)
configured to: establish a user connectivity platform that enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of set of respective actions by the vehicle; (see at least [0291] “Example embodiments allow users to create custom trigger-action rules to automate the vehicle environment, and to allow in-vehicle capabilities that were not previously available. For example, embodiments herein include customer control of cabin temperature, lighting, infotainment, seats, windows, sunroof, cabriolet top, driving mode, and/or adjustment of any other actuator or vehicle interface" [0298] "An example automation manager (or vehicle automation manager) allows users to create arbitrary trigger-action rules which can be executed on the vehicle, such as by the centralized controller.”)
wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features; (see at least [0249] “In certain embodiments, the policy manager 330 or other system components may access a policy data store 340, which may include previously verified policies, legacy policies, one or more default policies, and/or GUI parameters such as common names for data elements, user role descriptions, application role descriptions (e.g., a set of event values, event responses, and/or data values available based upon an application role such as OEM, Manufacturer, 3.sup.rd part, etc.), example event values and/or event responses, and/or vehicle data (e.g., nominal bandwidth descriptions, storage information, etc.).”)
receive, by the user connectivity platform and from a user, user input defining a plurality of user-customized sequences, (see at least [0299] “ The user accesses an app on her phone or web browser and uses it to create custom trigger-action rules,” [0030] "The trigger-action rules are sent to the cloud, and the enabled trigger-action rules are consolidated as a “recipe” on the cloud side" [0305] "An example Vehicle Automation Manager (VAM) takes recipes from the cloud as inputs and executes the trigger-action rules in the recipes)
each defining a set of time-based trigger conditions and a corresponding set of actions; (see at least [0305] “Each trigger-action rule is composed of triggers, conditions, and actions. The triggers are the inputs to the rule that encompass signals from the CAN bus, time”)
create, by the user connectivity platform, a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, (see at least [0347] “Example and non-limiting remote control operations include a scheduled sequence of a number of operations, including determining conditions when a first scheduled operation is completed and a next operation should be performed.”)
and including at least two actions having a different type (see at least [0295] “ An example customized operation includes an operation to configure a number of vehicle aspects in response to a command, such as “Hey car, start my morning commute.” In the example, configured vehicle aspects may include tuning the radio to a selected station and volume, setting a pre-selected navigation destination (e.g., an office), setting the performance mode of the vehicle (e.g., fuel economy mode), setting the driver’s seat position (e.g., forward/reverse, height, tilt, lumbar support, etc.), and/or setting HVAC parameters (e.g., selected cabin temperature).”)
and handle, by the user connectivity platform, execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions (see at least [0346] “An example operation includes a personalized operation, such as playing “Happy Birthday to You” and/or manipulating cabin lights upon the driver entering the vehicle on her birthday. ”)
and (ii) automatically executing the corresponding set of actions for the user-customized sequence. (see at least [0292] “ and commands the customized operation in response to the trigger-action occurrence.”)
wherein the automatic execution of the corresponding sets of actions of the user-customized sequences includes generating and providing a control signal to at least one actuator or sub-system of the vehicle to achieve one or more respective vehicle-based actions. (see at least [0631] “(e.g., operations to be performed in response to a trigger event occurrence 13120, including operation of an actuator,”)
Fang does not explicitly disclose:
the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs);
[the cascading queue] corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions
wherein the establishment of the user connectivity platform and the user customization of the plurality of user-customized sequences are both performed without a software update of the vehicle,
and wherein the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server.
In the same field of endeavor, 4245 discloses:
the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs); (see at least [0106] “The trigger data may also be taken from any location outside of the vehicle, such as a REST API endpoint in the cloud.”)
[the cascading queue] corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions (see at least [0292] “ and commands the customized operation in response to the trigger-action occurrence.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang, which discloses cloud servers and APIs separately, to communicate with the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs), as well as assign time-based trigger conditions to each of the tasks of a cascading queue of tasks, as taught by 4245 to manage triggers for the automation manager via cloud servers [0106].
In the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses:
wherein the establishment of the user connectivity platform and the user customization of the plurality of user-customized sequences are both performed without a software update of the vehicle; (see at least [0006] “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, wherein the steps includes providing the first customization option by the vehicle computer, receiving user input directly and caching the first customized content and the first trigger condition by the vehicle computer.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle customization and automation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to establish the user connectivity platform and the user customization of the plurality of user-customized sequences without a software update of the vehicle, as taught by Liu to provide the user with options to input customization with a plurality of options, including direct to vehicle computer [0050].
Further, when combined with Fang, Liu makes obvious:
and wherein the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server. (see at least [0050] “" In another embodiment, the user can directly input the first trigger condition and the first customized content through the vehicle computer to complete the setting." [0051] "Continuing to refer to FIG. 3, after the user completes the customization, the vehicle enters the stage of detecting whether the set first trigger condition is met. The method 300 includes detecting whether the above-mentioned first trigger condition is met at step 315." [0066] " By clicking the tab, the user can select the first trigger condition and one or more customized content. For example, the user can set to call the air conditioning control program to adjust to 26 degrees Celsius before 7 o'clock in such a triggering situation: during the commuting time (specifically from 7 to 8 o'clock), when the vehicle is located in the geographic location of the home or parking lot, and the weather temperature is high or below a specific temperature, to run the vehicle computer navigation at 7:30 to plan a specific navigation route, to play songs after the user enters the vehicle from 8 o'clock, to switch to learning audio at 8:30 and so on.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle customization and automation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to establish that the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server, as Liu discloses the full vehicle customization system being performed with onboard processing, from user selection, to matching the triggers to actions, trigger monitoring, and actuation [0050, 0066]. A person having ordinary skill would find it obvious to combine the system of Fang ‘817 which discloses the applicant’s cascading queue, with the Liu system which may perform all user customization and control onboard the vehicle, and perform the processing onboard to resolve the natural issues that come with using a server as middlemen, such as poor connectivity, privacy/security, and the like.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user connectivity platform is configured to automatically execute the set of actions for the user-customized sequences without any input from the user. (see at least [0298] “An example automation manager (or vehicle automation manager) allows users to create arbitrary trigger-action rules which can be executed on the vehicle, such as by the centralized controller. For instance, the user could create a trigger-action rule that would automatically turn on the high-beam headlights when there is no oncoming traffic while driving at night”)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
Wherein at least one of the user-customized sequences is a location-based sequence that has at least one vehicle location-based trigger. (see at least [0296] “ An example customized operation includes an operation to configure a number of vehicle aspects in response to a system condition, such as an approach of the vehicle to the driver’s home at night. ”)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user customization of the plurality of sequences is performable without involvement of the OEM of the vehicle. (see at least [0304] “the vehicle automation manager allows users to enrich their vehicle experience without waiting for a feature request, approval, and update process. The example vehicle automation manager further allows the user to leverage their own creativity and/or the creativity of 3.sup.rd party application providers to implement improved vehicle interactions.”)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user input is provided by a remote, authorized computing device associated with the user. (see at least [0299] “ The user accesses an app on her phone or web browser and uses it to create custom trigger-action rules,”)
Regarding Claim 9, Fang discloses:
establishing, by a control system of the vehicle and via a communication system of the vehicle, communication with cloud-based servers via a wireless communication network, (see at least [Fig. 13] [0287] “ Referencing FIG. 13, an example system schematically depicts the centralized controller (ECU), an SOA manager, SOA plugins, and communication between vehicle controllers (e.g., ECU, ADAS) and external devices (e.g., cloud).”)
wherein the vehicle further includes an infotainment system (see at least [0716] “a vehicle’s infotainment system”)
that is initially hardcoded, by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the vehicle, with predefined applications and features; (see at least [0471] “Additionally, each feature container can associate a container manifest, which is defined and controlled by the OEM.”)
establishing, by the control system, a user connectivity platform that enables user customization of a plurality of sequences each for automated execution of set of respective actions by the vehicle; (see at least [0291] “Example embodiments allow users to create custom trigger-action rules to automate the vehicle environment, and to allow in-vehicle capabilities that were not previously available. For example, embodiments herein include customer control of cabin temperature, lighting, infotainment, seats, windows, sunroof, cabriolet top, driving mode, and/or adjustment of any other actuator or vehicle interface" [0298] "An example automation manager (or vehicle automation manager) allows users to create arbitrary trigger-action rules which can be executed on the vehicle, such as by the centralized controller.”)
wherein the sets of respective actions corresponding to the plurality of sequences are different than the predefined applications and features; (see at least [0249] “In certain embodiments, the policy manager 330 or other system components may access a policy data store 340, which may include previously verified policies, legacy policies, one or more default policies, and/or GUI parameters such as common names for data elements, user role descriptions, application role descriptions (e.g., a set of event values, event responses, and/or data values available based upon an application role such as OEM, Manufacturer, 3.sup.rd part, etc.), example event values and/or event responses, and/or vehicle data (e.g., nominal bandwidth descriptions, storage information, etc.).”)
receiving, by the user connectivity platform and from a user, user input defining a plurality of user-customized sequences, (see at least [0299] “In certain embodiments, the policy manager 330 or other system components may access a policy data store 340, which may include previously verified policies, legacy policies, one or more default policies, and/or GUI parameters such as common names for data elements, user role descriptions, application role descriptions (e.g., a set of event values, event responses, and/or data values available based upon an application role such as OEM, Manufacturer, 3.sup.rd part, etc.), example event values and/or event responses, and/or vehicle data (e.g., nominal bandwidth descriptions, storage information, etc.).”)
each defining a set of time-based trigger conditions and a corresponding set of actions; (see at least [0305] “ Each trigger-action rule is composed of triggers, conditions, and actions. The triggers are the inputs to the rule that encompass signals from the CAN bus, time”)
creating, by the user connectivity platform, a cascading queue of actions for execution, the cascading queue of actions being time-ordered, (see at least [0347] “Example and non-limiting remote control operations include a scheduled sequence of a number of operations, including determining conditions when a first scheduled operation is completed and a next operation should be performed.”)
and including at least two actions having a different type (see at least [0295] “ An example customized operation includes an operation to configure a number of vehicle aspects in response to a command, such as “Hey car, start my morning commute.” In the example, configured vehicle aspects may include tuning the radio to a selected station and volume, setting a pre-selected navigation destination (e.g., an office), setting the performance mode of the vehicle (e.g., fuel economy mode), setting the driver’s seat position (e.g., forward/reverse, height, tilt, lumbar support, etc.), and/or setting HVAC parameters (e.g., selected cabin temperature).”)
and handling, by the user connectivity platform, execution of the cascading queue of actions by (i) monitoring for the time-based trigger conditions for the cascading queue of actions (see at least [0346] “An example operation includes a personalized operation, such as playing “Happy Birthday to You” and/or manipulating cabin lights upon the driver entering the vehicle on her birthday.”)
and (ii) automatically executing the corresponding set of actions for the user-customized sequence. (see at least [0292] “and commands the customized operation in response to the trigger-action occurrence.”)
wherein the automatic execution of the corresponding sets of actions of the user-customized sequences includes generating and providing a control signal to at least one actuator or sub-system of the vehicle to achieve one or more respective vehicle-based actions. (see at least [0631] “(e.g., operations to be performed in response to a trigger event occurrence 13120, including operation of an actuator,”)
Fang does not explicitly disclose:
the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs);
[the cascading queue] corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions
wherein the establishment of the user connectivity platform and the user customization of the plurality of user-customized sequences are both performed without a software update of the vehicle;
In the same field of endeavor, 4245 discloses:
the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs); (see at least [0106] “The trigger data may also be taken from any location outside of the vehicle, such as a REST API endpoint in the cloud.”)
[the cascading queue] corresponding to respective time-based trigger conditions (see at least [0292] “ and commands the customized operation in response to the trigger-action occurrence.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang, which discloses cloud servers and APIs separately, to communicate with the cloud-based servers hosting a set of cloud-based application programming interfaces (APIs), as well as assign time-based trigger conditions to each of the tasks of a cascading queue of tasks, as taught by 4245 to manage triggers for the automation manager via cloud servers [0106].
In the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses:
wherein the establishment of the user connectivity platform and the user customization of the plurality of user-customized sequences are both performed without a software update of the vehicle; (see at least [0006] “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, wherein the steps includes providing the first customization option by the vehicle computer, receiving user input directly and caching the first customized content and the first trigger condition by the vehicle computer.”)
Further, when combined with Fang, Liu makes obvious:
and wherein the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server. (see at least [0050] “" In another embodiment, the user can directly input the first trigger condition and the first customized content through the vehicle computer to complete the setting." [0051] "Continuing to refer to FIG. 3, after the user completes the customization, the vehicle enters the stage of detecting whether the set first trigger condition is met. The method 300 includes detecting whether the above-mentioned first trigger condition is met at step 315." [0066] " By clicking the tab, the user can select the first trigger condition and one or more customized content. For example, the user can set to call the air conditioning control program to adjust to 26 degrees Celsius before 7 o'clock in such a triggering situation: during the commuting time (specifically from 7 to 8 o'clock), when the vehicle is located in the geographic location of the home or parking lot, and the weather temperature is high or below a specific temperature, to run the vehicle computer navigation at 7:30 to plan a specific navigation route, to play songs after the user enters the vehicle from 8 o'clock, to switch to learning audio at 8:30 and so on.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle customization and automation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to establish that the user connectivity platform processes the cascading queue of actions locally at the control system of the vehicle without routing each action execution through a remote cloud server, as Liu discloses the full vehicle customization system being performed with onboard processing, from user selection, to matching the triggers to actions, trigger monitoring, and actuation [0050, 0066]. A person having ordinary skill would find it obvious to combine the system of Fang ‘817 which discloses the applicant’s cascading queue, with the Liu system which may perform all user customization and control onboard the vehicle, and perform the processing onboard to resolve the natural issues that come with using a server as middlemen, such as poor connectivity, privacy/security, and the like.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user connectivity platform is configured to automatically execute the set of actions for the user-customized sequences without any input from the user. (see at least [0298] “An example automation manager (or vehicle automation manager) allows users to create arbitrary trigger-action rules which can be executed on the vehicle, such as by the centralized controller. For instance, the user could create a trigger-action rule that would automatically turn on the high-beam headlights when there is no oncoming traffic while driving at night”)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
Wherein at least one of the user-customized sequence is a location-based sequence that has at least one vehicle location-based trigger. (see at least [0296] “ An example customized operation includes an operation to configure a number of vehicle aspects in response to a system condition, such as an approach of the vehicle to the driver’s home at night. ”)
Regarding Claim 14, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user customization of the plurality of sequences is performable without involvement of the OEM of the vehicle. (see at least [0304] “the vehicle automation manager allows users to enrich their vehicle experience without waiting for a feature request, approval, and update process. The example vehicle automation manager further allows the user to leverage their own creativity and/or the creativity of 3.sup.rd party application providers to implement improved vehicle interactions.”)
Regarding Claim 16, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user input is provided by a remote, authorized computing device associated with the user. (see at least [0299] “ The user accesses an app on her phone or web browser and uses it to create custom trigger-action rules,”)
Regarding Claim 17, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user connectivity platform is preconfigured at the control system during vehicle assembly or calibration. (see at least [0562] “built-in policy 8406 provided on a vehicle controller (e.g., the CND, and/or any other controller having policy management operations provided thereupon) at a time of initial manufacture of the vehicle and/or a supply of the respective controller to a manufacturer of the vehicle,”)
Regarding Claim 18, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 17, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the control system is not configured to receive a remotely generated or configured software policy for the user connectivity system.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses:
wherein the control system is not configured to receive a remotely generated or configured software policy for the user connectivity system. (see at least [0006] “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, wherein the steps includes providing the first customization option by the vehicle computer, receiving user input directly and caching the first customized content and the first trigger condition by the vehicle computer.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle customization and automation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to not configure the system so as to receive a remotely generated or configured software policy for the user connectivity system, as taught by Liu to provide the user with options to input customization with a plurality of options, including direct to vehicle computer [0050]. The Liu reference makes it obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference so as to receive the software policy through direct user input instead of remotely in some embodiments, which reads on the claim as interpreted in view of the specification which does not disclose exclusion of remote generation/configuring but rather presents remote generation/configuring as an optional embodiment.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the corresponding set of actions include actuation of at least one messaging or notification feature from the vehicle to a mobile computing device associated with the user. (see at least [0336] “ the remote control manager may wake up the ECU and the cellular modem, and send a message to an external device (e.g., a cloud, web application, user device such as a smart phone, etc.) to alert the user to the condition”)
Regarding Claim 21, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the user connectivity platform is preconfigured at the control system during vehicle assembly or calibration. (see at least [0562] “built-in policy 8406 provided on a vehicle controller (e.g., the CND, and/or any other controller having policy management operations provided thereupon) at a time of initial manufacture of the vehicle and/or a supply of the respective controller to a manufacturer of the vehicle,”)
Regarding Claim 22, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 21, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the control system is not configured to receive a remotely generated or configured software policy for the user connectivity system.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses:
wherein the control system is not configured to receive a remotely generated or configured software policy for the user connectivity system. (see at least [0006] “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, wherein the steps includes providing the first customization option by the vehicle computer, receiving user input directly and caching the first customized content and the first trigger condition by the vehicle computer.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle customization and automation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to not configure the system so as to receive a remotely generated or configured software policy for the user connectivity system, as taught by Liu to provide the user with options to input customization with a plurality of options, including direct to vehicle computer [0050]. The Liu reference makes it obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference so as to receive the software policy through direct user input instead of remotely in some embodiments, which reads on the claim as interpreted in view of the specification which does not disclose exclusion of remote generation/configuring but rather presents remote generation/configuring as an optional embodiment.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Fang further discloses:
wherein the corresponding set of actions include actuation of at least one messaging or notification feature from the vehicle to a mobile computing device associated with the user. (see at least [0336] “ the remote control manager may wake up the ECU and the cellular modem, and send a message to an external device (e.g., a cloud, web application, user device such as a smart phone, etc.) to alert the user to the condition”)
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US 20230316817), herein after referred to as Fang, in view of Fang (US 20230154245), herein after referred to as 4245, Liu (US 20220092889), herein after referred to as Liu, and Brown (US 20190360739), herein after referred to as Brown.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the set of cloud-based APIs include a weather API.
In the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses:
wherein the set of cloud-based APIs include a weather API. (see at least [0062] “ By way of example, control circuitry 116 may be configured to process weather data from a cloud server or weather API (e.g. wunderground.com or darksky.net) to determine when to activate and deactivate the heating system 120.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to include a weather API in the set of cloud-based APIs as taught by Brown to determine when top operate the heating system [0062].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 9, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the set of cloud-based APIs include a weather API.
In the same field of endeavor, Brown discloses:
wherein the set of cloud-based APIs include a weather API. (see at least [0062] “ By way of example, control circuitry 116 may be configured to process weather data from a cloud server or weather API (e.g. wunderground.com or darksky.net) to determine when to activate and deactivate the heating system 120.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to include a weather API in the set of cloud-based APIs as taught by Brown to determine when top operate the heating system [0062].
Claims 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US 20230316817), herein after referred to as Fang, in view of Fang (US 20230154245), herein after referred to as 4245, Liu (US 20220092889), herein after referred to as Liu, and Ramic (US 20220122387), herein after referred to as Ramic.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 19, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein one of the plurality of user-customized sequences includes (i) an event-based trigger where rain is detected at the vehicle while at least one window of the vehicle is at least partially open and (ii) a respective action includes a text message or push notification to a mobile computing device associated with the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Ramic discloses:
wherein one of the plurality of user-customized sequences includes (i) an event-based trigger where rain is detected at the vehicle while at least one window of the vehicle is at least partially open (see at least [0028] “the event determination component 116 can determine a trigger event based on the determination that it is raining or likely to rain, and that a window of the vehicle 140 is open”)
and (ii) a respective action includes a text message or push notification to a mobile computing device associated with the user. (see at least [0028] “The direct action API 112 can then generate the event data message including information indicating that the window is open and that it is raining or likely to rain in a location near the vehicle 140.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle connectivity field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to include as the user-customized sequence (i) an event-based trigger where rain is detected at the vehicle while at least one window of the vehicle is at least partially open and (ii) a respective action includes a text message or push notification to a mobile computing device associated with the user as taught by Ramic to prevent rain damage [0030].
Regarding Claims 24, modified Fang discloses the limitations of Claim 23, but Fang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein one of the plurality of user-customized sequences includes (i) an event-based trigger where rain is detected at the vehicle while at least one window of the vehicle is at least partially open and (ii) a respective action includes a text message or push notification to a mobile computing device associated with the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Ramic discloses:
wherein one of the plurality of user-customized sequences includes (i) an event-based trigger where rain is detected at the vehicle while at least one window of the vehicle is at least partially open (see at least [0028] “the event determination component 116 can determine a trigger event based on the determination that it is raining or likely to rain, and that a window of the vehicle 140 is open”)
and (ii) a respective action includes a text message or push notification to a mobile computing device associated with the user. (see at least [0028] “The direct action API 112 can then generate the event data message including information indicating that the window is open and that it is raining or likely to rain in a location near the vehicle 140.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle connectivity field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fang to include as the user-customized sequence (i) an event-based trigger where rain is detected at the vehicle while at least one window of the vehicle is at least partially open and (ii) a respective action includes a text message or push notification to a mobile computing device associated with the user as taught by Ramic to prevent rain damage [0030].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights