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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 7 of 10) about the objections to claims 5 and 16, the objections have been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 7 of 10) about the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection has been overcome by the amendment.
Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 8-9 of 10) about amended Claims 1, 14, and 20 , Examiner disagrees because Sauer (‘655) does disclose that “determine, based on the radar data, a range of the moving object in response to determining that the moving object is present in the FoV, the range indicating a distance between the moving object and the radar sensor” { Fig.1; [0031] lines 3-12 (UWB radar devices be used to identify a position of an object using a receiver that is synchronized with a transmitter to determine time separations between pulses in a transmit signal and pulses in a receive signal . Due to its use of relatively short pulses , UWB may enable relatively precise distance and localization detection. UWB radar devices that detect positions of objects may be capable of detecting motion by monitoring changes in distance over time to detect velocity); [0034] lines 1 (Motion sensing), 7-12 (an existing radar device coupled to a rear of a vehicle that is originally to detect a distance between the rear of the vehicle to an object behind the vehicle maybe updated with motion sensing capabilities disclosed herein to detect a gesture ( e.g. , a kicking motion ) to trigger opening of a trunk of the vehicle)}. “relatively precise distance and localization detection” and “monitoring changes in distance” in Sauer (‘655) [0031] indicate the claimed language “the range indicating a distance between the moving object and the radar sensor”. “monitoring changes in distance over time” in Sauer (‘655) [0031] indicate the claimed language “in response to determining that the moving object is present in the FoV” because “monitoring changes in distance over time” is implemented only when “the moving object is present in the FoV”, therefore “monitoring changes in distance over time” is “in response to determining that the moving object is present in the FoV”. For further clarification, Examiner added explanation in the rejections in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 14-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauer (US 2022/0163655, hereafter Sauer).
Regarding claim 1, Sauer (‘655) discloses that An apparatus { title (apparatus) } comprising:
a processor { Fig.12 item 1202 (processor(s)) }; and
a memory with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, enable the apparatus { Fig.12 item 1204 (data storage device(s)), 1206 (machine executable code); [0020] lines 1-3 (FIG . 12 is a block diagram of circuitry that , in some examples , may be used to implement various functions , operations , acts , processes , and / or methods disclosed herein .); [0089] lines 1-5 (the storage 1204 includes volatile data storage ( e.g. , random - access memory ( RAM ) ) , non - volatile data storage ( e.g. , Flash memory , a hard disc drive , a solid state drive , erasable programmable read – only memory ( EPROM ) , etc. )); [0090] lines 1-2 (the machine executable code 1206 may include computer - readable instructions) } to:
determine, based on radar data, whether a moving object is present in a field of view (FoV) of a radar sensor { Fig.1 item 114 (moving object), 124a-b (detection area); [0043] lines 7 (detection area 124a), 9 (moving object 114)};
determine, based on the radar data, a range of the moving object in response to determining that the moving object is present in the FoV, the range indicating a distance between the moving object and the radar sensor { Fig.1; [0031] lines 3-12 (UWB radar devices be used to identify a position of an object using a receiver that is synchronized with a transmitter to determine time separations between pulses in a transmit signal and pulses in a receive signal . Due to its use of relatively short pulses , UWB may enable relatively precise distance and localization detection. UWB radar devices that detect positions of objects may be capable of detecting motion by monitoring changes in distance over time to detect velocity); [0034] lines 1 (Motion sensing), 7-12 (an existing radar device coupled to a rear of a vehicle that is originally to detect a distance between the rear of the vehicle to an object behind the vehicle maybe updated with motion sensing capabilities disclosed herein to detect a gesture ( e.g. , a kicking motion ) to trigger opening of a trunk of the vehicle); Examiner’s note: “relatively precise distance and localization detection” and “monitoring changes in distance” for “the range indicating a distance between the moving object and the radar sensor”. “monitoring changes in distance over time” for “in response to determining that the moving object is present in the FoV” because “monitoring changes in distance over time” is implemented only when “the moving object is present in the FoV”, therefore “monitoring changes in distance over time” is “in response to determining that the moving object is present in the FoV”.}; and
activate a radar target function based on the range of the moving object { Fig.4 item 406 (MECHANISM OPENING VEHICLE TRUNK); [0062] lines 9-12 (receivers 410 may output a trigger signal 412 similar to the trigger signal 330 of FIG . 3 responsive to a determination that a moving object is detected within a total detection area); [0063] lines 3-4 (controllable latch , that opens the trunk 404 responsive to the trigger signal 412.)}, wherein the radar target function is configured to control an operation of a device based on the radar data { Fig.4 item 406 (MECHANISM OPENING VEHICLE TRUNK); [0063] lines 3-4 (controllable latch , that opens the trunk 404 responsive to the trigger signal 412.}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Sauer (‘655) discloses that in the apparatus, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to
activate the radar target function in response to the determined range of the moving object being within a predetermined range { [0062] lines 9-12 (receivers 410 may output a trigger signal 412 similar to the trigger signal 330 of FIG . 3 responsive to a determination that a moving object is detected within a total detection area (e.g., the total detection area 126 of FIG. 1) of the one or more receivers 410)}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Sauer (‘655) discloses that in the apparatus,
the radar data is radar data of a frequency shift keying (FSK) Doppler radar sensor { [0040] lines 2-3 (to determine the Doppler frequency of a moving object ); [0051] lines 1-2 (The data telegram 200 may be a binary frequency shift keying ( BFSK ) signal) }.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Sauer (‘655) discloses that in the apparatus,
the radar data is radar data of a binary frequency shift keying (BFSK) Doppler radar sensor in a pulse mode { [0035] lines 5-6 (a predetermined pulse sequence of a data signal )), 13-14 (by a pulse interval of a data telegram ,); [0040] lines 2-3 (to determine the Doppler frequency of a moving object); [0051] lines 1-2 (The data telegram 200 may be a binary frequency shift keying ( BFSK ) signal) }.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Sauer (‘655) discloses that in the apparatus,
the radar target function includes gesture recognition based on the radar data { [0034] lines 5-6 (a radar system including one or more UWB radar devices), 10-12 (motion sensing capabilities disclosed herein to detect a gesture ( e.g. , a kicking motion ) to trigger opening of a trunk of the vehicle); [0039] lines 1-5 (the use of devices , such as UWB devices , without limitation , for additional applications beyond distance measurement , such as proximity detection , gesture recognition , and detection of moving objects . )}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Sauer (‘655) discloses that in the apparatus,
the radar target function is a gesture recognition function configured for opening a trunk of a vehicle { Fig.4 item 406 (MECHANISM OPENING VEHICLE TRUNK); [0034] lines 10-12 (motion sensing capabilities disclosed herein to detect a gesture ( e.g. , a kicking motion ) to trigger opening of a trunk of the vehicle); [0039] lines 1-5 (the use of devices , such as UWB devices , without limitation , for additional applications beyond distance measurement , such as proximity detection , gesture recognition , and detection of moving objects . ) }.
Regarding claim 11, Sauer (‘655) discloses that A radar system { title (system); Fig.1; [0006] line 1 (Fig.1, radar system)}, comprising:
the apparatus according to claim 1 {see the rejection of claim 1}; and
the radar sensor {Fig.1; [0006] line 1 (Fig.1, radar system); [0034] lines 5-6 (a radar system including one or more UWB radar devices); [0042] lines 2-4 (The radar system 100 includes at least two UWB devices : a transmitter 102 and at least one receiver 104a , 104b.)}, wherein the radar sensor is configured to:
transmit radio frequency waves into the FoV of the radar sensor {Fig.1 item 102 (transmitter); [0034] lines 6 (UWB radar devices), 12 (UWB devices ( e.g. , 6-8 GHz); [0042] line 3 (transmitter 102); Examiner’s note: 6-8 GHz for “radio frequency waves”}; and
generate the radar data based on received reflections of the transmitted radio frequency waves {Fig.1 items 102 (transmitter), 104a-b (receiver); Fig.3; [0010] lines 1-2 (FIG . 3 is a block diagram of a receiver processing circuitry); [0042] lines 2-4 (The radar system 100 includes at least two UWB devices : a transmitter 102 and at least one receiver 104a , 104b.)}.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 3 or 4. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3 or 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 14, Sauer (‘655) discloses that A method { title (method)} comprising:
determining, based on radar data, whether a moving object is present in a field of view (FoV) of a radar sensor;
determining, based on the radar data, a range of the moving object in response to determining that the moving object is present in the FoV, the range indicating a distance between the moving object and the radar sensor; and
activating a radar target function based on the range of the moving object.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, Sauer (‘655) discloses that A non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor or a programmable hardware component, enable the processor or the programmable hardware component to perform { Fig.12 items 1202 (processor(s)), 1204 (data storage device(s)), 1206 (machine executable code); [0020] lines 1-3 (FIG . 12 is a block diagram of circuitry that , in some examples , may be used to implement various functions , operations , acts , processes , and / or methods disclosed herein .); [0089] lines 1-5 (the storage 1204 includes volatile data storage ( e.g. , random - access memory ( RAM ) ) , non - volatile data storage ( e.g. , Flash memory , a hard disc drive , a solid state drive , erasable programmable read – only memory ( EPROM ) , etc. )); [0090] lines 1-2 (the machine executable code 1206 may include computer – readable instructions) } the method of claim 14 { title (method); See the rejections of claim 14.}.
Regarding claim 20, Sauer (‘655) discloses that An apparatus {title (apparatus)} comprising processing circuitry { Fig.12 items 1202 (processor(s)), 1204 (data storage device(s)), 1206 (machine executable code); [0020] lines 1-3 (FIG . 12 is a block diagram of circuitry that , in some examples , may be used to implement various functions , operations , acts , processes , and / or methods disclosed herein .);} configured to:
determine, based on radar data, whether a moving object is present in a field of view (FoV) of a radar sensor;
determine, based on the radar data, a range of the moving object in response to determining that the moving object is present in the FoV, the range indicating a distance between the moving object and the radar sensor; and
activate a radar target function based on the range of the moving object, wherein the radar target function is configured to control an operation of a device based on the radar data.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (‘655) as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, above, and further in view of Diewald (US 2016/0200276, hereafter Dewald).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Sauer (‘655) discloses that in the apparatus,
the radar data is radar data of a frequency shift keying (FSK) Doppler radar sensor or a binary frequency shift keying (BFSK) Doppler radar sensor in a pulse mode { [0040] lines 2-3 (to determine the Doppler frequency of a moving object ); [0051] lines 1-2 (The data telegram 200 may be a binary frequency shift keying ( BFSK ) signal) }; and
the instructions when executed by the processor {Fig.12 item 1202 (processor(s)), 1204 (data storage device(s)), 1206 (machine executable code); [0090] lines 1-2 (the machine executable code 1206 may include computer - readable instructions), 4-6 (instructions, accessed directly by the processors 1202 , and executed by the processors 1202) },
.
However, Sauer (‘655) does not explicitly disclose that (see words with underline) “the instructions when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to: perform, based on the radar data, a Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) for each shifted frequency transmitted by the FSK Doppler radar sensor or the BFSK Doppler radar sensor, determine a Doppler phase difference value based on an output of the DFT, and determine the range of the moving object based on the Doppler phase difference value”. In the same field of endeavor, Diewald (‘276) discloses that in the apparatus,
the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus {[0041] lines 2-4 (a recordable, rewritable or storable medium having recorded or stored thereon data defining or transformable into instructions for execution by processing circuitry)} to:
perform, based on the radar data, a Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) for each shifted frequency transmitted by the FSK Doppler radar sensor or the BFSK Doppler radar sensor { Fig.2; [0042]lines 2-6 (a server computer incorporating a communications device and a memory device and being adapted for transmission on demand or otherwise of data defining or transform able into instructions for execution by processing circuitry and corresponding to at least the steps of any of claims 1 to 11); [0132] lines 2-4 (the first FFT stands for the transformation of each single FSK measurement for the frequency domain into the range domain) };
determine a Doppler phase difference value based on an output of the DFT { Fig.2; [0049] lines 1-2 (Fig.2, the concept of Doppler measurement with multi tone FSK modulation); [0063] lines 1-2 (the targets range and velocity are determined), 4 (
PNG
media_image1.png
42
117
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); [0064] lines 1-4 (The measured frequencies (beat frequencies f, and f) are differing because the high targets Velocities induce Doppler shifts oppositely during the increasing and decreasing ramps.)}; and
determine the range of the moving object based on the Doppler phase difference value { [0063] lines 1-2 (the targets range and velocity are determined), 4 (
PNG
media_image1.png
42
117
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); [0064] lines 1-4 (The measured frequencies (beat frequencies fb1, and fb2) are differing because the high targets Velocities induce Doppler shifts oppositely during the increasing and decreasing ramps.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sauer (‘655) with the teachings of Diewald (‘276) {extract Doppler shift using FFT and calculate target’s range based on FFT results} to extract Doppler shift using FFT and calculate target’s range based on FFT results. Doing so would extract range information from FFT results so as to obtain a reliable indication of a detected target (e.g. the occupancy status or of whether the human is inside or outside the car), as recognized by Dewald (‘276) {[0003] lines 8-10 (in order to get a reliable indication of the occupancy status or of whether the human is inside or outside the car); [0095] lines 1-5 (an FFT operation is performed on the modified signals by Fourier transform module 24. The result of the FFT is output by Fourier transform module 24 as composite (transform) signal y(t, r), i.e. containing range information for the detected signals.)}.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Claims 6-7, 13, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (‘655) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 14, respectively, above, and further in view of Skeoch et al. (US 11,703,583, hereafter Skeoch).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Sauer (‘655) does not explicitly disclose that “executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to: control the radar sensor to operate in a first operation mode while the apparatus determines whether the moving object is present in the FoV; control the radar sensor to operate in a second operation mode while the apparatus determines the range of the moving object; and control the radar sensor to operate in a third operation mode while the radar target function is activated.”. In the same field of endeavor, Skeoch (‘583) discloses that in the apparatus,
the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus {abstract lines 3-4 (processor executes instructions from memory to cause the device to operate the sensor)} to:
control the radar sensor to operate in a first operation mode while the apparatus determines whether the moving object is present in the FoV { Fig.1 item 103 (first operation mode, poss. Motion detected) };
control the radar sensor to operate in a second operation mode while the apparatus determines the range of the moving object { Fig.1 item 105 (second operation mode, observational, region of interest) }; and
control the radar sensor to operate in a third operation mode while the radar target function is activated { Fig.1 item 109 (trigger action), 110 (trigger action, identifying ), 111 (third operation mode); col.6 lines 50-53 (operation 109, may trigger a first action, activate a camera 204 (FIG. 2), activate one or more additional controlled components 222), 61 (Trigger Action 110 in dashed lines) }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sauer (‘655) with the teachings of Skeoch (‘583) {operate radar sensor in three different modes for motion detected, observational in region of interest, and trigger action, accordingly } to operate radar sensor in three different modes for motion detected, observational in region of interest, and trigger action, accordingly. Doing so would reduce radar sensor power consumption so as to apply advanced measurement capabilities, making radar sensor practicable for employment within low-power devices, including those that rely on battery, fuel cell, or similar power source, as recognized by Skeoch (‘583) {col.1 lines 11-15 (require significant power to apply advanced measurement capabilities, making them impracticable for employment within low-power devices, including those that rely on battery, fuel cell, or similar power source.), 64 (reducing radar sensor power consumption)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claims 1 and 6, Sauer (‘655) does not explicitly disclose that “control the radar sensor to use at least one of a shorter frame duration, a lower number of samples per frame, a lower output power, or a lower conversion gain in the first operation mode compared to the second operation mode”. In the same field of endeavor, Skeoch (‘583) discloses that in the apparatus, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to
control the radar sensor to use at least one of a shorter frame duration, a lower number of samples per frame, a lower output power, or a lower conversion gain in the first operation mode compared to the second operation mode { col.2 lines 5-6 (the higher operational modes consume more power than the lower operational modes); col.7 lines 9-12 (The radar sensor 202 may save power by returning to a lower operational mode after confirming, while in the identifying ( or highest power) mode 111, that the object is not of interest.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sauer (‘655) with the teachings of Skeoch (‘583) {operate radar sensor in three different modes for motion detected, observational in region of interest, and trigger action, accordingly } to operate radar sensor in three different modes for motion detected, observational in region of interest, and trigger action, accordingly. Doing so would reduce radar sensor power consumption so as to apply advanced measurement capabilities, making radar sensor practicable for employment within low-power devices, including those that rely on battery, fuel cell, or similar power source, as recognized by Skeoch (‘583) {col.1 lines 11-15 (require significant power to apply advanced measurement capabilities, making them impracticable for employment within low-power devices, including those that rely on battery, fuel cell, or similar power source.), 64 (reducing radar sensor power consumption)}.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 11, Sauer (‘655) does not explicitly disclose that “the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to: control the radar sensor to operate in a first operation mode while determining whether the moving object is present in the FoV; control the radar sensor to operate in a second operation mode while determining the range of the moving object; and control the radar sensor to operate in a third operation mode while the radar target function is activated, wherein a power consumption of the radar sensor is lower in the first operation mode than in the second operation mode, and the power consumption of the radar sensor is lower in the second operation mode than in the third operation mode”. In the same field of endeavor, Skeoch (‘583) discloses that
the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to:
control the radar sensor to operate in a first operation mode while determining whether the moving object is present in the FoV;
control the radar sensor to operate in a second operation mode while determining the range of the moving object; and
control the radar sensor to operate in a third operation mode while the radar target function is activated,
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 6. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 6. See the rejections of claim 6}.
wherein a power consumption of the radar sensor is lower in the first operation mode than in the second operation mode, and the power consumption of the radar sensor is lower in the second operation mode than in the third operation mode { col.2 lines 5-6 (the higher operational modes consume more power than the lower operational modes); col.7 lines 9-12 (The radar sensor 202 may save power by returning to a lower operational mode after confirming, while in the identifying ( or highest power) mode 111, that the object is not of interest.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sauer (‘655) with the teachings of Skeoch (‘583) {operate radar sensor in three different modes for motion detected, observational in region of interest, and trigger action, accordingly } to operate radar sensor in three different modes for motion detected, observational in region of interest, and trigger action, accordingly. Doing so would reduce radar sensor power consumption so as to apply advanced measurement capabilities, making radar sensor practicable for employment within low-power devices, including those that rely on battery, fuel cell, or similar power source, as recognized by Skeoch (‘583) {col.1 lines 11-15 (require significant power to apply advanced measurement capabilities, making them impracticable for employment within low-power devices, including those that rely on battery, fuel cell, or similar power source.), 64 (reducing radar sensor power consumption)}.
Regarding claims 17-18, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 6-7, respectively. Accordingly, claims 17-18 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 6-7, respectively, shown above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (‘655) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahmad et al. (US 2018 / 0279884, hereafter Ahmad).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Sauer (‘655) does not explicitly disclose that “perform interference mitigation when determining whether the moving object is present in the FoV”. In the same field of endeavor, Ahmad (‘884) discloses that in the apparatus,
the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus {Fig.3; [0029] lines 2-5 (processor 304 via a bus and is further operable to instructions or commands that are executable by the processor 304 . For example , the instruction or commands include performing one or more functions)} to
perform interference mitigation when determining whether the moving object is present in the FoV {([0037] lines 5-6 (mitigate interference from other moving objects and to isolate the objects of interest within the radar field - of - view))}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sauer (‘655) with the teachings of Ahmad (‘884) {(mitigate interference from other moving objects and to isolate the objects of interest within the radar field - of - view } to mitigate interference from other moving objects and to isolate the objects of interest within the radar field - of - view. Doing so would isolate the objects of interest within the radar field - of – view so as to detect presence and track locations of moving targets without interference from noise and other moving / vibrating sources ( such as another person ) within radar field - of - view, as recognized by Ahmad (‘884) {[0002] lines 2-3 (detect presence and track locations of relatively large , fast moving targets .); [0003] lines 11-15 (the radar – based non - contact methods that use a continuous wave ( CW ) Doppler radar is prone to interference from noise and other moving / vibrating sources ( such as another person ) within radar field - of - view .)}.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights