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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on October 29, 2024. Claims 1-9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0152169, filed on November 6, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 29, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“emergency determination unit” in claims 1-4 and 7-9. A review of the specification shows that it embodies on a computer and contains a sensor information collecting module configured to collect at least one of 2D type object location information as coordinate system information and 3D type object location information, an object speed, an object direction, a blocked lane, and an emergency type as latitude and longitude information; and a sensor data determination module configured to determine the data of the sensor unit to detect a type of an emergency situation, a section in which the emergency situation occurred, location information, and whether the sensor is broken. See Fig.1, 3, 4 and pg.3 ln 9-15.
“controller” in claims 1 and 5-7. A review of the specification shows that it embodies on a computer and is a control system built through a server or a plurality of terminals, a server and a network. When reliable sensor data detection information is received, a reliability grade may be classified based thereon and transmitted to an autonomous vehicle and infrastructure. See Fig.1 and pg. 10 ln. 5-8 .
“data checking unit” in claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9. A review of the specification shows that it embodies on a computer and may include an information reception module 310 that receives information from the emergency determination unit 200, a reliability checking module 320 that verifies the reliability of the information received from the information reception module 310, and an information transmission module 330 that transmits a reliability check result to the controller 400. See Fig.1, 4, 5 and pg.8 ln. 21-25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the infrastructure" in “received from the infrastructure to the infrastructure.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as neither claim 6 nor claim 1 was not properly introduced “an infrastructure”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A reliability check system for unexpected situation detection information in a mixed traffic flow of a mix of autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles, the reliability check system comprising:
a sensor unit configured to detect emergency and disaster situations on or around a road, including at least one of a camera, a lidar, and a radar;
an emergency determination unit configured to analyze information received from the sensor unit to determine an emergency type;
a controller configured to classify a set grade according to detection information from the emergency determination unit and transmit a response manual to an autonomous vehicle and an on-site terminal; and
a data checking unit configured to verify at least one of whether firmware of the information received from the emergency determination unit has been falsified, whether a vehicle is hacked by remote control, whether CAN tampering occurred, and whether communication channel tampering occurred, and transmit verified data to at least one of the controller and the autonomous vehicle.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could mentally detect an issue with the sensor data, analyze emergency information based on the sensor data, classify the grade of information, and transmit a proper response based on the verified data integrity.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of “processor and memory” multiple times. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “transmit verified data to at least one of the controller and the autonomous vehicle”, is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 cites the same limitations as that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteuuis et al., US 20220338012 A1 (Hereinafter, “Monteuuis”), in view of Garcia et al., US 20240112568 A1 (Hereinafter, “Garcia”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Monteuuis discloses a reliability check system for unexpected situation detection information in a mixed traffic flow of a mix of autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles, the reliability check system comprising: a sensor unit configured to detect emergency and disaster situations on or around a road, including at least one of a camera, a lidar, and a radar;
See [0047], “V2X systems and technologies hold great promise for improving traffic flows and vehicle safety by enabling vehicles to share information regarding their location, speed, direction of travel, braking, and other factors that may be useful to other vehicles for anti-collision and other safety functions. “ And [0060], “a variety of V2X system participants, an example vehicle 101 of which is illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B. With reference to FIGS. 1A and 1B, a vehicle 101 may include a control unit 140 and a plurality of sensors 144-170, including … cameras 158, 160 … radar 168, and lidar 170.” And [0071], “The misbehavior management system stack (reliability check system) may include a radar perception layer 202, a camera perception layer 204, a positioning engine layer 206, a map fusion and arbitration layer 208, a route planning layer 210, sensor fusion and road world model (RWM) management layer 212, motion planning and control layer 214, and behavioral planning and prediction layer 216 … the configuration of the misbehavior management system stack 200 and DBW system/control unit 220 illustrated in FIG. 2A may be used in a vehicle configured for autonomous or semi-autonomous operation while a different configuration may be used in a non-autonomous vehicle.” Also [0081], “The refined location and state information may include vehicle descriptors associated with the vehicle and the … vehicle emergency status”
a controller configured to classify a set grade according to detection information from the
determination unit and transmit a response manual to an autonomous vehicle and an on-site
terminal; See [0065], “The drive control components 172a may also include components that control
other devices of the vehicle … interior and/or exterior informational displays (which may include a
display screen or other devices to display information).” And [0071], “The misbehavior management
system stack may include a radar perception layer 202, a camera perception layer 204, a positioning
engine layer 206, a map fusion and arbitration layer 208, a route planning layer 210, sensor fusion and
road world model (RWM) management layer 212, motion planning and control layer 214, and
behavioral planning and prediction layer 216 … The misbehavior management System stack 200 may
output vehicle control commands or signals to the drive by wire (DBW) system/control unit 220, which is
a system, subsystem or computing device that interfaces directly with vehicle steering, throttle and
brake controls.“ Also [0080], “The sensor fusion and RWM management layer 212 may be configured to
detect conditions in the sensor data, such as sensor measurements being at, above, or below a
threshold (classify a set grade), certain types of sensor measurements occurring, etc., and may output
the sensor data as part of the refined location and state information of the vehicle 101 provided to the
behavior planning and prediction layer 216 and/or devices remote from the vehicle 100.”
a data checking unit configured to verify at least one of whether firmware of the information received
from the See [0055], “methods and systems of detecting a possible misbehavior condition that may arise due to the inappropriate generation and/or receipt of a V2X message. While the sensor data contained within the V2X message may be the focus of most misbehavior condition detection systems, in some instances the generation or receipt of the V2X message itself may indicate a misbehavior condition … various V2X system may set operational thresholds with respect to the number, size and frequency of message a V2X system participant may send. The generation and/or receipt of V2X messages outside of these operational thresholds may indicate a misbehavior condition.” And [0071], “misbehavior management system stack 200 may receive and process data from sensors (e.g., radar, lidar, cameras, inertial measurement units (IMU) etc.), navigation systems (e.g., GPS receivers, IMUs, etc.), vehicle networks (e.g., Controller Area Network (CAN) bus), and databases in memory (e.g., digital map data). The misbehavior management system stack 200 may output vehicle control commands or signals to the drive by wire (DBW) system/control unit 220, which is a system, subsystem or computing device that interfaces directly with vehicle steering, throttle and brake controls. The configuration of the misbehavior management system stack 200 and DBW system/control unit 220 illustrated in FIG. 2A. “ And [0083], “The motion planning and control layer 214 may receive data and information outputs from the sensor fusion and RWM management layer 212 and other vehicle and object behavior as well as location predictions from the behavior planning and prediction layer 216, and use this information to plan and generate control signals for controlling the motion of the vehicle 101 and to verify that such control signals meet safety requirements for the vehicle 100.” And [0158], “To avoid a malicious actor from flooding the V2X system with false and misleading V2X message, each V2X message may include a security credential applied to the message to authenticate the messages to other V2X system participants. Typically, such security credentials follow a known protocol with mandated parameters.”
Monteuuis discloses a reliability checking system for vehicles, but does not disclose emergency actions. However, Garcia teaches autonomous systems including the following: an emergency determination unit configured to analyze information received from the sensor unit to determine an emergency type; See [0066], “The ESM 502 may comprise an emergency model 506. The emergency model 506 may be a machine learning model trained to detect and identify emergency situations from audio and/or visual data. For example, the emergency model 506 may be trained to detect and identify emergency situations using historical data corresponding to historical emergency situations. The emergency model 506 may be trained to detect and identify a plurality of different types of emergency situations. “ And [0073], “The emergency model 506 may be reinforced or retrained as the sensors 504 of the ESM 502 collect further data, e.g., audio and/or visual data. For example, the emergency model 506 may receive audio and/or visual data from the sensors 504 in order to detect and classify an emergency situation. The emergency model 506 may generate a confidence parameter for the emergency situation detected to indicate the confidence with which the model believes the detected emergency situation corresponds to an actual emergency situation. If the confidence parameter does not satisfy a threshold level, the audio and/or visual data may be automatically sent to the report center 512, which may evaluate said data to determine whether the emergency situation is occurring and classify it. Based on the determination and classification of the report center 512 as to whether the emergency situation was correctly detected, the emergency model 506 may be reinforced or retrained so as to more accurately detect emergency situations in the future.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Monteuuis’s device with the emergency detection limitations disclosed in Garcia with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to identify and report an emergency situation in a vehicle environment, see Garcia [0003].
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, Monteuuis discloses a reliability checking system for vehicles, but does not disclose emergency actions. However, Garcia teaches autonomous systems including the following: wherein the data checking unit is configured to detect whether there is an abnormality in a transmission location among the information received from the emergency determination unit and re-request the corresponding information from the emergency determination unit or blocks the corresponding information based on a detection result. See [0081-0083], “ESM 502 may report the emergency situation indirectly to the first responder system. In such embodiments, the report center 512 may comprise a processor operated by or on behalf of a control center different from the first responder system. For example, the report center 512 may be operated by or on behalf of a fleet system to which the vehicle 501 is a member, or any other third party entity. The report center 512 may process the data packet to determine whether the data contained therein should be relayed to the first responder system. In this way, the report center 512 may function as a filter (i.e. block unverified emergency data) such that the first responder system only receives data associated with further verified emergency situations.” Also [0103-0109], “With continued reference to FIGS. 11a-11b, at a step 1124, the autonomous vehicle control center server may verify that the final data packet corresponds to an emergency situation, to confirm the emergency model's identification of the situation as an emergency situation. This verification may be automatically performed by at least one processor of the autonomous vehicle control center server, or a representative associated with the autonomous vehicle control center server may verify the emergency situation. At a step 1126, after verifying the validity of the emergency situation, the autonomous vehicle control center server may notify an emergency response server operated by or on behalf of a first responder system. To notify the emergency response server, the autonomous vehicle control center server may transmit at least a portion of the final data packet to the emergency response server. Additionally or alternatively, a representative associated with the autonomous vehicle control center server may contact a representative of the emergency response server. At a step 1128, the emergency response server may initiate a response action to the emergency situation.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Monteuuis’s device with the emergency detection limitations disclosed in Garcia with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to identify and report an emergency situation in a vehicle environment, see Garcia [0003].
Regarding Claim 5, Monteuuis discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the data checking unit is configured to send verified information to the controller and transmits at least one of the information transmitted to the controller, signal information, and detouring path information for avoiding an unexpected point to a surrounding autonomous vehicle and an infrastructure. See [0083], “The motion planning and control layer 214 may receive data and information outputs from the sensor fusion and RWM management layer 212 and other vehicle and object behavior as well as location predictions from the behavior planning and prediction layer 216, and use this information to plan and generate control signals for controlling the motion of the vehicle 101 and to verify that such control signals meet safety requirements for the vehicle 100. For example, based on route planning information, refined location in the roadway information, and relative locations and motions of other vehicles, the motion planning and control layer 214 may verify and pass various control commands or instructions to the DBW system/control unit 220.”
Claims 2, 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteuuis in view of Garcia, in further view of Van Beek et al., US 20220161815 A1 (Hereinafter “Vanbeek”).
Regarding Claim 2, Monteuuis discloses a reliability checking system for vehicles, but does not disclose emergency actions. However, Garcia teaches autonomous systems including the following:
wherein the emergency determination unit comprises: a sensor information collecting module configured to collect at least one of 2D type object location information as coordinate system information and 3D type object location information, an object speed, an object direction, a blocked lane, and an emergency type as latitude and longitude information; and a sensor data determination module configured to determine the data of the sensor unit to detect a type of an emergency situation, a section in which the emergency situation occurred, location information, and See [0066], “The ESM 502 may comprise an emergency model 506 … The emergency model 506 may be trained to detect and identify a plurality of different types of emergency situations.” And [0071], “emergency model 506 may be trained using an ensemble learning based approach. The ensemble technique may be useful with the multi-modal sensing nature described herein, e.g., the use of cameras, LIDAR, audio, chemical, and/or other environment sensors. In some embodiments, a plurality of these sensors may be used as inputs to detect the emergency situation.” And [0075-0080] regarding types of sensor information collected. Also [0080], “The data packet generated by the packet generator 508 may comprise the environment data corresponding (and relevant to) to the first emergency situation. The data packet may comprise data collected by the sensors 504. The data packet may comprise other data and/or metadata including, but not limited to: data and/or metadata identifiers, location data (e.g., of the vehicle 501 and/or one of the sensors 504), temporal data (e.g., a date/time stamp associated with the data), a sensor identifier (e.g., in cases of a plurality of sensors), a vehicle identifier, vehicle travel data (e.g., vehicle location, velocity, acceleration, road identifier, route information, make, model, year, color, etc.), audio and/or visual data, situation identifier data (identifying the situation identified by the emergency model 506), and the like. A non-limiting example of data/metadata 1300 that may be included in a data packet is shown in FIG. 13.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Monteuuis’s device with the emergency detection limitations disclosed in Garcia with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to identify and report an emergency situation in a vehicle environment, see Garcia [0003].
Monteuuis and Garcia teach a reliability checking system for vehicles with emergency function, but do not explicitly teach sensor failure. However, Van Beek teaches autonomous systems monitoring of operational data for sensor errors in [0110].
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Monteuuis and Garcia’s device with the sensor normalization limitations disclosed in Garcia with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the ways the system can determine the autonomous vehicle health, see Van Beek [0110].
Regarding Claims 3 and 8, Monteuuis in view of Garcia teaches a reliability system with emergency determination, but does not explicitly teach sensor failure. However, Van Beek teaches an autonomous system with the following: wherein the See [0110], “system manager 250 may also be provided, which monitors information collected by various sensors on the vehicle to detect issues relating to the performance of a vehicle's autonomous driving system. For instance, computational errors, sensor outages and issues.” And [0130], “FIG. 6 is a simplified diagram showing an example process of rating and validating crowdsourced autonomous vehicle sensor data in accordance with at least one embodiment. In the example shown, each autonomous vehicle 602 collects data from one or more sensors coupled thereto (e.g., camera(s), LIDAR, radar, etc.). The autonomous vehicles 602 may use the sensor data to control one or more aspects of the autonomous vehicle. As each autonomous vehicle collects data from its one or more sensors, the autonomous vehicle may determine an amount of confidence placed in datum collected.” Also [0138] regrading confidence score and trust of sensor data. And [0147], “autonomous vehicle will gather sensor data from each of a plurality of sensors coupled to the autonomous vehicle, such as camera data, LIDAR data, geolocation data, temperature or other weather data … transmit its sensor data to the autonomous vehicle data scoring server 902 via the network 908. The autonomous vehicle data scoring server 902 may in turn score or rank the data as described herein, and determine based on the scoring/ranking whether to store the data in the crowdsourced data store 906.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Monteuuis’s device with the sensor normalization limitations disclosed in Garcia with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the ways the system can determine the autonomous vehicle health, see Van Beek [0110].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art could be located that covers the limitations of Claim 6 as recited.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 20200137580 A1 by Yang et al.
US Publication US 20200334554 A1 by Takahashi et al.
Korean Publication KR 101739235 B1 by Hong et al.
Korean Publication KR 102681879 B1 by Park et al.
Korean Publication KR 20190098092 A by Sunhee et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights