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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 4/17/2026. Claims 11-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see page 5 of 7, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of record have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-6 of 7, filed 4/17/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that neither Primary reference Arora nor secondary reference Geller explicitly disclose or teach the clarifying amended limitations as presented herein, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Arora details a large gap that is assigned a small cost (indicative of a safe merge into another lane, likely avoiding collision with another vehicle), and a small gap that is assigned a large cost (indicative of a potentially hazardous collision with another automobile) however the reference does not provide explicit details to these gap costs to the extent of the amended claims as presented herein. However, modifying reference Geller provides details which pertain to the amended claims, specifically about an open space and its size (the size being defined by the constraints of other vehicles, which would result in collision if not appropriately sized).
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 as currently presented states “…a second escalation level…” which the Examiner recommends updating to “…[ [ a ] ] the second escalation level…” or the like, so as to prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claim 15 as currently presented states “…the third escalation level…” which the Examiner recommends updating to “…[ [ the ] ] a third escalation level…” or the like, so as to prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claim 16 as currently presented states “…the longitudinal speed…” which the Examiner recommends updating to “…[ [ the ] ] a longitudinal speed…” so as to prevent potential misinterpretation.
Claim 19 as currently presented states “…the longitudinal speed…” which the Examiner recommends updating to “…[ [ the ] ] a longitudinal speed…” so as to prevent potential misinterpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora et al. (US-2022/0185289; hereinafter Arora; already of record) in view of Geller (US-2018/0339708; already of record).
Regarding claim 11, Arora discloses a method for assisting a user of a vehicle when maneuvering the vehicle on a multi-lane road (see Arora at least [0072] "Memory 418 and 440 are examples of non-transitory computer-readable media. Memory 418 and 440 can store an operating system and one or more software applications, instructions, programs, and/or data to implement the methods described herein and the functions attributed to the various systems..." and [0101] "A. A method comprising: receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with a vehicle traversing an environment, the environment comprising a first lane associated with a current position of the vehicle and a second lane proximate the first lane; determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a presence of an object in the environment and a predicted behavior of the object; defining, as a first configuration space and based at least in part on maximum acceleration and a maximum deceleration of the vehicle, a first portion of the first lane; defining, as a second configuration space and based at least in part on the maximum acceleration and the maximum deceleration, a second portion of the second lane; determining, based at least in part on the predicted behavior of the object, the first configuration space, and the second configuration space, a first gap associated with the first lane and a second gap associated with the second lane; determining, based at least in part on the first gap and the second gap, a trajectory for performing a lane change operation; determining a cost associated with the trajectory; and based at least in part on a determination that the cost is below a threshold, controlling the vehicle to perform the lane change operation based at least in part on the trajectory."), comprising:
receiving a navigation command to guide the vehicle from a second lane of the road via a first lane of the road (see Arora at least [0045] "...In at least one example, a trajectory with a lowest cost (e.g., the trajectory that minimizes costs associated with the lane change operation) can be determined and used for generating commands for controlling the vehicle 200 to perform the lane change operation...") …
preparing a lane change maneuver from the second lane to the first lane (see Arora at least [0023] "At operation 122, a planner component associated with the vehicle computing device(s) of the vehicle 102 can determine, based on the gap(s), a trajectory 124 for causing the vehicle 102 to perform a lane change operation in the environment 100. In at least one example, the planner component can compare a trajectory 124 with gap(s) determined as described above. In some examples, the planner component can compare a trajectory 124 with gap(s) determined in different phases of a lane change operation. In at least one example, such phases can include, but are not limited to, a preparation phase, a merge phase, and a target phase...");
searching for suitable gaps for the vehicle between further road users on the first lane to carry out the lane change maneuver (see Arora at least [0020]-[0022] "At operation 110, a gap finder component associated with vehicle computing device(s) of the vehicle 102, can determine gap(s) in the environment 100... In at least one example, a space associated with a constraint can be referred to as a “constraint space.” In at least one example, constraint(s) can be modeled (e.g., projected) in a coordinate space representative of the environment 100 and a gap can be determined by finding a space within which the vehicle 102 can move (e.g., is capable of moving) that does not violate the constraint(s)... While a single gap 120 is illustrated in FIG. 1, in some examples, a plurality of gaps can be determined, and each gap can be associated with a cost indicating a quality of the gap. A cost associated with a gap can be based at least in part on an area or space associated with the gap. That is, a gap associated with a smaller area and/or space can be associated with a higher cost and a gap associated with a larger area and/or space can be associated with a smaller cost. Additional details are provided below.") …
in response to no suitable gap being found on the first lane (see Arora at least [0050] "...In some examples, a cost can be determined for the trajectory 336 and the cost can be compared to a threshold. Based at least in part on determining that the cost is below a threshold, the trajectory 330 can be used to control the vehicle 300. In some examples, if the cost meets or exceeds the threshold, another trajectory can be compared to the gap(s) identified as described above." and [0082]-[0083] "At operation 510, the planner component 426 can determine a cost associated with the trajectory. In some examples, as described above, the planner component 426 can determine a cost for each trajectory. A cost can be determined based at least in part on a length of the trajectory in each of the phases, an amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation, an amount of time in the current lane, a distance travelled during the lane change operation, a relative distance between the vehicle 402 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s), etc. In some examples, a sub-cost can be determined for a trajectory for each phase described above and the cost can be determined by each of the sub-costs. At operation 512, the planner component 426 can determine whether the cost is below a threshold. In at least one example, based at least in part on determining that the cost is below the threshold, the planner component 426 can control the vehicle using the trajectory, as illustrated at operation 514. That is, the planner component 426 can determine steering and/or acceleration commands that can be executed by the system controller(s) and/or drive system(s) 414 to cause the vehicle 402 to perform the lane change operation. In at least one example, based at least in part on determining that the cost meets or exceeds the threshold, the planner component 426 can determine another trajectory for performing the lane change operation, as illustrated at operation 516. That is, based at least in part on determining that the trajectory is associated with too high of cost, a different trajectory can be accessed (e.g., from a plurality of trajectories previous generated) and/or generated. Based at least in part on determining the other trajectory, the process 500 can return to operation 510 to determine a cost associated with the other trajectory."):
searching for an unsuitable gap between the road users on the first lane (see Arora at least [0020]-[0022] "At operation 110, a gap finder component associated with vehicle computing device(s) of the vehicle 102, can determine gap(s) in the environment 100. In at least one example, gap(s) can be determined by solving a constraints satisfaction problem. That is, a gap finding problem can be modeled as a constraints satisfaction problem to find gap(s) that the vehicle 102 can move into (e.g., in a target lane) with no or minimal interaction with object(s) in the environment 100 and/or otherwise violating a constraint associated with the environment 100. In at least one example, a gap can comprise a portion of a configuration space associated with the vehicle 102 that is exclusive of space(s) associated with constraint(s) (e.g., “constraint space(s)”). A constraint space can be associated with a region of the environment 100 through which the vehicle 102 is unable to travel for some period of time... While a single gap 120 is illustrated in FIG. 1, in some examples, a plurality of gaps can be determined, and each gap can be associated with a cost indicating a quality of the gap. A cost associated with a gap can be based at least in part on an area or space associated with the gap. That is, a gap associated with a smaller area and/or space can be associated with a higher cost and a gap associated with a larger area and/or space can be associated with a smaller cost. Additional details are provided below." and [0084] "In some examples, a plurality of trajectories (e.g., a plurality of potential trajectories) can be validated in view of the gap(s) identified at operation 506 and, for any trajectory that is not associated with a gap in a phase associated with the lane change operation, such a trajectory may be removed from consideration by the planner component 426. However, for each trajectory that is validated, the planner component 426 can determine a cost associated therewith. In some examples, the plurality of potential trajectories can be sorted based on associated costs and a potential trajectory associated with a lowest cost can be selected to control the vehicle 502.") …
executing a driving maneuver and/or vehicle function that indicates to the road users delimiting the … gap an intent to carry out the lane change maneuver by the vehicle into the … gap (see Arora at least [0023] "...The preparation phase can correspond to a period of time during which the vehicle 102 can move longitudinally within the first lane 106 to align itself with a gap in the second lane 108 with no or minimal interaction with object(s) (e.g., the vehicle(s) 114-118) in the second lane 108. The merge phase can correspond to a period of time when the vehicle 102 is aligned with the gap in the second lane 108 and preparing to execute a lateral motion to merge into the gap with no or minimal interaction with object(s) in the first lane 106 and/or the second lane 108. The target phase can correspond to a period of time after the vehicle 102 has merged into the second lane 108 and is adjusting its velocity for avoiding interaction with object(s) in the second lane 108...").
While Arora discloses the detection of all gaps near a vehicle, little focus is directed to gaps below a certain threshold size, thus Arora does not explicitly disclose the following:
…guide the vehicle…to an exit of the road…
…suitable gaps permit the lane change maneuver to be executed without collision…
…the unsuitable gap does not permit the lane change maneuver to be executed without collision…
…the unsuitable gap…
Geller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…guide the vehicle…to an exit of the road (see Geller at least [0072] "...In another example, if the route that the vehicle 102 is travelling has the vehicle 102 exiting and the vehicle 102 is in the middle lane as the highway exit approaches, the lane assist system 100 may select an open space or area in the exit lane that allows the vehicle 102 to safely exit in time.")…
…suitable gaps permit the lane change maneuver to be executed without collision (see Geller at least [0070] "The lane assist system 100 determines whether there are one or more open spaces or areas in an adjacent lane (310). The lane assist system 100 may compare the determined distance or size of the open space or area between two vehicles to a threshold value, and if the determined distance is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the lane assist system 100 may determine that there is an open space or area. For example, if the distance between the two vehicles in an adjacent lane is 1.5 car lengths, or approximately 12 feet, which is greater than a threshold value, such as 8 feet or 1 car length, the lane assist system 100 may determine that there is an open space or area in the adjacent lane. The threshold value may be variable, such that the threshold value may be based on the speed of the two vehicles in the adjacent lane that form the open space or area. The threshold value may be based on other factors, such as weather information, traffic information and/or road condition information. If the lane assist system 100 does not detect or determine that there is a vehicle in front or behind a surrounding vehicle in an adjacent lane, the lane assist system 100 may determine that the open space or area is of a size greater than the threshold value, i.e., of sufficient size to move into.")…
…the unsuitable gap does not permit the lane change maneuver to be executed without collision (see Geller at least [0082] "...The lane assist system 100 may determine that the adjacent lane 526 is filled with traffic based on traffic condition information included in the navigational map information or based on the surrounding vehicle information, e.g., by determining that the distance between the two vehicle 501, 502 is less than a threshold distance or that the size of the open space or area 514 is less than a threshold amount. If there is traffic in the adjacent lane 526 and/or the size of the open space or area 514 is less than the threshold amount, the lane assist system 100 may not prepare the vehicle 102 to move into the adjacent lane 526.")…
…the unsuitable gap (see Geller at least [0082] "…Thus, the vehicle 102 is unable to move into the open spaces or areas 516, 518, and so disengages preparation of the vehicle 102. The lane assist system 100 may determine that the adjacent lane 526 is filled with traffic based on traffic condition information included in the navigational map information or based on the surrounding vehicle information, e.g., by determining that the distance between the two vehicle 501, 502 is less than a threshold distance or that the size of the open space or area 514 is less than a threshold amount. If there is traffic in the adjacent lane 526 and/or the size of the open space or area 514 is less than the threshold amount, the lane assist system 100 may not prepare the vehicle 102 to move into the adjacent lane 526.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Arora with information such as an exit location and unsuitable gap detection such as taught by Geller with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of predicting and preparing vehicle maneuvers before they occur (see Geller at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 11, wherein the driving maneuver and/or vehicle function includes: adapting a longitudinal speed of the vehicle, reducing a lateral distance of the vehicle to the first lane, and/or activating direction indicators (see Arora at least [0023] "...The preparation phase can correspond to a period of time during which the vehicle 102 can move longitudinally within the first lane 106 to align itself with a gap in the second lane 108 with no or minimal interaction with object(s) (e.g., the vehicle(s) 114-118) in the second lane 108. The merge phase can correspond to a period of time when the vehicle 102 is aligned with the gap in the second lane 108 and preparing to execute a lateral motion to merge into the gap with no or minimal interaction with object(s) in the first lane 106 and/or the second lane 108. The target phase can correspond to a period of time after the vehicle 102 has merged into the second lane 108 and is adjusting its velocity for avoiding interaction with object(s) in the second lane 108..." and [0061] "...By way of example and not limitation, the exterior emitters in this example include light emitters (e.g., indicator lights, signs, light arrays, etc.) to visually communicate with pedestrians, other drivers, other nearby vehicles, etc., one or more audio emitters (e.g., speakers, speaker arrays, horns, etc.) to audibly communicate with pedestrians, other drivers, other nearby vehicles, etc., etc...").
Regarding claim 13, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 12, wherein executing the driving maneuver and/or vehicle function is according to a first escalation level, and wherein, according to the first escalation level, the longitudinal speed of the vehicle is adapted (see Arora at least [0023] "...The preparation phase can correspond to a period of time during which the vehicle 102 can move longitudinally within the first lane 106 to align itself with a gap in the second lane 108 with no or minimal interaction with object(s) (e.g., the vehicle(s) 114-118) in the second lane 108...") to bring the vehicle level with the unsuitable gap (Geller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Arora with the detection of an unsuitable gap such as further taught by Geller with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 13, wherein executing the driving maneuver and/or vehicle function is according to a second escalation level, and wherein, according to the second escalation level:
the lateral distance is reduced such that the vehicle approaches a roadway marking between the first lane and the second lane (see Arora at least [0023] "...The merge phase can correspond to a period of time when the vehicle 102 is aligned with the gap in the second lane 108 and preparing to execute a lateral motion to merge into the gap with no or minimal interaction with object(s) in the first lane 106 and/or the second lane 108..."), and/or
the direction indicators are activated on a side of the vehicle facing toward the first lane (see Arora at least [0061] "...By way of example and not limitation, the exterior emitters in this example include light emitters (e.g., indicator lights, signs, light arrays, etc.) to visually communicate with pedestrians, other drivers, other nearby vehicles, etc., one or more audio emitters (e.g., speakers, speaker arrays, horns, etc.) to audibly communicate with pedestrians, other drivers, other nearby vehicles, etc., etc...").
Regarding claim 15, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 14, wherein executing the driving maneuver and/or vehicle function is according to a second escalation level, and wherein, according to the third escalation level, the lateral distance is adapted such that the roadway marking between the first lane and the second lane is driven over by the vehicle (see Arora at least [0023] "...The target phase can correspond to a period of time after the vehicle 102 has merged into the second lane 108 and is adjusting its velocity for avoiding interaction with object(s) in the second lane 108…").
Regarding claim 16, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 11, further comprising:
in response to determining that the lane change maneuver into the unsuitable gap is not possible (see Geller at least [0082] "…Thus, the vehicle 102 is unable to move into the open spaces or areas 516, 518, and so disengages preparation of the vehicle 102. The lane assist system 100 may determine that the adjacent lane 526 is filled with traffic based on traffic condition information included in the navigational map information or based on the surrounding vehicle information, e.g., by determining that the distance between the two vehicle 501, 502 is less than a threshold distance or that the size of the open space or area 514 is less than a threshold amount. If there is traffic in the adjacent lane 526 and/or the size of the open space or area 514 is less than the threshold amount, the lane assist system 100 may not prepare the vehicle 102 to move into the adjacent lane 526.") after passage of a predetermined attempt duration (see Arora at least [0085] "In at least one example, the process 500 can be performed at a particular frequency, after a lapse of a period of time, and/or the like. In some examples, the process 500 can be performed for each “tick” of route planning. A “tick” can correspond to a period of time after which a trajectory is re-evaluated and/or updated for controlling the vehicle (e.g., 2 milliseconds (ms), 4 ms, etc.)." and [0098] "...A cost can be determined based at least in part on a length of the trajectory in each of the phases, an amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation, an amount of time in the current lane, a distance travelled during the lane change operation, a relative distance between the vehicle 402 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s), etc. In some examples, a sub-cost can be determined for a trajectory for each phase described above and the cost can be determined by each of the sub-costs."):
adapting the longitudinal speed (see Geller at least [0061] “…The lane assist system 100 may prepare to accelerate the vehicle 102 when the location of the open space or area is behind the vehicle 102 and the distance between the open space or area and the vehicle 102 is decreasing…”),
searching for another unsuitable gap (see Arora at least [0085] "In at least one example, the process 500 can be performed at a particular frequency, after a lapse of a period of time, and/or the like. In some examples, the process 500 can be performed for each “tick” of route planning. A “tick” can correspond to a period of time after which a trajectory is re-evaluated and/or updated for controlling the vehicle (e.g., 2 milliseconds (ms), 4 ms, etc.)."), and
executing the driving maneuver and/or vehicle function in such a way that an intent to carry out the lane change maneuver by the vehicle into the further unsuitable gap is indicated at least to the road users delimiting the further unsuitable gap (see Arora at least [0023] "...The preparation phase can correspond to a period of time during which the vehicle 102 can move longitudinally within the first lane 106 to align itself with a gap in the second lane 108 with no or minimal interaction with object(s) (e.g., the vehicle(s) 114-118) in the second lane 108. The merge phase can correspond to a period of time when the vehicle 102 is aligned with the gap in the second lane 108 and preparing to execute a lateral motion to merge into the gap with no or minimal interaction with object(s) in the first lane 106 and/or the second lane 108. The target phase can correspond to a period of time after the vehicle 102 has merged into the second lane 108 and is adjusting its velocity for avoiding interaction with object(s) in the second lane 108...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Arora with the detection of an unsuitable gap such as further taught by Geller with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 11, wherein the driving maneuver and/or vehicle function is executed according to a vehemence level selected from a plurality of vehemence levels based on a driving behavior of the user and/or a current traffic situation (see Arora at least [0022] "...That is, a gap associated with a smaller area and/or space can be associated with a higher cost and a gap associated with a larger area and/or space can be associated with a smaller cost. Additional details are provided below.").
Regarding claim 18, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of vehemence levels differ with respect to: escalation level, duration between escalation levels, and/or attempt duration (see Arora at least [0042] "...A cost can be determined based at least in part on a length of the trajectory in each of the phases, an amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation, an amount of time in the first lane 204, a distance travelled during the lane change operation, a relative distance between the vehicle 200 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s), etc. In some examples, a sub-cost can be determined for a trajectory for each phase described above and the cost can be determined by each of the sub-costs.").
Regarding claim 19, Arora in view of Geller teach the method according to claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of vehemence levels differ with respect to speed profiles (see Arora at least [0025] ”In at least one example, a cost can be determined for the trajectory 124. A cost can be determined based at least in part on a length of the trajectory 124 in each of the phases (e.g., penalizes a shorter trajectory length), an amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation (e.g., penalizes a larger amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation), an amount of time in the first lane 106 (e.g., penalizes a slow start to a lane change operation), a distance travelled during the lane change operation (e.g., penalizes a shorter distance), a relative distance between the vehicle 200 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s) (e.g., penalizes a small distance between the vehicle 200 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s), lack of forward progress, etc.), etc…”) that describe a course of the longitudinal speed based on a distance of the vehicle to the exit (see Geller at least [0072] "...In another example, if the route that the vehicle 102 is travelling has the vehicle 102 exiting and the vehicle 102 is in the middle lane as the highway exit approaches, the lane assist system 100 may select an open space or area in the exit lane that allows the vehicle 102 to safely exit in time.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Arora with information such as an exit location such as further taught by Geller with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, Arora in view of Geller teach a driver assistance system for a vehicle, wherein the driver assistance system is configured to carry out the method according to claim 11 (see Arora at least [0051] "FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an example system 400 for performing techniques, as described herein…").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parks et al. (US-2020/0391746) determines how viable a merge maneuver would be considering factors detected from various sensors.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights