DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 12/18/2025. Claims 1-32 are pending for examination.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hakki et al. (US 2019/0344740).
Regarding claim 1: Hakki disclose one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing computer-executable instructions that upon execution cause one or more processors on a vehicle (¶0002) to perform acts comprising:
activating an Inertial Measurement Unit Sensor Processor (IMUSP) at a beginning of a trip in the vehicle for collection of IMUSP data (¶0014-0016);
activating a Time to Collision Sensor Processor (TTCSP) at the beginning of the trip for collection of TTCSP data (¶0033, 0037: implicit that those sensor are activating all the time);
analyzing, on an IMU Accident Detector (IMUAD), the collected IMUSP data for an abnormal event exceeding a first preconfigured threshold (¶0071-0072 and Fig. 9);
creating an IMUAD record using the analyzed IMUSP data (¶0071-0072 and Fig. 9);
transmitting, upon detection of the abnormal event, a first accident confidence flag to an Accident Confidence Analyzer (ACA) for further analysis (¶0071-0072 and Fig. 9);
analyzing, on a TTC Data Collector (TTCDC), the collected TTCSP data for a Time to Collision (TTC) or a Distance to Collision (DTC) below a second preconfigured threshold (¶Fig. 9a, ¶0071);
creating a TTCAD record using the analyzed TTCSP data (¶Fig. 9a, ¶0071);
analyzing, by the ACA, IMUAD and TTCAD records (¶0072-0074); and
transmitting, upon detection of the TTC or the DTC below the second preconfigured threshold, a second accident confidence flag to an Accident Confidence Analyzer (ACA) (¶0071).
Regarding claim 2: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the IMUSP and the TTCSP operate continuously during the trip (¶0071).
Regarding claim 8: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the IMUAD and the TTCAD operate continuously. (¶0071).
Regarding claim 9: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the TTCSP data and the IMUSP data are received from one or more internal sensors of the vehicle. (Fig. 9a, radar 44, camera 93, accelerator 51).
Regarding claim 10: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein the one or more internal sensors includes data from at least one of before, during, and after the abnormal event. ( (¶0071, Fig. 9a, radar 44, camera 93, accelerator 51).
Regarding claim 13: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein an occurrence of the abnormal event is high when the first accident confidence flag and the second accident confidence flag are received. (¶0071-0072).
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 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.
Claim(s) 3 & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakki et al. (US 2019/0344740) in view of Fuch (WO 2014/207558).
Regarding claim 3: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the TTCDC captures the collected TTCSP data at a high frequency when the time to collision or distance to collision are below a preset threshold.
In analogous art regarding collision detection systems, Fuch disclose wherein the TTCDC captures the collected TTCSP data at a high frequency when the time to collision or distance to collision are below a preset threshold.(¶0078)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the TTCDC captures the collected TTCSP data at a high frequency when the time to collision or distance to collision are below a preset threshold, as disclose by Fuch, to the system of Hakki. The motivation is to increase data collection at the time of an accident and save power and storage space (low frequency) when there is not an accident.
Regarding claim 11: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more internal sensors are located in a left quadrant, a right quadrant, a front quadrant, and a rear quadrant of the vehicle.
In analogous art regarding collision detection systems, Fuch disclose wherein the one or more internal sensors are located in a left quadrant, a right quadrant, a front quadrant, and a rear quadrant of the vehicle. (Fig. 1: Notice all aides are observed)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the one or more internal sensors are located in a left quadrant, a right quadrant, a front quadrant, and a rear quadrant of the vehicle, as disclose by Fuch, to the system of Hakki. The motivation is to provide 3260 monitoring hence expanding the capabilities of the system by detecting potential collision at all directions.
Regarding claim 12: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein multiple collisions in different quadrants are detected simultaneously (Notice Fig. 1 that at least front and rear vehicle are monitored, hence multiple collisions in different quadrant ca be perfomed)
Claim(s) 4-7, 15-17 & 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakki et al. (US 2019/0344740) in view of Chongqing (EP 4365046).
Regarding claim 4: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2, but does not explicitly wherein a confidence of an occurrence of an abnormal event is Moderate when an accident confidence from the TTCAD record is high and the first accident confidence flag from the IMUAD for a corresponding quadrant has not been detected.
In analogous art regarding Collison detection systems, Chongqing disclose a system that detect status of three sensors and based on the combined probabilities, it determine if the abnormal event (Collison) have a low, medium or high probability (table 4, Table 4 and ¶0040-0045).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein a confidence of an occurrence of an abnormal event is Moderate when an accident confidence from the TTCAD record is high and the first accident confidence flag from the IMUAD for a corresponding quadrant has not been detected, in view of the teaching of Chongqing. The motivation is to make the detection more accurate.
Regarding claim 5: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2, but does not explicitly wherein a confidence of an occurrence of an abnormal event is Moderate when an accident confidence from the IMUAD is high and the first accident confidence flag from the TTCAD for a corresponding quadrant has not been detected.
In analogous art regarding Collison detection systems, Chongqing disclose a system that detect status of three sensors and based on the combined probabilities, it determine if the abnormal event (Collison) have a low, medium or high probability (table 4, Table 4 and ¶0040-0045).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein a confidence of an occurrence of an abnormal event is Moderate when an accident confidence from the IMUAD is high and the first accident confidence flag from the TTCAD for a corresponding quadrant has not been detected, in view of the teaching of Chongqing. The motivation is to make the detection more accurate.
Regarding claim 6: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2, but does not explicitly wherein a confidence of an occurrence of an abnormal event is Low when an accident confidence from the IMUAD is Moderate or Low and the first accident confidence flag from the TTCAD for a corresponding quadrant has not been detected.
In analogous art regarding Collison detection systems, Chongqing disclose a system that detect status of three sensors and based on the combined probabilities, it determine if the abnormal event (Collison) have a low, medium or high probability (table 4, Table 4 and ¶0040-0045).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein a confidence of an occurrence of an abnormal event is Low when an accident confidence from the IMUAD is Moderate or Low and the first accident confidence flag from the TTCAD for a corresponding quadrant has not been detected, in view of the teaching of Chongqing. The motivation is to make the detection more accurate.
Regarding claim 7: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2, but does not explicitly wherein there is no recorded occurrence of an abnormal event in the ACA when the accident confidence from the TTCAD is Moderate and there is no accident confidence flag from the IMUAD for the corresponding quadrant.
In analogous art regarding collision detection systems, Chongqing disclose a system that detect status of three sensors and based on the combined probabilities, it determine if the abnormal event (collision) have a low, medium or high probability (table 4, Table 4 and ¶0040-0045).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein there is no recorded occurrence of an abnormal event in the ACA when the accident confidence from the TTCAD is Moderate and there is no accident confidence flag from the IMUAD for the corresponding quadrant, in view of the teaching of Chongqing. The motivation is to make the detection more accurate.
Regarding claim 15: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, but does not explicitly wherein the ACA utilizes the IMUAD data and the TTCAD data to determine the confidence level of the abnormal event.
In analogous art regarding Collison detection systems, Chongqing disclose wherein the ACA utilizes the IMUAD data and the TTCAD data to determine the confidence level of the abnormal event. (table 4, Table 4 and ¶0040-0045).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the ACA utilizes the IMUAD data and the TTCAD data to determine the confidence level of the abnormal event, in view of the teaching of Chongqing. The motivation is to make the detection more accurate.
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Hakki and Chongqing disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, further comprising: determining, by the ASA, a severity of damage caused by the abnormal event, using data from the ACA, IMUAD, TTCAD, IMUSP, and TTCSP.(Hakki: ¶0072)
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Hakki and Chongqing disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein a severity of damage to an ego vehicle is classified as Low, Moderate, or High.(Hakki: ¶0072)
Regarding claim 21: The combination of Hakki and Chongqing disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein a target object type is used in determining a severity of damage.(Chongqing: ¶0036)
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Hakki and Chongqing disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein a severity of injury to the target vehicle's passengers is classified as Null, Low, Moderate, or High..(Chongqing: Table 2, ¶0016).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakki et al. (US 2019/0344740).
Regarding claim 14: Hakki disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, but does not explicitly wherein the ACA waits to receive records from both the TTCAD and IMUAD for a preset threshold before determining the confidence level of the abnormal event. However, it is fully understandable that a potential collision does not happen instantaneously, therefore, the ACA implicitly have to wait to receive that data as it happens and gather enough data to make a determination. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the ACA waits to receive records from both the TTCAD and IMUAD for a preset threshold before determining the confidence level of the abnormal event in order to for the system to gather enough data to make an accurate determination.
Claim(s) 18-20 and 23-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakki et al. (US 2019/0344740) in view of Chongqing (EP 4365046) and further in view of in view of Fuch (WO 2014/207558).
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Hakki and Chongqing disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a severity of injury to passengers in an ego vehicle is classified as Low, Moderate, or High.
In analogous art regarding collision systems, Fuch disclose wherein a severity of injury to passengers in an ego vehicle is classified as Low, Moderate, or High (¶0019, ¶0055, ¶0060, ¶0062:seatbelt fastened indicator)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein a severity of injury to passengers in an ego vehicle is classified as Low, Moderate, or High, as disclose by Fuch, to the system of the combination of Hakki and Chongqing. The motivations is to assess driver injury so proper help can be requested.
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18, wherein determining the severity of injury to the passengers in the ego vehicle includes use of seatbelts by the passengers in the ego vehicle. (Fuch: ¶0019, ¶0055, ¶0060, ¶0062:seatbelt fastened indicator)
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Hakki and Chongqing disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the calculation of severity of injury to passengers in an ego vehicle is performed on a local device in or on the vehicle.
In analogous art regarding collision systems, Fuch disclose wherein the calculation of severity of injury to passengers in an ego vehicle is performed on a local device in or on the vehicle. (¶0004)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the calculation of severity of injury to passengers in an ego vehicle is performed on a local device in or on the vehicle, as disclose by Fuch, to the system of the combination of Hakki and Chongqing. The motivations is to make quicker assessment without the need of remote communication and analysis hence making the system more effective and reliable.
Regarding claim 23: The combination of Hakki and Chongqing disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the calculation of severity of injury to passengers in an ego vehicle is performed on a local device in or on the vehicle.
In analogous art regarding collision systems, Fuch disclose wherein the calculation of severity of injury to passengers in an ego vehicle is performed on a local device in or on the vehicle. (¶0004)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the calculation of severity of injury to passengers in an ego vehicle is performed on a local device in or on the vehicle, as disclose by Fuch, to the system of the combination of Hakki and Chongqing. The motivations is to make quicker assessment without the need of remote communication and analysis hence making the system more effective and reliable.
Regarding claim 24: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 23, wherein the calculation of severity of injury to passengers in a target vehicle is performed on a local device in or on the vehicle. (Fuch: ¶0004)
Regarding claim 25: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 23, wherein the calculation of severity of injury to passengers in a target vehicle is performed on a local device in or on the vehicle. (Fuch: ¶0004)
Regarding claim 26: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 25, wherein the calculation of severity of injury to passengers in a target vehicle is performed on a local device in or on the vehicle. (Fuch: ¶0004)
Regarding claim 27: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 25, wherein the calculation of severity of damage is performed in or on the vehicle. (Fuch: ¶0004)
Regarding claim 28: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 25, further comprising generating a collision report using data from the ACA, TTCSP, IMUSP, TTCDC, TTCSP, IMUAD, and TTCAD. (Fuch: ¶0055, 0069, 0070, 0085-0087)
Regarding claim 29: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 28, wherein the collision report is generated by a local device in or on the vehicle. (Fuch: ¶0004)
Regarding claim 30: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 28, further comprising storing the collision report to a local storage device in or on the vehicle. (Fuch: ¶0004)
Regarding claim 31: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 28 further comprising transmitting the collision report to a connected user device. (Fuch: ¶0055, 0069, 0070, 0085-0087)
Regarding claim 32: The combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 28, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting the collision report to a cloud. However it does transmit information about a and communication with external device through wireless means (Hakki: ¶0078) and a cloud is a well-known option for remote destination reach by wireless means. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include transmitting the collision report to a cloud, in view of the teaching of the combination of Hakki, Chongqing and Fuch since having a limited universe of potential options (remote destination reach by wireless means), the selection of any particular option (cloud) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (transmitting the information to a remote entity), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argue in substance:
Applicant argument is an explanation on how the invention operate claiming is the “claimed invention” while it relies on multiple disclose describe in the spec and how the prior art is different architecturally.
Applicant argue that Hakki does not disclose a time to collision sensor processor (TTCSP)
Examiner respectfully: 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 (The TTCSP is a dedicated processor that collects and processes Time to Collision (TTC) and Distance to Collision (DTC) data from external sensors such as RADAR, LIDAR, cameras, and ultrasonic sensors. The TTCSP computes the distance and expected time until collision in each quadrant of the vehicle, i.e., it performs predictive calculations to determine when and where a collision is about to occur. See Applicant's Specification at ][q[[0053], [0080]-[0083], FIG. 15.) 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).
Applicant further argue that argue that Hakki relies on post-collision acceleration, i.e., detecting a collision has already occurred.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Hakki describe the system as an accident avoidance system ([0034]). Therefore, it must collect data before the accident in order to avoid it.
Applicant argue that Hakki does not disclose a time to collision sensor processor (TTCSP)
Examiner respectfully: 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 (The TTCDC is a distinct component that continuously reads data from the TTCSP and determines when an accident is imminent based on TTC/DTC threshold comparisons. When the TTCDC determines that TTC/DTC values are below the threshold, indicating a collision is about to occur, it signals the TTCSP to capture data at high frequency and begins writing data to memory. See Applicant's Specification at 9[9[[0053]-[0055], FIGS. 9A-9B) 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).
Applicant argue Hakki Does Not Disclose Creating a TTCAD Record
Examiner respectfully: 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 (The TTCAD record is a specific data structure created by the TTC Accident Detector (TTCAD) that contains data including: time stamps, minimum DTC values in each quadrant, TTC values in each quadrant, ego vehicle pre-collision and post-collision speeds, target object pre-collision and post-collision speeds, accident confidence ratings for each quadrant, and recorded impact durations. See Applicant's Specification at 99[0056]-[0059], FIGS. 10A-10D) 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).
Applicant argue Hakki Does Not Disclose the Dual Confidence Flag System
Examiner respectfully: 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 (This dual-flag architecture is central to the claimed sensor fusion approach. The system receives independent confidence flags from two separate detection paths, one based on IMU/acceleration data (reactive, post-impact detection) and one based on TTC/DTC data (predictive, pre-impact detection), and uses the presence or absence of each flag to determine the overall confidence level of collision occurrence. See Applicant's Specification at 919[[0060]-[0067]) 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).
Hakki Does Not Disclose an ACA That Analyzes Both IMUAD and TTCAD Records
Examiner respectfully: 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 (This limitation requires that the Accident Confidence Analyzer receive and correlate data from both the IMU- based detection path (IMUAD records) and the TTC-based detection path (TTCAD records) to determine collision confidence. The ACA uses the correlation of these two independent data sources to assign confidence levels, High confidence when both paths detect an event, Moderate confidence when only one path detects an event with high severity/confidence, and so forth. See Applicant's Specification at 919[[0060]-[0067], FIGS. 11A-11E. The Office Action cites Hakki 919[0072]-[0074] for this limitation. However, these paragraphs describe determining collision severity based on the magnitude of acceleration, i.e., how much the measured G-force exceeds the threshold. See Hakki 919[[0040]-[0041]) 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).
Hakki Does Not Disclose Any Pre-Collision Detection Capability
Examiner respectfully: 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 (The TTCSP computes Time to Collision and Distance to Collision values that indicate when a collision is about to occur. The TTCDC monitors these values and triggers high-frequency data capture when they fall below thresholds indicating an imminent collision. The TTCAD then creates records based on this pre-impact data. This entire path operates before the collision occurs, providing predictive capability. See Applicant's Specification at in contrast, Hakki system is entirely reactive. Hakki detects collisions only after they have occurred by measuring the acceleration/deceleration forces caused by the impact. See Hakki Я19[0033]-[0037] (describing collision detection based on acceleration exceeding thresholds such as 1.1g)) 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).
Hakki's Single-Path Reactive Architecture Cannot Anticipate Applicant's Dual- Path Predictive/Reactive Architecture.
Claim 13 Requires Sensor Fusion Corroboration Not Found in Hakki
Examiner respectfully: the system disclose a first and second threshold, The claim does not claim the both sensor are talking into consideration in order to determine an abnormal event.
III. Claim 13 Requires Sensor Fusion Corroboration Not Found in Hakki III.
Examiner respectfully: as disclose in paragraph [0071-0072] the system determine if a warning for a possible collision is detected and with the same data , it determine if a collision is likely to have occurred. Without the data corroboration (or fusion corroboration (not in the claim)), the system would n not be able to detect a collision.
The rest of the claims are based on previous argument already discussed and addressed.
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 OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689