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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reference Sung et al [US 2022/0037776 A1] in view of Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1] does not teach or discloses “A vehicle antenna assembly, comprising: a vehicle structure having a recessed area; and an antenna assembly having a ground plane received within the recessed area.”
Examiner disagrees:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features “a recessed area” of the invention, as broadly as claimed Sung discloses a vehicle structure (Fig. 1, 100) having a recessed area (Fig. 2-3 & Paragraph [0043] “The communication apparatus for a vehicle 100 may be installed in a vehicle 1. Specifically, the communication apparatus for a vehicle 100 may be configured such that one surface is disposed to be form an outer surface of the vehicle 1, or disposed inside of the outer surface of the vehicle 1.”); and
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
479
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (the recessed area)]
PNG
media_image2.png
639
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen in Fig. 3 as annotated showing the recessed area in combination with Fig 8.
Furthermore, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually referring in page 5 of the arguments, i.e. “The generic statement that the device may be "disposed inside of the outer surface of the vehicle" refers to the device being installed beneath the headliner or inside the vehicle roof, not to a structured recess in an exterior vehicle panel that receives and exposes the ground plane of an antenna assembly.”, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As broadly as the applicant claims the recited limitation “a vehicle structure having a recessed area”, Sung teaches the recited limitation “a vehicle structure having a recessed area” in Fig. 1, 1 and 100 & Paragraph [0043] “The communication apparatus for a vehicle 100 may be installed in a vehicle 1. Specifically, the communication apparatus for a vehicle 100 may be configured such that one surface is disposed to be form an outer surface of the vehicle 1, or disposed inside of the outer surface of the vehicle 1.” [Examiner Note: in Fig. 7 with 8 of another embodiment in combination with Paragraph [0023], “the communication apparatus for a vehicle 100 may be configured such that one surface is disposed to be form disposed inside of the outer surface of the vehicle 1” One of ordinary skill in the art would have understand with evidence provided by the prior art with the Figures 7 with Figure 8 in combination of the paragraph [0023] that Sung dispose or install the antenna 300 inside the vehicle 1 then you need to make opening or hole which you would have place the antenna 100 to be disposed or show outside of the vehicle 1 to wire to connected to circuitry of the car]
PNG
media_image1.png
479
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
535
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Sung et al [US 2022/0037776 A1]), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1]), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1]) in pave 6 of the applicant arguments “ground place”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features “ground place” of the invention, as broadly as claimed Khan discloses an antenna assembly having a ground plane (Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”)
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Khan's ground plane is internal to the antenna housing and is not exposed to the exterior) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner note: the claims does not preclude “the ground plane” to be inside or outside. It is inquisitional and plus the roof of khan roof 102 is connected to ground plane 152 which it makes to be external or exposed to the exterior in Fig. 1 with Fig. 2. The applicant has not patently distinguished from the prior art.
PNG
media_image4.png
712
565
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
383
543
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
494
498
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
542
552
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As the figure 1-2 from the prior art Khan and applicant Figures 2-3, it appears to be the ground plane 50 is portion cover by 58 which same as the prior khan 114 is covering portion of 102 which is roof with ground plane.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features “simplify assembly” of the invention in page of applicant arguments, the Examiner disagrees
Bekaert discloses wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle spoiler (Paragraph [0002])
See the video below provided with link.
See the video [Range Rover Evoque Fitting Rear Spoiler Twin Antenna / Aerial upgrade ( Dummy )]
PNG
media_image8.png
317
1297
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle spoiler for purpose to simplify mounting and preventing modify the roof structure as disclosed by Bekaert (Paragraph [0002]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features “simplify assembly” of the invention in page 8 of applicant arguments, the Examiner disagrees
Boyd discloses wherein the vehicle structure is a rear hatch of a vehicle (Column 3, in lines 5-67 “Antenna 202 is located on the vehicle, for example, in a molded antenna component (e.g., a “shark fin”) located on the roof or rear hatch, or integrated into a glass or body panel”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the vehicle structure is a rear hatch of a vehicle for purpose to simplify mounting and preventing modify the roof structure as disclosed by Boyd (Column 3, in lines 5-67).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features “pieacemeal combination” of the invention in page 9 of applicant arguments, the Examiner disagrees
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Mirzaee et al [US 2026/0005430 A1]), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Mirzaee discloses provides a class-A surface (Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with provides a class-A surface for purpose of having high efficiency and quality, in terms of aesthetical reflectivity as disclosed Mirzaee (Paragraph [0045])
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features “painted” of the invention in page 9 of applicant arguments, Vendt discloses wherein the ground plane is painted (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the ground plane is painted for purpose of to conceal any circuits of the antenna assembly as disclosed by Vendt (Paragraph [0026])
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features “flush” of the invention in page 9 of applicant arguments, in view of applicant specification in paragraph [0032] “The antenna assembly 14 is, in this example, secured to the spoiler 22 within the recessed area 34 such that the outer surface 62 of the ground plane 50 is substantially flush with an outer surface 66 of the spoiler 22.” does NOT states “it directly relates to the structural arrangement of the ground plane within the recessed area and its function as a class-A, visible exterior surface. This is a meaningful structural limitation, not a matter of routine design choice. Claim 11 is patentable for at least this reason.” Therefore, it does not explains or discloses the importance of being “flush”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Mikami discloses wherein an outer surface of the vehicle structure (Fig. 3a, 32) is flush [Examiner note: 32 with 35] with an outer surface of the ground plane (Fig. 3a, 16 and 35).
PNG
media_image9.png
328
477
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein an outer surface of the vehicle structure is flush with an outer surface of the ground plane for purpose of having high efficiency and quality, in terms of aesthetical purpose of looks of the vehicle as disclosed by Mikami (Fig. 3a) since it has been held that the configuration of the flush was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al [US 2022/0037776 A1] in view of Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1]
In regards to claim 1. Sung discloses a vehicle antenna assembly, comprising:
a vehicle structure (Fig. 1, 100) having a recessed area (Fig. 2-3 & Paragraph [0043] “The communication apparatus for a vehicle 100 may be installed in a vehicle 1. Specifically, the communication apparatus for a vehicle 100 may be configured such that one surface is disposed to be form an outer surface of the vehicle 1, or disposed inside of the outer surface of the vehicle 1.”); and
PNG
media_image10.png
468
425
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
639
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sung does not specify in Fig. 1-6 an antenna assembly received within the recessed area.
Sung discloses in Fig. 7-8 an antenna assembly (Fig. 7, 300) received within the recessed area (Fig. 8, 110 and 200 & Paragraph [0131-132]).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with an antenna assembly received within the recessed area for purpose of the improve efficiency of the signal transmitted and received to and from the antenna module to enhanced as disclosed by Sung (Paragraph [0135]).
Sung does not specify an antenna assembly having a ground plane
Khan discloses an antenna assembly having a ground plane (Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to use teachings Khan with Sung to discloses or teaches an antenna assembly having a ground plane for purpose of provides a common reference point (often zero volts) for voltage measurements and a safe return path for current, preventing shock by diverting fault currents to the earth disclosed by Khan (Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”).
In regards to claim 3. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle roof (Sung: Paragraph [0135]).
In regards to claim 5. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the ground plane (Khan Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”) is exposed (Sung: Fig. 8-9, 202).
In regards to claim 9. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the ground plane (Khan Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”) provides a visible, exterior surface of a vehicle (Sung: Fig. 8-9, 202).
In regards to claim 12. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the ground plane is aluminum or aluminum alloy (Khan: Paragraph [0037] Fig. 2, 150).
In regards to claim 13. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1, further comprising at least one antenna (Sung: Fig. 8-9, 200) extending upward from the ground plane (Sung: Fig. 9, 202).
In regards to claim 14. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 13, further comprising an enclosure (Sung: Fig. 9, 201) covering the at least one antenna (Sung: Fig. 10, 211-213).
In regards to claim 15. Sung in view of Khan discloses vehicle antenna assembly, comprising:
the printed circuit board (Fig. 8-9, 202) that having an exposed portion that provides a visible (Fig. 7, 300) exterior surface of a vehicle (Fig. 8, 300);
at least one antenna (Fig. 8, 200) extending from the printed circuit board (Fig. 8-9, 202); and an enclosure (Fig. 9, 201) covering the at least one antenna (Fig. 10, 211-213) without covering the exposed portion (Fig. 10, 202).
Sung does not specify a ground plane
Khan discloses an antenna assembly having a ground plane (Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to use teachings Khan with Sung to discloses or teaches an antenna assembly having a ground plane for purpose of provides a common reference point (often zero volts) for voltage measurements and a safe return path for current, preventing shock by diverting fault currents to the earth disclosed by Khan (Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”).
In regards to claim 16. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 15, wherein the ground plane (Khan Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”) is configured to be recessed (Sung Fig. 8, 110) within a vehicle structure (Sung Fig. 7-8, 300).
In regards to claim 20. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 13, wherein the at least one antenna is a shark- fin antenna (Khan: Fig. 1, 110), and wherein the enclosure covers (Sung: Fig. 8, 200) the at least one antenna (Sung: Fig. 8, 213) without covering an exposed portion (Sung: Fig. 8-9, 202 portion is exposed and is not covered by 201) of the ground plane (Khan Fig. 1, 102 and Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”),
Sung in view of Khan discloses the claimed invention except for the exposed portion being painted to match an exterior color of the vehicle structure. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the exposed portion being painted to match an exterior color of the vehicle structure for the purpose of the aesthetic look of the vehicle.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al [US 2022/0037776 A1] in view of Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1] and further in view of Bekaert [US 2025/0149780 A1]
In regards to claim 2. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1
Sung in view of Khan does not specify wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle spoiler.
Bekaert discloses wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle spoiler (Paragraph [0002])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle spoiler for purpose to simplify mounting and preventing modify the roof structure as disclosed by Bekaert (Paragraph [0002])
In regards to claim 18. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 16,
Sung in view of Khan does not specify wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle spoiler.
Bekaert discloses wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle spoiler (Paragraph [0002])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle spoiler for purpose to simplify mounting and preventing modify the roof structure as disclosed by Bekaert (Paragraph [0002]).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al [US 2022/0037776 A1] in view of Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1] and further in view of Boyd [US 10,536,038 A1]
In regards to claim 4. Sung in view of Khan the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1,
Sung in view of Khan does not specify wherein the vehicle structure is a rear hatch of a vehicle.
Boyd discloses wherein the vehicle structure is a rear hatch of a vehicle (Column 3, in lines 5-67 “Antenna 202 is located on the vehicle, for example, in a molded antenna component (e.g., a “shark fin”) located on the roof or rear hatch, or integrated into a glass or body panel”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the vehicle structure is a rear hatch of a vehicle for purpose to simplify mounting and preventing modify the roof structure as disclosed by Boyd (Column 3, in lines 5-67)
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al [US 2022/0037776 A1] in view of Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1] and further in view of Mirzaee et al [US 2026/0005430 A1]
In regards to claim 6. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the ground plane (Khan Fig. 2, 152 & Paragraph [0037] “the substrate may be a circuit board having one or more circuits, such as a ground circuit defining the ground plane 152 and one or more feed circuits to feed the antenna elements. For example, the antenna elements may be soldered to circuits or conductors of the circuit board.”)
Sung in view of Khan does not specify provides a class-A surface.
Mirzaee discloses provides a class-A surface (Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with provides a class-A surface for purpose of having high efficiency and quality, in terms of aesthetical reflectivity as disclosed Mirzaee (Paragraph [0045])
In regards to claim 8. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1,
Sung in view of Khan does not specify wherein the ground plane provides a class-A surface of a vehicle.
Mirzaee discloses wherein the ground plane provides a class-A surface of a vehicle (Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with provides a class-A surface for purpose of having high efficiency and quality, in terms of aesthetical reflectivity as disclosed Mirzaee (Paragraph [0045])
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al [US 2022/0037776 A1] in view of Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1] and further in view of Vendt et al [US 2018/0090828 A1]
In regards to claim 7. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1,
Sung in view of Khan does not specify wherein the ground plane is painted.
Vendt discloses wherein the ground plane is painted (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the ground plane is painted for purpose of to conceal any circuits of the antenna assembly as disclosed by Vendt (Paragraph [0026])
In regards to claim 19. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 15,
Sung in view of Khan does not specify wherein the ground plane is painted.
Vendt discloses wherein the ground plane is painted (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the ground plane is painted for purpose of to conceal any circuits of the antenna assembly as disclosed by Vendt (Paragraph [0026])
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al [US 2022/0037776 A1] in view of Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1] and further in view of Mikami et al [US 7,224,318 B2]
In regards to claim 11. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1,
Sung in view of Khan does not specify wherein an outer surface of the vehicle structure is flush with an outer surface of the ground plane.
Mikami discloses wherein an outer surface of the vehicle structure (Fig. 3a, 32) is flush with an outer surface of the ground plane (Fig. 3a, 16 and 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein an outer surface of the vehicle structure is flush with an outer surface of the ground plane for purpose of having high efficiency and quality, in terms of aesthetical purpose of looks of the vehicle as disclosed by Mikami (Fig. 3a) since it has been held that the configuration of the flush was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al [US 2022/0037776 A1] in view of Khan et al [US 2024/0339746 A1] and further in view of Sone et al [US 2023/0208017 A1]
In regards to claim 10. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 1,
Sung in view of Khan does not specify wherein the ground plane is adhesively secured to the vehicle structure.
Sone discloses wherein the ground plane (Fig. 4, 42) is adhesively (Paragraph [0043]) secured to the vehicle structure (Fig. 4, 32 and 16)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the ground plane is adhesively secured to the vehicle structure for purpose of using other methods to secure antenna assembly to the vehicle of a car as disclosed by Sone (Paragraph [0043]).
In regards to claim 17. Sung in view of Khan discloses the vehicle antenna assembly of claim 16,
Sung in view of Khan does not specify wherein the ground plane is adhesively bonded to the vehicle structure.
wherein the ground plane (Fig. 4, 42) is adhesively (Paragraph [0043]) bonded to the vehicle structure (Fig. 4, 32 and 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Sung with wherein the ground plane is adhesively bonded to the vehicle structure for purpose of using other methods to secure antenna assembly to the vehicle of a car as disclosed by Sone (Paragraph [0043]).
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 WEI (VICTOR) CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
WEI (VICTOR) CHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2844
/WEI (VICTOR) Y CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights