Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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.
Claims 1–3, 5, 6 and 10–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-65260 (published 11 April 2013) (“Ariki”); US Patent 6,606,027 (patented 12 August 2003) (“Reeves”); US Patent 9,762,195 (patented 12 September 2017) (“Tao”) and US Patent Application Publication 2014/0270320 (published 18 September 2014) (“O’Polka”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki; Reeves; Tao; O’Polka and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0056326 (published 25 February 2021) (“Kumar”).
Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki; Reeves; Tao; O’Polka and JPH10283592A (published 23 October 1998) (“Tsuchiya”).
Claims 14–16, 18, 19 and 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002-133596 A (published 2002) (“Mizuishi”); Reeves and Ariki.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuishi; Reeves; Ariki and Kumar.
Claims 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuishi; Reeves; Ariki and Tsuchiya.
Claim 1 is drawn to “a system for generating spatial audio alerts.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Ariki reference.
Claim 1
The Ariki Reference
“1. A system for generating spatial audio alerts, the system comprising:
The Ariki reference similarly describes a vehicular alarm device corresponding to the claimed system. Ariki at Abs., ¶¶ 1, 23, FIG.1.
“one or more ultrasonic transducers disposed in a cab of a truck;
Ariki’s device likewise includes arrays 31–34, each containing a set of ultrasonic elements 30, disposed in various interior, or cab, positions of a vehicle 100, including the dash 51, seats, 41 and headrests 42. Id. at ¶¶ 38, 42, FIGs.2, 3(c).
“one or more sensors disposed in or around the truck;
Ariki’s device includes a danger detection unit 10 corresponding to the claimed sensor. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28, FIG.1. Unit 10 detects, or senses, the distance and direction between a point of interest and vehicle 100. Id.
“one or more processors; and
“one or more computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform a method comprising:
Ariki’s device includes control unit 20 corresponding to the claimed processors and computer readable media—namely, Ariki includes a CPU and ROM. Id. at ¶ 30, FIG.1. Control unit 20 performs the process of controlling Ariki’s device. Id.
“detecting, by the one or more sensors, a hazard;
Ariki’s control process includes using danger detection unit 10 to detect a danger, point of interest, or hazard. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28.
“identifying a direction of the hazard relative to a driver of the truck; and
Control unit 20 uses the data from danger detection unit 10 to detect the direction and distance of the hazard relative to vehicle 100. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28, 44–56, FIG.5(a).
“generating a spatial audio alert,
“wherein generating a spatial audio alert comprises emitting, from the one or more ultrasonic transducers, an ultrasonic carrier wave modulated with audio content directed toward a location based on the direction of the hazard,
“wherein the ultrasonic carrier wave demodulates upon contacting an interior surface of the cab of the truck and generates a spatial audio alert audible from the location based on the direction of the hazard, wherein the ultrasonic carrier wave is generated based on a type of the interior surface of the cab of the truck.”
Control unit 20 outputs a spatial audio alert using ultrasonic transducers 30. Id. at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). The alert, like the claimed alert, is an ultrasonic carrier wave modulated with audio content and directed to a position relative to a driver (e.g., left and/or right ear) to position the alert relative to the driver in an analogous manner to the position of the detected hazard relative to vehicle 100. Id. The modulated audio self-demodulates due to phase convergence to recreate sound at the directed position (e.g., the user’s ears, which coincides with the headrest 42). Id. at ¶¶ 31, 141–144, FIG.13.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Ariki reference describes a device that corresponds closely to the claimed system. Ariki does not anticipate the claimed system, however, because the Ariki reference does not describe its vehicle as a truck. Ariki also does not describe configuring its ultrasonic transducers so that the emitted spatial audio alerts demodulate upon contacting an interior surface of a cab of a truck. Ariki does not describe generating its ultrasonic carrier wave based on a type of the interior surface of the cab of the truck.
The Ariki reference describes a device for providing directional alerts in a vehicle. The Reeves reference similarly describes a vehicle safety sensor system capable of detecting and alerting a driver about the presence of obstacles, like other vehicles. Reeves at Abs. col. 1 ll. 13–25, col. 3 ll. 16–37. Reeves describes a truck, such as a tractor trailer, with a tractor and a trailer. Id. at col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 9, FIG.2. Reeves teaches and suggests mounting sensors 100 in various places, including the tractor and its trailer in order to detect the distance between the vehicle and objects around the vehicle. Id. Read in combination with Ariki’s description of a danger detection unit in a vehicle, Reeves reasonably suggests applying Ariki’s device to a tractor trailer with sensors located on the truck’s tractor and the truck’s trailer.
Ariki describes generating sounds aimed at a driver’s left and right ears in order to spatially position an alert to correspond to the distance and direction of a detected point of interest. Ariki at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). Though Ariki specifically describes positioning the alerts at a driver’s ears so that the modulated acoustic waves self-demodulate at the driver’s ears, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that drivers have different sized heads and ear positions making it impossible without some driver sensor mechanism to aim sound at the ears of all potential drivers.
The Tao reference further teaches and suggests that modulated ultrasonic waves, such as those described in Ariki, may be aimed at a surface, such as a wall, where the waves demodulate to produce an audible signal. Tao at col. 2 ll. 52–63, col. 4 ll. 21–52, FIG.1. The audible signal will reflect off the surface, such that the audible signal appears to emanate from the surface. Id.
Reading Ariki and Tao together, would have reasonably suggested the claimed invention. Ariki describes a base device that uses self-demodulating ultrasonic waves to spatially position audible alerts to simulate a position of a corresponding obstacle. Tao further explains that by positioning the alerts to self-demodulate near a surface, the audible alerts will reflect off a surface to create an illusion of presence at the location. These teachings reasonably suggest their combination such that Ariki’s alerts are aimed for self-demodulation at any fixed location in the vehicle (e.g., near a driver’s ears, such as the headrest 42 that will be proximate to the driver’s ears) in order to impress upon the driver the relative location of an obstacle relative to a vehicle. In that case, the sounds will self-demodulate at the surface of the vehicle, such as the headrest or any other interior surface, in order to alert the driver as to the presence of an obstacle at that location.
The O’Polka reference relates to the foregoing combination of Ariki, Reeves and Tao because it provides extensive background information relating to indirect sounds (e.g., reflections) and how to manage them in an acoustic environment. See O’Polka at ¶¶ 14, 15. O’Polka teaches that a room may be provided with sound-controlling sidewall panels, shapers and other elements to produce a defined, stronger, vivid and focused sound picture by using harder, denser, flatter, smoother, glossier, non-porous and more acoustically specular materials. Id. at ¶ 97. On the other hand, when a broader, less defined, weaker, more sound diffused and less focused sound is desired with a wider beam spread pattern and focal area is desired, O’Polka teaches using rougher, less flat, less smooth, matte, less dense, more porous, sound absorbing materials. Id. at ¶ 98.
O’Polka’s background teachings, read against the teachings of Tao, reasonably suggest that the quality of the resulting acoustic source positioning will be impacted significantly by the materials used for sound reflections. In particular, one of ordinary skill would have known from O’Polka that some materials may absorb sound and prevent operation, which suggests that absorbing materials should generally be avoided for generating reflections. One of ordinary skill would have also recognized that vehicles generally include both reflective surfaces, like glass, and absorptive surfaces, like cushioned seats.1 And the Ariki reference teaches a beam-steering feature that allows a beam to be steered towards a particular location by controlling the phase and amplitude of a set of ultrasonic signals. Ariki at ¶¶ 30, 31. Putting these things together, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably chosen to operate Ariki’s loudspeaker array in a way that optimizes reflections by steering a beam towards a reflective vehicle surface instead of towards an absorptive surface. For example, if a sound is to be positioned as if located behind the user, it will be aimed at the vehicle’s rear window rather than at the rear seat. The steering would be accomplished using Ariki’s existing beam-steering feature that positions sounds by phase and amplitude adjustment of carrier waves. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G) (O’Polka’s teachings about the various abilities of surfaces to reflect and absorb sound would have led one of ordinary skill to avoid using such surfaces for reflections; and Ariki’s teachings about a beamformer would have taught how to avoid such surfaces by adjusting the phase and amplitude of ultrasonic carriers). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the O’Polka references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more ultrasonic transducers are configured to emit ultrasonic carrier waves in a plurality of directions.”
Ariki describes emitting ultrasonic carrier waves towards both a driver’s left ear and right ear. Ariki at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the O’Polka references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more ultrasonic transducers are attached to at least one of:
“a ceiling of the cab of the truck,
“an interior surface of a windshield of the cab of the truck,
“a dashboard of the cab of the truck or an instrument panel thereof,
“a console of the cab of the truck,
“a door of the cab of the truck,
“a wall of the cab of the truck, a pillar of the cab of the truck, or
“a floor of the cab of the truck.”
Ariki describes positioning arrays 31–34 in the dashboard 51. Ariki at ¶ 42, FIG.3(c). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the O’Polka references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one sensor is used for autonomous navigation.”
Ariki describes detecting the distance between vehicle 100 and obstacles 200. Ariki at ¶¶ 24–28, 44–56, FIG.5(a). The Kumar reference further teaches and suggests using distance sensors to detect objects in order to autonomously park a vehicle. Kumar at ¶ 8, Read in light of Ariki, Kumar’s teachings reasonably suggest using distance sensors for both autonomous navigation and for obstacle detection in order to produce alerts. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao, the O’Polka and the Kumar references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one sensor is attached to a trailer of the truck.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of embodying Ariki’s alarm device in a truck and to detect points of interest using sensors (e.g., Reeves sensors 100) in a trailer of a truck. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the O’Polka references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hazard comprises a stopped vehicle, a merging vehicle, an object, a pothole, a construction roadblock, a traffic incident, or a lane closure.”
Ariki describes points of interest as obstacles 200, such as merging vehicles and pedestrians. Ariki at ¶ 25. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the O’Polka references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spatial audio alert comprises a spoken language alert.”
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spoken language alert comprises a nature of the hazard.”
Claim 9 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spoken language alert comprises a location of the hazard.”
Claims 7–9 are analyzed together. Ariki describes emitting alarm sounds. Ariki at ¶¶ 44–56, FIG.5(b). Ariki at Ariki does not describe emitting spoken language alerts. The Tsuchiya reference, however, further teaches and suggests a vehicle alert system that provides accurate information to assist navigation, particularly on narrow roads. Tsuchiya at ¶¶ 10, 15, 17, Tsuchiya’s system includes a voice generating unit 13 that generates spoken alerts, such as “left front caution,” which indicates a position and nature of an obstacle. Id. Read in the context of Ariki, Tsuchiya reasonably suggests modifying Ariki’s system to similarly include a voice generating unit to produce an alert that includes a voice to indicate the nature and position of a detected obstacle. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao, the O’Polka and the Tsuchiya references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the method further comprises:
“repeatedly emitting the spatial audio alert;
“determining that the hazard no longer exists; and
“ceasing to emit the spatial audio alert.”
Similarly, Ariki describes repeatedly emitting alerts to match movement of an obstacle relative to vehicle 100. Ariki at ¶¶ 32, 52. Ariki describes detecting the absence/presence of obstacles 200 and emitting alerts only when obstacle 200 is present. Id. at ¶ 80. While Ariki does not describe the cessation of an alert when an obstacle 200 is no longer detected, one of ordinary skill would have immediately recognized that desirable result. Common sense dictates there is plainly no benefit to emitting an alert in perpetuity after an obstacle is detected. Rather, one of ordinary skill would have configured Ariki’s system to only output alerts when an obstacle 200 is relevant by being detected. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the O’Polka references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, and further requires the following:
“wherein repeatedly emitting the spatial audio alert comprises dynamically adjusting a volume of the spatial audio alert based on a distance between the hazard and the truck.”
Claim 12 depends on claim 11, and further requires the following:
“wherein the volume of the spatial audio alert increases as the distance between the hazard and the truck decreases.”
Claims 11 and 12 are treated together. Ariki similarly describes adjusting alert volumes based on distance, such that the volume increases as an obstacle 200 approaches vehicle 100 and reducing volume as an obstacle 200 moves away from vehicle 100. Ariki at ¶ 78. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the O’Polka references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 13 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the truck is retrofitted with the one or more ultrasonic transducers.”
This claim requires retrofitting a truck with an ultrasonic transducer. This is a product-by-process limitation. It is not apparent how the process of retrofitting alters the structure of the claimed system. Accordingly, this claim is not limiting on the scope of claim 1. In any case, given the detailed teachings of Ariki concerning the type and location of speaker arrays 31–34, it would have been obvious to either build a new car with Ariki’s ultrasonic speaker arrays 31–34 or to retrofit an existing car with Ariki’s ultrasonic speaker arrays 31–34 using known automotive manufacturing techniques. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Ariki, the Reeves, the Tao and the O’Polka references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 is drawn to “a system for generating spatial audio alerts.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Mizuishi reference.
Claim 14
The Mizuishi Reference
“14. A system for generating spatial audio alerts, the system comprising:
Mizuishi describes a system to detect hazards and the road and alert a user with spatialized audio. Mizuishi at ¶¶ 1–9, FIGs.1, 2.
“a plurality of speakers disposed in a cab of a truck;
Mizuishi’s system includes speakers FL, FR, BL, BR. Id. at ¶ 12, FIG.2.
Mizuishi does not describe its vehicle as a truck.
“one or more sensors disposed in or around the truck;
The system includes external millimeter wave sensors. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 12.
“one or more processors; and
“one or more computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform a method comprising:
Mizuishi does not describe the use of a processor that executes instructions stored on a computer readable media.
“detecting, by the one or more sensors, a hazard;
“identifying a direction of the hazard relative to a driver of the truck; and
Mizuishi’s system detects a hazard, like another vevhicle, and its direction relative to the driver. Id. at ¶ 12.
“generating a spatial audio alert, wherein generating a spatial audio alert comprises controlling a phase of a sound wave , the sound wave having a frequency in an audible frequency spectrum.”
The system then adjusts the phase of an alert signal and provides it to the speakers to create a spatialized audible alert. Id. at ¶ 14. The alert signal itself is audible (i.e., it is not modulated to an ultrasonic frequency range), the directivity comes from the use of highly directive speakers. Id.
Table 2
The table above shows that the Mizuishi reference describes a device that corresponds closely to the claimed system. Mizuishi does not anticipate the claimed system, however, because it does not describe its vehicle as a truck. Further, Mizuishi does not describe the claimed processor and computer readable media.
The Mizuishi reference describes a device for providing spatialized alerts in a vehicle. The Reeves reference similarly describes a vehicle safety sensor system capable of detecting and alerting a driver about the presence of obstacles, like other vehicles. Reeves at Abs. col. 1 ll. 13–25, col. 3 ll. 16–37. Reeves describes a truck, such as a tractor trailer, with a tractor and a trailer. Id. at col. 2 l. 65 to col. 3 l. 9, FIG.2. Reeves teaches and suggests mounting sensors 100 in various places, including the tractor and its trailer in order to detect the distance between the vehicle and objects around the vehicle. Id. Read in combination with Mizuishi’s description of a danger detection unit in a vehicle, Reeves reasonably suggests applying Mizuishi’s device to a tractor trailer with sensors located on the truck’s tractor and the truck’s trailer.
The Ariki reference is related to Mizuishi because both relate to producing spatialized audio alerts in a vehicle. Ariki at ¶¶ 1–6. Ariki further teaches and suggests implementing the audio functions alerts with a microcomputer that includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM and I/O. Ariki at ¶ 30. The CPU implements the audio functions by executing a program stored in ROM/RAM. Id. This would have reasonably suggested using the same technique to control audio production in Mizuishi. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mizuishi, the Reeves and the Ariki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein generating a spatial audio alert comprises controlling an amplitude of the sound wave
Mizuishi describes adjusting amplitude/volume based on distance, such that the volume increases as an obstacle approaches vehicle and reducing volume as an obstacle moves away from the vehicle. Mizuishi at ¶ 11. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mizuishi, the Reeves and the Ariki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the plurality of speakers are attached to at least one of:
“a ceiling of the cab of the truck,
“an interior surface of a windshield of the cab of the truck,
“a dashboard of the cab of the truck or an instrument panel thereof,
“a console of the cab of the truck,
“a door of the cab of the truck,
“a wall of the cab of the truck,
“a pillar of the cab of the truck, or
“a floor of the cab of the truck.”
Mizuishi describes positioning its speakers somewhere in the vehicle, such as in a car navigation display (i.e., console). Mizuishi at ¶ 12, 14, FIG.3. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mizuishi, the Reeves and the Ariki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one sensor is used for autonomous navigation.”
Mizuishi describes detecting the distance between the driver’s vehicle and another vehicle. Mizuishi at ¶ 12. The Kumar reference further teaches and suggests using distance sensors to detect objects in order to autonomously park a vehicle. Kumar at ¶ 8, Read in light of Ariki, Kumar’s teachings reasonably suggest using distance sensors for both autonomous navigation and for obstacle detection in order to produce alerts. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mizuishi, the Reeves, the Ariki and the Kumar references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one sensor is attached to a trailer of the truck.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 14, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of embodying Mizuishi’s alarm device in a truck and to detect points of interest using sensors (e.g., Reeves sensors 100) in a trailer of a truck. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mizuishi, the Reeves and the Ariki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hazard comprises a stopped vehicle, a merging vehicle, an object, a pothole, a construction roadblock, a traffic incident, or a lane closure.”
Mizuishi describes points detecting other vehicles (i.e., stopped vehicles, merging vehicles, or vehicles in any relationship relative to the driver’s vehicle, as long as they are approaching in a relative sense). Mizuishi at ¶ 15. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mizuishi, the Reeves and the Ariki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spatial audio alert comprises a spoken language alert.”
Claim 21 depends on claim 20, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spoken language alert comprises a nature of the hazard.”
Claim 22 depends on claim 20, and further requires the following:
“wherein the spoken language alert comprises a location of the hazard.”
Claims 20–22 are analyzed together. Mizuishi describes emitting alarm sounds. Mizuishi at ¶ 15. Mizuishi does not describe emitting spoken language alerts. The Tsuchiya reference, however, further teaches and suggests a vehicle alert system that provides accurate information to assist navigation, particularly on narrow roads. Tsuchiya at ¶¶ 10, 15, 17, Tsuchiya’s system includes a voice generating unit 13 that generates spoken alerts, such as “left front caution,” which indicates a position and nature of an obstacle. Id. Read in the context of Mizuishi, Tsuchiya reasonably suggests modifying Ariki’s system to similarly include a voice generating unit to produce an alert that includes a voice to indicate the nature and position of a detected obstacle. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mizuishi, the Reeves, the Ariki and the Tsuchiya references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 23 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the method further comprises:
“repeatedly emitting the spatial audio alert;
“determining that the hazard no longer exists; and
“ceasing to emit the spatial audio alert.”
Similarly, Mizuishi describes repeatedly emitting alerts and changing them each time to match movement of an obstacle relative to the driver’s vehicle. Mizuishi at ¶¶ 11, 12, 22. Mizuishi describes detecting the absence/presence of other vehicles and emitting alerts only when vehicles are present. Id. at ¶ 12. Mizuishi also describes ceasing warning sounds when a hazard no longer exists. Id. at ¶ 11. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mizuishi, the Reeves and the Ariki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 24 depends on claim 23, and further requires the following:
“wherein repeatedly emitting the spatial audio alert comprises dynamically adjusting a volume of the spatial audio alert based on a distance between the hazard and the truck.”
Claim 25 depends on claim 24, and further requires the following:
“wherein the volume of the spatial audio alert increases as the distance between the hazard and the truck decreases.”
Claims 24 and 25 are treated together. Mizuishi similarly describes adjusting alert volumes based on distance, such that the volume increases as another vehicle approaches and reducing volume as the vehicle moves away from the driver’s. Mizuishi at ¶¶ 11, 12, 22. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mizuishi, the Reeves and the Ariki references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Summary
Claims 1–25 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (17 June 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 6–8 further includes comments pertaining to the rejections included in the Non-Final Rejection (17 March 2026). Those comments have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
8/21/2026
1 This fact is worthy of Official notice.
Prosecution Insights