DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 20 have been amended. Claims 6 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Park in view of Wang fails to disclose of causing at least one LED in the external electronic device to blink based on identifying movement from the surrounding area to an area different from the surrounding area.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park discloses:
“The display 160 may include, for example, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a light-emitting diode (LED) display” ¶ 55
“determining a second mode, based on a second signal received from the external electronic device 102 in a second area via the wireless communication circuit (e.g., the wireless communication circuit 415 of FIG. 4A), and displaying a second menu corresponding to the determined second mode on the display” ¶ 123, see also ¶ 124,-126
Wherein it can be seen that Park discloses of a light emitting diode (LED) display and under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the display changing based on identified movement from the surrounding area to an area different from the surrounding area is taught by Park.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the newly amended limitations, the limitations were not addressed in the prior Office Action of record and will be addressed in the detailed action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-10, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (20190006891; hereinafter Park) in view of Wang (20210323502; already of record) in further view of Fujiyama et al. (20210311493; hereinafter Fujiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a vehicle control apparatus comprising (Park: Abstract):
a communication circuit (Park: “The communication interface 170 may include various communication circuitry and establish communication between the electronic device 101 and an external device (e.g., a first external electronic device 102” ¶ 56); and
a processor operatively connected to the communication circuit (Park: “The processor 120 may include various processing circuitry, such as, for example, and without limitation, one or more of a dedicated processor, a central processing unit (CPU)” ¶ 48, Fig. 1), wherein the processor is configured to:
determine whether an external electronic device is located in a surrounding area formed within a predetermined distance from a vehicle, based on receiving data associated with a location of the external electronic device from the external electronic device, through the communication circuit (Park: Fig. 1, “the electronic device may be ... an electronic key” ¶ 41, “the first external electronic device 102 may determine an area where the electronic device is located, based on at least one of a signal transmitted and received in proximity communication with the electronic device 101” ¶ 61, see also Fig. 5, ¶ 153); and
execute a function, which corresponds to a predetermined area and which is associated with control of the vehicle, based on a fact that the external electronic device is located in the predetermined area of the surrounding area (Park: “The first external electronic device 102 may determine the operation mode of the first external electronic device 102, based on the determined area, and may control operation of the first external electronic device 102” ¶ 61, “At least one function or operation performed by the electronic device 101 may be performed in the first external electronic device 102, and at least one function or operation performed by the first external electronic device 102 may be performed by the electronic device 101” ¶ 62, see also Fig. 5, ¶ 153), and a user input to a button included in the external electronic device (Park: “transfer command or data, which is input from a user” ¶ 54, see also ¶ 136)
...
identify that the external electronic device is moving from the surrounding area to an area different from the surrounding area based on data indicating a location of the external electronic device (Park: “the electronic device 101-a, 101-b, or 101-c may move from the first area 510 to the second area 520, or may move from the second area 520 to the third area 530” ¶ 144), and
wherein the surrounding area formed within a specified distance is configured to include at least one of a low frequency (LF) sensing area, or a radio frequency (RF) sensing area, or any combination thereof (Park: “The communication module 220 may have ... a radio frequency (RF) module 229, or the like” ¶ 67, “at least one of the electronic device 101-a, 101-b, or 101-c and the external electronic device 102 located in each area 530, 520, or 510 may determine an area (or distance) where a partner electronic device (e.g., the external electronic device 102 in the case of the electronic device 101-a, 101-b, or 101-c) is located, based on a signal transmitted and received via a short-range communication circuit (e.g., the second communication circuit 417 and 437 of FIG. 4A)” ¶ 146, see also ¶ 57).
While Park discloses an input from a user such as recited in paragraph 54 and 136, Park remains silent regarding [user input to a button included in the external electronic device] is maintained for a predetermined time or longer than the predetermined time.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wang teaches the claim limitation of [user input to a button included in the external electronic device] is maintained for a predetermined time or longer than the predetermined time (Wang: “the user presses the Push Switch seven times in ten seconds” ¶ 54).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the input system of Park so that it also includes the element of inputs maintained for a predetermined time, as taught by Wang, in order to improve function execution based on a variety of inputs (Wang: ¶ 54, 55, 57).
Secondly, Park in view of Wang fails to teach cause at least one light-emitting diode (LED) included in the external electronic device to blink based on identifying that the external electronic device moves from the surrounding area to an area different from the surrounding area.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fujiyama teaches the claimed limitation of a light-emitting diode (LED) of the external electronic device to blink based on identifying that the external electronic device moves from the surrounding area to an area different from the surrounding area (Fujiyama: Fig. 3 Element 52, “The electronic key 50 includes ... an LED (display) 52” ¶ 56, “When the electronic key 50 enters the third area 62, the vehicle ECU 30 detects that the electronic key 50 enters the third area 62 (SS4). Then, the vehicle ECU 30 transitions to a vehicle operation waiting state (SS5). The electronic key 50 is notified of the transition to a vehicle operation waiting state (SS6). When the electronic key 50 receives the notification of transition to a vehicle operation waiting state, the LED 52 blinks (SS7)” ¶ 69).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the external electronic device system of Park so that it also includes the element of blinking an LED, as taught by Fujiyama, in order to improve user notification (Fujiyama: ¶ 113, 167).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Wang fail to teach the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
cause the at least one LED blinking at a first period to blink at a second period different from the first period based on identifying the moving.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fujiyama teaches the claimed limitation of cause the at least one LED blinking at a first period to blink at a second period different from the first period based on identifying the moving (Fujiyama: “When authentication of the electronic key 140 is executed, the vehicle 110 enters an operation waiting state, and a light emitting diode (LED) is mainly used as a method for notifying a user that the vehicle 110 enters the operation waiting state. Although the LED can blink, change a blinking cycle, or change a light color” ¶ 9, “When the electronic key 50 enters the third area 62, the vehicle ECU 30 detects that the electronic key 50 enters the third area 62 (SS4). Then, the vehicle ECU 30 transitions to a vehicle operation waiting state (SS5). The electronic key 50 is notified of the transition to a vehicle operation waiting state (SS6). When the electronic key 50 receives the notification of transition to a vehicle operation waiting state, the LED 52 blinks (SS7)” ¶ 69, see also ¶ 78, 80).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Park so that it also includes the element of changing the blinking period of the LED, as taught by Fujiyama, in order to improve user notification (Fujiyama: ¶ 113, 167).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Wang in further view of Fujiyama teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
output a guide sound indicating that the external electronic device moves from the surrounding area to an area different from the surrounding area (Park: “According to an embodiment ... and the third mode includes a function of outputting at least one alarm” ¶ 118), through a speaker included in the vehicle (Park: “The audio module 280 may process sound information that is input or output via, for example, a speaker 282” ¶ 79) based on identifying that the external electronic device moves from the surrounding area to the area different from the surrounding area (Park: “The third mode is a mode in which the electronic device 101 or the external electronic device 102 (e.g., a vehicle) operates when the electronic device 101 is located in the third area” ¶ 176, “The third mode may include a function by which the electronic device (e.g., the electronic device 101-c of FIG. 5) transmits a control signal for outputting at least one alarm” ¶ 177).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches a vehicle control system comprising:
a vehicle control apparatus included in a vehicle (Park: “an external electronic device (e.g., a vehicle) 102” ¶ 102); and
an external electronic device including a smart key (Park: “embodiments may include an electronic device (e.g., a portable terminal) 101” ¶ 102),
wherein the vehicle control apparatus includes:
a first communication circuit configured to establish a communication link with the external electronic device (Park: Fig. 4B Element 435); and
a first processor operatively connected to the first communication circuit, wherein the external electronic device includes (Park: “The processor 120 may include various processing circuitry, such as, for example, and without limitation, one or more of a dedicated processor, a central processing unit (CPU) ... operations or data processing relating to the control and/or communication” ¶ 48):
a second communication circuit configured to establish a communication link with the vehicle control apparatus (Park: Fig. 4B Element 101);
at least one light emitting diode (LED) (Park: “The display 160 may include, for example, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a light-emitting diode (LED) display” ¶ 55);
a button (Park: Fig. 4B Element 101, see also ¶ 65, 76); and
a second processor operatively connected to the second communication circuit, wherein the second processor is configured to (Park: Fig. 4B Element 101):
transmit data indicating a location of the external electronic device to the vehicle control apparatus through the second communication circuit (Park: Fig. 1, “the first external electronic device 102 may determine an area where the electronic device is located, based on at least one of a signal transmitted and received in proximity communication with the electronic device 101” ¶ 61); and
turn on the at least one LED for indicating that the external electronic device enters a surrounding area formed within a predetermined distance from the vehicle, based on receiving a signal for causing the at least one LED to be turned on from the vehicle control apparatus (Park: “determining a second mode, based on a second signal received from the external electronic device 102 in a second area via the wireless communication circuit (e.g., the wireless communication circuit 415 of FIG. 4A, see also Fig. 5, ¶ 153), and displaying a second menu corresponding to the determined second mode on the display” ¶ 123), and wherein the first processor is configured to:
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 10, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim 13, the claim recites analogous limitations to claims 7, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 14-15 and 19-20, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1-2 and 6-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wang in further view of Fujiyama as applied to claim 1, 7, 9-10, 13-15, and 20 above, and further in view of Van Wiemeersch et al. (20230174018; hereinafter Van, already of record).
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Wang in further view of Fujiyama teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the predetermined area includes a first predetermined area (Park: “when the electronic device 101-b moves from the second area 520 to the third area 530” ¶ 153),
wherein the function includes a first function (Park: “the external electronic device 102 may change the operation mode” ¶ 153), and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
cause a headlamp of the vehicle to blink based on the external electronic device being located in the first predetermined area corresponding to a front of the vehicle in the surrounding area (Park: Fig. 5 Elements 510, 520, 530, “... control the headlight” ¶ 153); and
execute the first function of causing a frunk of the vehicle to be opened (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Van).
While Park in view of Wang disclose unlocking and opening a door, Park in view of Wang fail to explicitly disclose a frunk, in a similar field of endeavor, Van teaches the claim limitation opening a frunk (Van: “front trunk 36, in which case, the corresponding powered door may be actuated to the open position” ¶ 53). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the function system of Park so that it also includes the element of opening a frunk, as taught by Van, in order to improve accessibility (Van: ¶ 53, 54, 55).
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Wang in further view of Fujiyama teaches the vehicle control system of claim 10, wherein the predetermined area includes a first predetermined area corresponding to a front of the vehicle (Park: Fig. 5 Elements 510, 520, 530), a second predetermined area corresponding to a rear of the vehicle, a third predetermined area corresponding to a right side of the vehicle, and a fourth predetermined area corresponding to a left side of vehicle (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Van).
While Park in view of Wang describe predetermined areas around the vehicle, Park in view of Wang do not explicitly recite a second predetermined area corresponding to a rear of the vehicle, a third predetermined area corresponding to a right side of the vehicle, and a fourth predetermined area corresponding to a left side of vehicle, in a similar field of endeavor, Van teaches the claim limitation a rear side of the vehicle, a right side of the vehicle, and a left side of the vehicle, in the surrounding area (Van: Fig. 2A Element 52A, 52B, 52C, 52D, 52F, “For purposes of description herein, the terms “upper,” “lower,” “right,” “left,” “rear,” “front,” “vertical,” “horizontal,” and derivatives thereof shall relate to the concepts as oriented in FIG. 1” ¶ 38). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the indicator system of Park so that it also includes the element of a rear of the vehicle, as taught by Van, in order to improve vehicle function control based on area (Van: ¶ 53).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wang in further view of Fujiyama as applied to claim 1, 7, 9-10, 13-15, and 20 above, and further in view of Collins, II (20190389485; hereinafter Collins, already of record).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Wang in further view of Fujiyama teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
cause the at least one LED emitting light in a first color to emit light (Park: “determining a second mode, based on a second signal received from the external electronic device 102 in a second area via the wireless communication circuit (e.g., the wireless communication circuit 415 of FIG. 4A), and displaying a second menu corresponding to the determined second mode on the display” ¶ 123) in a second color different from the first color (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Collings) based on identifying the moving (Park: “based on a third signal received from the external electronic device 102 in a third area outside the second area via the wireless communication circuit (e.g., the wireless communication circuit 415 of FIG. 4A), and displaying a third menu corresponding to the determined third mode on the display” ¶ 124).
While Park in view of Wang disclose of altering the LED, Park in view of Wang does not explicitly recite a second color different from the first color, in a similar field of endeavor, Collins teaches the claim limitation a second color different from the first color (Collings: Fig. 1 Element 12, “The indicator 54 may correspond to a light source that may be operable to flash and/or change colors to communicate a state of the scanning apparatus 12. The indicator 54 may correspond to a light emitting diode (LED)” ¶ 31). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Park so that it also includes the element of a second color different from the first color, as taught by Collins, in order to improve conveying information (Collins: ¶ 19, 31).
Claim(s) 3-5, 12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wang in further view of Fujiyama as applied to claim 1, 7, 9-10, 13-15, and 20 above, and further in view of Jahn (20120235835, already of record) and Van.
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Wang teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the predetermined area includes a second predetermined area (Park: Fig. 5 Elements 510, 520, 530, “electronic device 101-a, 101-b, or 101-c may be located in a first area 510, a second area 520, or a third area 530, according to the distance to the external electronic device 102” ¶ 144),
wherein the function includes a second function (Park: “the external electronic device 102 may change the operation mode” ¶ 153), and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
cause a tail lamp of the vehicle (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Jahn) to blink based on the external electronic device being located in the second predetermined area (Park: “when it is sensed that the electronic device 101-a approaches, the external electronic device 102 (e.g., a vehicle) may operate in the third mode and may control the headlight of the vehicle to be turned on/off” ¶ 160) corresponding to a rear of the vehicle in the surrounding area (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Van); and
execute the second function of causing a trunk of the vehicle to be opened (see obviousness discussion pertaining to Van).
While Park recites blinking a headlight of a vehicle, and it is noted that any external vehicle light control may be applicable; however, for the purposes of compact prosecution, Park in view of Wang does not explicitly recite a taillight of a vehicle. In a similar field of endeavor, Jahn teaches the claim limitation of blinking a taillight of a vehicle (Jahn: “A control function "n" may be activated ... such as turning on the vehicle headlights, reverse lights”) ¶ 27. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the indicator system of Park so that it also includes the element of taillights, as taught by Jahn, in order to improve vehicle indications based on area (Jahn: ¶ 21, 27).
While Park in view of Wang describe predetermined areas around the vehicle and a trunk, Park in view of Wang do not explicitly recite a rear of the vehicle in the surrounding area and execute the second function of causing a trunk of the vehicle to be opened, in a similar field of endeavor, Van teaches the claim limitation an area rear of the vehicle in the surrounding area (Van: Fig. 2A Element 52F, “For purposes of description herein, the terms “upper,” “lower,” “right,” “left,” “rear,” “front,” “vertical,” “horizontal,” and derivatives thereof shall relate to the concepts as oriented in FIG. 1” ¶ 38, “accessing the rear trunk 30 or front trunk 36, in which case, the corresponding powered door may be actuated to the open position” ¶ 53). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the indicator system of Park so that it also includes the element of a rear of the vehicle, as taught by Van, in order to improve vehicle function control based on area (Van: ¶ 53, 54, 55, 56).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Wang teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the predetermined area includes a third predetermined area (Park: Fig. 5 Elements 510, 520, 530, “electronic device 101-a, 101-b, or 101-c may be located in a first area 510, a second area 520, or a third area 530, according to the distance to the external electronic device 102” ¶ 144, see also ¶ 80),
wherein the function includes a third function (Park: “the external electronic device 102 may change the operation mode” ¶ 153), and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
cause at least one of a right side mirror lamp (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Jahn) included in a side mirror of the vehicle, or a lamp located on a right side surface of the vehicle, or any combination thereof to blink based on the external electronic device being located in the third predetermined area (Park: “when it is sensed that the electronic device 101-a approaches, the external electronic device 102 (e.g., a vehicle) may operate in the third mode and may control the headlight of the vehicle to be turned on/off” ¶ 160), which corresponds to a right side of the vehicle, in the surrounding area (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Van); and
execute the third function of causing a right door of the vehicle to be opened (Park: “include various functions by which the external electronic device 102 unlocks the door of the vehicle” ¶ 152).
While Park recites blinking a headlight of a vehicle with regional based control, it is noted that any external vehicle light control may be applicable; however, for the purposes of compact prosecution, Park does not explicitly recite a side mirror lamp of a vehicle. In a similar field of endeavor, Jahn teaches the claim limitation of blinking a side lamp of a vehicle (Jahn: “as turning on the vehicle headlights, reverse lights, or similar indicators that may assist in vehicle location”) ¶ 27. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the indicator system of Park so that it also includes the element of side lamps, as taught by Jahn, in order to improve vehicle indications based on area (Jahn: ¶ 21, 27).
While Park in view of Wang describe predetermined areas around the vehicle, Park in view of Wang do not explicitly recite a right side of the vehicle in the surrounding area, in a similar field of endeavor, Van teaches the claim limitation a right side of the vehicle in the surrounding area (Van: Fig. 2A Element 52B, 52D, “For purposes of description herein, the terms “upper,” “lower,” “right,” “left,” “rear,” “front,” “vertical,” “horizontal,” and derivatives thereof shall relate to the concepts as oriented in FIG. 1” ¶ 38). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the indicator system of Park so that it also includes the element of a rear of the vehicle, as taught by Van, in order to improve vehicle function control based on area (Van: ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Wang teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the predetermined area (Park: Fig. 5 Elements 510, 520, 530, “electronic device 101-a, 101-b, or 101-c may be located in a first area 510, a second area 520, or a third area 530, according to the distance to the external electronic device 102” ¶ 144, see also ¶ 80) includes a fourth predetermined area (see obviousness discussion pertaining to Van),
wherein the function includes a fourth function (Park: “the external electronic device 102 may change the operation mode” ¶ 153), and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
cause at least one of a left side mirror lamp included in a side mirror of the vehicle (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Jahn), or a lamp located on a left side surface of the vehicle, or any combination thereof to blink based on the external electronic device being located in the fourth predetermined area (Park: “when it is sensed that the electronic device 101-a approaches, the external electronic device 102 (e.g., a vehicle) may operate in the third mode and may control the headlight of the vehicle to be turned on/off” ¶ 160), which corresponds to a left side of the vehicle, in the surrounding area (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Van); and
execute the fourth function of causing a left door of the vehicle to be opened (Park: “include various functions by which the external electronic device 102 unlocks the door of the vehicle” ¶ 152).
While Park recites blinking a headlight of a vehicle with regional based control, it is noted that any external vehicle light control may be applicable; however, for the purposes of compact prosecution, Park does not explicitly recite a side mirror lamp of a vehicle. In a similar field of endeavor, Jahn teaches the claim limitation of blinking a side lamp of a vehicle (Jahn: “as turning on the vehicle headlights, reverse lights, or similar indicators that may assist in vehicle location”) ¶ 27. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the indicator system of Park so that it also includes the element of side lamps, as taught by Jahn, in order to improve vehicle indications based on area (Jahn: ¶ 21, 27).
While Park in view of Wang describe predetermined areas around the vehicle, Park in view of Wang do not explicitly recite a fourth area and a left side of the vehicle in the surrounding area, in a similar field of endeavor, Van teaches the claim limitation a fourth area and a left side of the vehicle in the surrounding area (Van: Fig. 2A Element 52A, 52C, 52E, 52F, “For purposes of description herein, the terms “upper,” “lower,” “right,” “left,” “rear,” “front,” “vertical,” “horizontal,” and derivatives thereof shall relate to the concepts as oriented in FIG. 1” ¶ 38). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the indicator system of Park so that it also includes the element of a rear of the vehicle, as taught by Van, in order to improve vehicle function control based on area (Van: ¶ 53).
In regards to claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claims 2, 3, 4, and 5, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 16-18, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 3-5, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hirose et al. (20220161759) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of position estimation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights