DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in reply to the response, filed 20 April 2026, which was in reply to the non-final action, dated 5 February 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, and 6-9 are pending. Claims 1, 3 and 4 have been amended, claim 5 has been canceled, and claims 6-9 have been newly added.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5, (pgs. 6-13, Action), Application contends, referencing [0025] of Ravualapalli, that when the vehicle is in the inactive mode, the vehicle is unable to communicate with the computer system 132 via the first connection module 136, and thus one would not combine with Masuda which requires the vehicle to have an active and open connection to a remove server (pg. 6, Action). This contention is unpersuasive.
As disclosed in Ravulapalli, the computer system 132 also has a second connection model 138, in addition to the first connection module 136. Ravulapalli further discloses at [0031] that by utilizing the policy 112, a user of the vehicle 130 can customize or select which software updates to receive while the vehicle 130 is inactive, or can customize or select which communication methods or connections modules 136 or 138 can receive or transmit communications. In this manner, one-way communication between the vehicle 130 and the network 101 can be selected to be activated for one or more of the connection modules 136 or 138 based on the policy 112. Thus it is possible to have either of the module in-active, for example, first module active, while second module is inactive. In this way Ravulapalli would still connunicate to receive over the air updates. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Ravulapalli and Mousuda.
Applicant further contends that “there is no discussion in Mousuda that the remote operation could correspond to placing a vehicle in an active or an inactive mode” (pg. 7, Reply), however there is no such recitation in the limitation. Further under the broadest reasonable interpretation Masuda teaches the limitation “determine a candidate of a time-related condition according to history when the user used the vehicle in the past” at [0056] disclosing that the recommendation information determination unit 230 may determine to make a recommendation to the user 90a based on the remote operation history, which was interpreted as history of a time when the user used the vehicle in the past. This interpretation is further supported by paragraph [0064] disclosing that if the internal and external environmental information of the vehicle 10 in a predetermined timing determined from the action plan of the user 90 of the vehicle 10 satisfies the predetermined condition, the recommendation information determination unit 230 determines to make a recommendation to the user 90 based on the remote operation history. Therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation Masuda teaches “determine a candidate of a time-related condition according to history when the user used the vehicle in the past”, as discussed below.
Accordingly, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1 and 2 in view of Ravulapalli, Masuda and Kolberg; claims 3, 4 and 9 in view of Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg and Yashiro; and claims 6, 7, 8 in view of Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg and Jaggi, as discussed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 11 June 2026 complies with 35 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the 1449 Form is enclosed herewith.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0411541 to Ravulapalli et al. (hereafter Ravulapalli) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0329647 to Masuda, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0357014 to Kolberg et al. (hereafter Kolberg).
As per claim 1, Ravulapalli disclose [a]n information processing device (see at least Ravulapalli, Abstract), comprising:
a control unit (see at least Ravulapalli, [0023] disclosing first and second control modules 136 and 138) configured to : ... (1) ... ,
the time-related condition that is a condition for specifying a period for a communication function of the vehicle relating to remote operations to be placed in at least one of a stopped state and a standby state (see at least Ravulapalli, [0023] disclosing that the first connection module 136 and the second connection module 138 can enable, activate, deactivate, monitor, or control one or more communication channels of the vehicle 130. The first connection module 136 and the second connection module 138 can be configured to communicate with each other, the components of the vehicle 130, the data processing system 102, the network 101, or the mobile device 120, among others. And that each connection module of the connection modules 136 and 138 can include a network connection or a communication channel to facilitate communications within the vehicle 130 and with external systems. Each connection module of the connection modules 136 and 138 can correspond to different communication parameters for controlling the one or more communication channels of the vehicle 130 <interpreted as a function of the vehicle relating to remote operation>; [0030] disclosing that the selection of inactive mode can be associated with a profile 114. The profile 114 can correspond to various data and preferences, such as the decision to operate in inactive mode <interpreted as a condition specified by a user of a vehicle; and interpreted as the stopped state>. The profile 114 can include driving habits of a user associated with the profile 114; [0031] disclosing that the policy 112 can be time-based or schedule-based <interpreted as a time related condition>. For example, the user can select that an action prompting a network connection during inactive mode only trigger a connectivity request during certain hours), ... (2) ... , ... (3) ... ; and
place the communication function in at least one of the stopped state or the standby state in accordance with the time-related condition that is acquired (see at least Ravulapalli, [0031] disclosing that the policy 112 can be time-based or schedule-based <interpreted as a time related condition>. For example, the user can select that an action prompting a network connection during inactive mode only trigger a connectivity request during certain hours). But, Ravulapalli does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Masuda:
(1) determine a candidate of the time-related condition according to a history of a time when a user used the vehicle in a past (see at least Masuda, [0056] disclosing that the recommendation information determination unit 230 may determine to make a recommendation to the user 90a based on the remote operation history, if there is a predetermined amount of time before the scheduled time of action of the user 90a based on the action plan of the user 90a acquired by the action plan acquisition unit 240; [0064] disclosing that the recommendation information determination unit 230 determines whether to make a recommendation to the user 90 based on the remote operation history. For example, if the internal and external environmental information of the vehicle 10 in a predetermined timing determined from the action plan of the user 90 of the vehicle 10 satisfies the predetermined condition, the recommendation information determination unit 230 determines to make a recommendation to the user 90 based on the remote operation history) ... . But, neither Ravulapalli nor Masuda explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Kolberg:
(2) output information for causing the user to select whether to consent to the candidate (see at least Kolberg, [0160]; [0161] disclosing that to increase system security, the method can optionally include the following step: receiving a consent message, in particular a text or voice message, to agree to remote access); and
(3) setting the candidate to the time-related condition in accordance with consent of the user to the candidate (see at least Kolberg, [0160]; [0161]).
Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of information processing device acquires a timing condition designated by the user of the vehicle. Ravulapalli relates to an inactive vehicle mode in vehicles that connect to networks in order to perform various functions (see at least Ravulapalli, Abstract; [0001]). Masuda relates to a vehicle remote operation apparatus (see at least Masuda, [0001]). Kolberg relates to devices and systems for remotely accessing a vehicle (see at least Kolberg, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ravulapalli, to provide the benefit of (1) having the control unit further execute determining a candidate of the time-related condition according to history of a time when the user used the vehicle in a past, as disclosed in Masuda, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to provide the benefit of (2) outputting information causing the user to select whether to consent to the candidate and (3) setting the candidate to the time-related condition in accordance with consent of the user to the candidate, as disclosed in Kolberg, with a reasonable expectations of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of increasing system security (see at least Kolberg, [0160]).
As per claim 2, the combination of Ravulapalli, Masuda and Kolberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Masuda further discloses the following limitation:
wherein: the time-related condition is a condition for immediately placing the communication function in the stopped state (see at least Ravulapalli, [0017] disclosing that the inactive mode can be a user-initiated mode of operation of the vehicle in which the user (e.g., driver) chooses to suspend network connectivity to the vehicle <interpreted as immediately placing the communication in the stopped state>; [0023]; [0030] disclosing that the selection of inactive mode can be associated with a profile 114. The profile 114 can correspond to various data and preferences, such as the decision to operate in inactive mode. ; [0031]); and
in accordance with reception of the time-related condition, the control unit immediately places the communication function in the stopped state (see at least Ravulapalli, [0030]; [0031]).
Claims 3, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Ravulapalli, Masuda and Kolberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0088794 to Yashiro et al. (hereafter Yashiro).
As per claim 3, the combination of Ravulapalli, Masuda and Kolberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ravulapalli further discloses
wherein: the time-related condition is a condition for specifying a period ... placing the communication function in the stopped state (see at least Ravulapalli, [0030]; [0049] disclosing that to activate the connection, the connection manager 106 can identify the mobile device 120. The mobile device 120 can be linked (e.g., communicatively coupled) with the computing system 132. The mobile device 120 can be associated with a user of the vehicle 130. The mobile device can be associated with the profile 114 of the user. The mobile device 120 can be associated with the profile 114 by at least a prior pairing of the mobile device 120 to the vehicle 130. For example, the mobile device 120 can connect to the computing system 132 via a wired or wireless connection. The computing system 132 can store the mobile device 120 in association with the profile 114 of the user in the data repository 110 subsequent to the connection.; [0053] disclosing that the connection manager 106 can limit the duration of the network connection. The connection manager 106 can limit the duration of the network connection based on time. For example, the connection manager 106 can enable activation of the network connection between the computing system 132 and the data processing system 102 for an hour, twelve hours, or two days.) ... . But, neither Ravulapalli, Masuda nor Kolberg explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Yashiro:
the time-related condition is a condition for specifying a period for temporarily placing the communication function in the stopped state (see at least Yashiro, [0083] disclosing that the mode-switch timing setting unit 31 is operated via a touch panel 30B of the touch panel display 30 of the smartphone 3. The mode-switch timing displaying unit 32 and the communication-state indicating unit 33 are operated via a display 30A of the touch panel display 30 of the smartphone 3. The time schedule for the reception standby mode or the reception dormant mode is set by operation of the setting menu 800 on the smartphone 3, which is illustrated in FIGS. 11 and 12. The reception-mode timer button is selected from the setting menu. In response, a reception-mode-timer setting menu 900, such as that illustrated in FIG. 13A, is displayed ; [0084] disclosing that as illustrated in FIG. 13A, the top edge region of the reception-mode-timer setting menu 900 displays a menu title (reception-mode timer setting) 901, an update button (switch button) 902, and a return button (switch button) 903. The bottom edge region displays a timer setting button 911 and a send button 91; [0085] disclosing that The remaining center area of the reception-mode-timer setting menu 900 other than the top edge and the bottom edge regions displays a time schedule set regarding the timing of the reception standby mode. The following four setting patterns (1) to (4) for the reception standby mode and the current state (5) are provided for the requested establishment of communication between the smartphone 3 and the vehicle 1 by the operator, such as the driver, of the vehicle; [0086] (1) Time of control enabled after exiting vehicle: X hours; ; [0087] (2) Time 1 of control enabled: X1 to X2 every day ; [0088] (3) Time 2 of remote control enabled: X3 to X4 every day; [0089] (4) Time 3 of remote control enabled: Y1 to Y2 every hour; [0090] (5) Current remote control: activated/deactivated; [0091]);
the control unit executes placing the communication function in the stopped state in accordance with a start time of the period arriving (see at least Yashiro, [0083]-[0091]), and
placing the communication function in the standby state in accordance with an end time of the period arriving (see at least Yashiro, [0083]-[0091]).
Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg, and Yashiro are analogous art to claim 3 because they are in the same field of information processing device acquires a timing condition designated by the user of the vehicle. Ravulapalli relates to an inactive vehicle mode in vehicles that connect to networks in order to perform various functions (see at least Ravulapalli, Abstract; [0001]). Masuda relates to a vehicle remote operation apparatus (see at least Masuda, [0001]). Kolberg relates to devices and systems for remotely accessing a vehicle (see at least Kolberg, Abstract). Yashiro relates to a system that remotely controls devices installed in an automobile (see at least Yashiro, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ravulapalli, as modified by Masuda and Kolberg, to provide the benefit of having the time-related condition be a condition for specifying a period for temporarily placing the communication function in the stopped state, having the control unit execute placing the communication function in the stopped state in accordance with a start time of the period arriving, and placing the communication function in the standby state in accordance with an end time of the period arriving, as disclosed in Yashiro, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing the convenience of the vehicles in use, saving battery power, and preventing consumption of the battery power by the standby current (see at least Yashiro, [0020]; [0031]).
As per claim 4, the combination of Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ravulapalli further discloses:
wherein: the time-related condition is a condition for specifying at least one of a day of a week and a part of day for regularly placing the communication function in the stopped state (similar to claim 3, see at least Ravulapalli, [0030]; [0049]; [0053] disclosing that the connection manager 106 can limit the duration of the network connection. The connection manager 106 can limit the duration of the network connection based on time. For example, the connection manager 106 can enable activation of the network connection between the computing system 132 and the data processing system 102 for an hour, twelve hours <interpreted as part of a day>, or two days.) ... . But, neither Ravulapalli, Masuda nor Kolberg explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Yashiro:
wherein: the time-related condition is a condition for specifying at least one of a day of a week and a part of day for regularly placing the communication function in the stopped state (similar to claim 3, see at least Yashiro, [0083]-[0091]);
the control unit executes placing the communication function in the stopped state every time at least one of the day of the week and the part of day arrives (similar to claim 3, see at least Yashiro, [0083]-[0091]), and
placing the communication function in the standby state every time at least one of the day of the week and the part of day ends (similar to claim 3, see at least Yashiro, [0083]-[0091]).
Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg and Yashiro are analogous art to claim 4 because they are in the same field of information processing device acquires a timing condition designated by the user of the vehicle. Ravulapalli relates to an inactive vehicle mode in vehicles that connect to networks in order to perform various functions (see at least Ravulapalli, Abstract; [0001]). Masuda relates to a vehicle remote operation apparatus (see at least Masuda, [0001]). Kolberg relates to devices and systems for remotely accessing a vehicle (see at least Kolberg, Abstract). Yashiro relates to a system that remotely controls devices installed in an automobile (see at least Yashiro, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ravulapalli, as modified by Masuda and Kolberg, to provide the benefit of having the time-related condition be a condition for specifying at least one of a day of a week and a part of day for regularly placing the communication function in the stopped state, having the control unit execute placing the communication function in the stopped state every time at least one of the day of the week and the part of day arrives, and placing the communication function in the standby state every time at least one of the day of the week and the part of day ends, as disclosed in Yashiro, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing the convenience of the vehicles in use, saving battery power, and preventing consumption of the battery power by the standby current (see at least Yashiro, [0020]; [0031]).
As per claim 9, the combination of Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Ravulapalli, Masuda nor Kolberg explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Yashiro:
wherein the communication function is placed in the stopped state in accordance with the time-related condition (see at least Yashiro, [0018] disclosing that FIGS. 13A and 13B illustrate the settings for the timing control of the switching of communication modes in a wireless communication device installed in a vehicle of a remote control system for in-vehicle devices according to an embodiment of the present invention; FIG. 13A illustrates a menu for setting a standby schedule; and FIG. 13B illustrates a menu for setting timers ; [0080] disclosing that the communication ECU 4 of the vehicle has a switch to connect/disconnect a current from the +B terminal 43. The communication ECU 4 connects with the +B terminal 43 only within a specific time period in a set time schedule and disconnects with the +B terminal 43 at other times. The switching is achieved via a softswitch that is controllable by software. The time schedule can be set via the smartphone 3).
Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg and Yashiro are analogous art to claim 9 because they are in the same field of information processing device acquires a timing condition designated by the user of the vehicle. Ravulapalli relates to an inactive vehicle mode in vehicles that connect to networks in order to perform various functions (see at least Ravulapalli, Abstract; [0001]). Masuda relates to a vehicle remote operation apparatus (see at least Masuda, [0001]). Kolberg relates to devices and systems for remotely accessing a vehicle (see at least Kolberg, Abstract). Yashiro relates to a system that remotely controls devices installed in an automobile (see at least Yashiro, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ravulapalli, as modified by Masuda and Kolberg, to provide the benefit of having the communication function is placed in the stopped state in accordance with the time-related condition, as disclosed in Yashiro, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing the convenience of the vehicles in use, saving battery power, and preventing consumption of the battery power by the standby current (see at least Yashiro, [0020]; [0031]).
Claims 6, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravulapalli, Masuda and Kolberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0241484 to Jaggi et al. (hereafter Jaggi).
As per claim 6, the combination of Ravulapalli, Masuda and Kolberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Ravulapalli, Masuda nor Kolberg explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Jaggi:
wherein the history of the time when the user used the vehicle in the past is when the user drove the vehicle in past (see at least Jaggi, [0062] disclosing that historical data is obtained at step 312. The historical data pertains to a particular user 17's operation of the vehicle 12 in previous vehicle drives (e.g., in previous ignition cycles for the vehicle 12). The user history may include a history of dates of the week, times of day, and combinations thereof in which the user 17 has historically utilized the vehicle 12, along with a history of destinations in which the vehicle 12 has traveled to, and/or routes that the vehicle 12 has taken along the way. In certain embodiments, the historical data may include vehicle agnostic data, and/or may include a user history across different vehicles (e.g., if a user owns different vehicles and/or leases different vehicles at different points in time, and so on). In certain embodiments, the historical data may apply to the vehicle 12 without regard to a particular user (e.g., as to the vehicle 12's history, without regard to any particular user), and/or may apply to a particular user 17 without regard to the vehicle 12 (e.g., across different vehicles), among other possible variations. The historical data is stored in a computer memory, such as the memory 40 of the vehicle 12 of FIG. 1 and/or the database 56 of the remote server 18 of FIG. 1).
Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg and Jaggi are analogous art to claim 6 because they are in the same field of information processing device acquires a timing condition designated by the user of the vehicle. Ravulapalli relates to an inactive vehicle mode in vehicles that connect to networks in order to perform various functions (see at least Ravulapalli, Abstract; [0001]). Masuda relates to a vehicle remote operation apparatus (see at least Masuda, [0001]). Kolberg relates to devices and systems for remotely accessing a vehicle (see at least Kolberg, Abstract). Jaggi relates to remote commands for vehicles (see Jaggi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ravulapalli, as modified by Masuda and Kolberg, to provide the benefit of having the history of the time when the user used the vehicle in the past be when the user drove the vehicle in past, as disclosed in Jaggi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the remote commands based on the vehicle’s circumstances (see at least Jaggi, [0002]).
As per claim 7, the combination of Ravulapalli, Masuda and Kolberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Ravulapalli, Masuda nor Kolberg explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Jaggi:
wherein the history of the time when the user used the vehicle includes at least one of a day of the week and a time period the user used the vehicle (see at least Jaggi, [0062]).
Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg and Jaggi are analogous art to claim 7 because they are in the same field of information processing device acquires a timing condition designated by the user of the vehicle. Ravulapalli relates to an inactive vehicle mode in vehicles that connect to networks in order to perform various functions (see at least Ravulapalli, Abstract; [0001]). Masuda relates to a vehicle remote operation apparatus (see at least Masuda, [0001]). Kolberg relates to devices and systems for remotely accessing a vehicle (see at least Kolberg, Abstract). Jaggi relates to remote commands for vehicles (see Jaggi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ravulapalli, as modified by Masuda and Kolberg, to provide the benefit of having the history of the time when the user used the vehicle include at least one of a day of the week and a time period the user used the vehicle, as disclosed in Jaggi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the remote commands based on the vehicle’s circumstances (see at least Jaggi, [0002]).
As per claim 8, the combination of Ravulapalli, Masuda and Kolberg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Ravulapalli, Masuda nor Kolberg explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Jaggi:
wherein the history of the time when the user used the vehicle includes at least one of a day or the week and a time period the user did not drive the vehicle (see at least Jaggi, [0062]).
Ravulapalli, Masuda, Kolberg and Jaggi are analogous art to claim 7 because they are in the same field of information processing device acquires a timing condition designated by the user of the vehicle. Ravulapalli relates to an inactive vehicle mode in vehicles that connect to networks in order to perform various functions (see at least Ravulapalli, Abstract; [0001]). Masuda relates to a vehicle remote operation apparatus (see at least Masuda, [0001]). Kolberg relates to devices and systems for remotely accessing a vehicle (see at least Kolberg, Abstract). Jaggi relates to remote commands for vehicles (see Jaggi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Ravulapalli, as modified by Masuda and Kolberg, to provide the benefit of having the history of the time when the user used the vehicle include at least one of a day or the week and a time period the user did not drive the vehicle, as disclosed in Jaggi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the remote commands based on the vehicle’s circumstances (see at least Jaggi, [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0102069 to Mueller at [0009] disclosing that the invention the communication device is switched to an inactive mode after a certain period of time following parking of the vehicle, wherein it is no longer available for communication. There is also a (concurrent) second predetermined time interval, after the expiration of which the vehicle devices are switched to a so-called "sleep-mode", in which the energy requirement of the vehicle devices is reduced in comparison to the normal mode; and [0025] [0025] disclosing that this means for example that the communication unit 40 continues to remain logged in to a cellular mobile radio network. Following conclusion of time interval T1 the communication unit 40 switches itself off. In the switched-off mode the communication device 40 is no longer available for communication, that is, it cannot establish a communication link and it is not possible from outside, for example through unit 20 via communication unit 25, to establish a communication link with the communication unit 40.
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 PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights