DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-22 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 20 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 12, 14, and 17-19 are original. Claims 21 and 22 are new.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 6/23/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 6/23/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 6), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The arguments are based on similar Claim 6 not being rejected. However, the rejection of Claim 16 stems from Claim 13 reciting “internal vehicle state conditions.” Claim 3, in contrast, only recites “vehicle state conditions” and does not limit this to internal conditions. Therefore, the same issue does not exist in Claim 6. No reasoned arguments regarding Claim 16 have been provided. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 6-7), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 102 and 103 (presented on p. 7-8), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of US2019/0137290A1 (Levy et al.) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2019/0332123A1 (Donnelly et al.), US2019/0188610A1 (Ogden et al.), CN112810400A (Zhou), and US2019/0047497A1 (Sham).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶0076, “acepted” should instead read “accepted”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 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.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation “wherein the temperature condition is a temperature of the at least one weather condition” renders the claim indefinite. Based on Claims 13 and 14, from which Claim 16 depends, the temperature condition is one of “internal vehicle state conditions.” However temperature of the weather condition as recited in Claim 16 would appear to be an external condition the vehicle experiences as opposed to an internal condition such as cabin temperature. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as any temperature condition.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0332123A1 (Donnelly et al.) in view of US2019/0137290A1 (Levy et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Donnelly et al. discloses a method (see Figure 12) comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices (see [0155] method 1200 can be performed by any system/computing devices and see [0177, 0186] operations computing system 106 as processors in server), at least one weather condition (see [0086] weather for area 200) at a pickup or drop off location of a passenger (see Figure 2, area 200 includes location 202, which [0079] location at which the user 110 would like to be picked-up by the vehicle 104, or retrieve an item from vehicle) for an autonomous vehicle (see [0061]);
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of priorities for pickup or drop off, one or more priorities corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0158] acceptable walking distance in step 1204 as a priority ([0086] corresponds to weather data. Additionally all information considered in steps 1206-1216 being priorities for deciding about the pickup or drop off, and corresponding to weather as the steps are based on previous step 1204);
determining, by the one or more processors, an alternate pickup or drop off location (see [0164] at 1218, determination of action of stopping at least partially in travel way in the vicinity (and see Figure 2, travel ways in the vicinity being different/alternate than position 202)) based on the one or more priorities and the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 12 based on 1202, 1204); and
causing, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to control itself in an autonomous driving mode to the alternate pickup or drop off location (see [0165] step 1220).
Donnelly et al. further discloses the priority adjusting distance between the pickup location and passenger (see [0158]) but does not explicitly recite: at least one of the one or more priorities:
relating to relaxing one or more constraints associated with inconveniencing other road users.
However, Levy et al. teaches a technique to implement priorities for passenger pickup, wherein threshold distance to a pickup location is:
relating to relaxing one or more constraints associated with inconveniencing other road users (see [0077], autonomous vehicle can elect to double park, if the autonomous vehicle fails to identify a viable wait location… within the threshold distance of the pickup location.).
In other words, the one or more priorities of distance of Donnelly et al. (which correspond to the weather condition) are related to relaxing the constraint of inconveniencing other road users by double parking as taught by Levy et al., because a smaller distance causes a smaller search area for other viable locations and therefore higher chance of double parking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the priorities and distance for finding a stopping location of Donnelly et al. to further use the technique of Levy et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of limiting inconvenience for users as well as other nearby vehicles (see Levy et al., [0063-0064]).
Regarding Claim 11: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Claim 11 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 1. Claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 21, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the one or more priorities further relates to prioritizing proximity of the alternate pickup or drop off location to the passenger by relaxing the one or more constraints associated with inconveniencing other road users.
However, Levy et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the at least one of the one or more priorities further relates to prioritizing proximity of the alternate pickup or drop off location to the passenger (see [0077] requiring wait location within threshold distance) by relaxing the one or more constraints associated with inconveniencing other road users (see [0077] by allowing double parking at the pickup location if other viable spot cannot be found).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Levy et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more constraints associated with inconveniencing other road users relates to double parking.
However, Levy et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the one or more constraints associated with inconveniencing other road users relates to double parking (see [0077] and the rejection of Claim 1, above).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Levy et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0332123A1 (Donnelly et al.) in view of US2019/0137290A1 (Levy et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0188610A1 (Ogden et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Donnelly et al. discloses the method further comprising identifying the at least one weather condition as including a rainy condition (see [0086]).
Donnelly et al. further discloses at least one of the one or more priorities relating to traffic level (see [0160]) but does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1,wherein at least one of the one or more priorities relates to avoiding congested areas.
However, Ogden et al. teaches a technique to adjust a pickup location (see [0089]),
wherein at least one of the one or more priorities relates to avoiding congested areas (see [0089] recommended pick-up location may be determined based on traffic to avoid streets with heavy traffic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the priorities which are related to traffic in Donnelly et al. to further be related to avoiding congested areas as taught by Ogden et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving time and cost savings (see Ogden et al., [0089]).
Regarding Claim 12: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 2. Claim 12 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 2. Claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 2, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0332123A1 (Donnelly et al.) in view of US2019/0137290A1 (Levy et al.), further in view of Publication CN112810400A (Zhou) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 3, Donnelly et al. further discloses the method further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0086] e.g. travel in rain or clear conditions being vehicle state conditions); and additionally discloses implementation of vehicle settings such as temperature (see e.g. [0123]).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition; and
causing, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition.
However, Zhou teaches a technique in a vehicle (see e.g. [0006-0008]), comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors (see [0041]) from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition (see [0043] identify temperature corresponding to city being visited [0059] from plural cities) corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0043] as weather data); and
causing, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition (see [0043] adjust target temperature of air conditioning according to temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the use of weather data in Donnelly et al. to further control air conditioning as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the vehicle to provide additional autonomy features while improving user experience and efficiency (see Zhou, [0002, 0043]).
Regarding Claim 4, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the vehicle (see [0043] temperature corresponding to city being visited is temperature state of vehicle travel).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 4, further comprising causing, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to adjust a temperature of the autonomous vehicle based on the temperature condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
further comprising causing, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to adjust a temperature of the autonomous vehicle based on the temperature condition (see [0043] adjust the target temperature of the air conditioning unit according to the weather temperature of the city).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 6, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 4, wherein the temperature condition includes a temperature of the at least one weather condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the temperature condition includes a temperature of the at least one weather condition (see [0043] temperature is part of weather).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 7, Donnelly et al. further discloses identifying weather of a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 2, [0086] regional weather of area 200).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 3, wherein identifying the at least one vehicle state condition includes determining a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle based on a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein identifying the at least one vehicle state condition includes determining a temperature condition for the vehicle based on a geographic area (see [0043] temperature of a city).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 8, Donnelly et al. further discloses identifying weather of a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 2, [0086] regional weather of area 200).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 7, wherein determining the temperature condition includes identifying the geographic area of the pickup or drop off location from a plurality of different geographic areas, each of the plurality of different geographic areas being associated with a respective temperature condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein determining the temperature condition includes identifying the geographic area of travel (see [0043] city being visited) from a plurality of different geographic areas (see [0059] plural cities), each of the plurality of different geographic areas being associated with a respective temperature condition (see [0058-0059]).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
identify, from a plurality of internal vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition; and
cause the autonomous vehicle to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition.
However, Zhou teaches a technique in a vehicle (see e.g. [0006-0008]), wherein the one or more processors (see [0041]) are configured to:
identify, from a plurality of internal vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0043] target temperature of air condition as internal state condition, which is based on weather temperature [0055, 0059] from plural); and
cause the autonomous vehicle to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition (see [0076] automatic temperature control, i.e. instructing to adjust air conditioning unit to match target temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the use of weather data in Donnelly et al. to further control air conditioning as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the vehicle to provide additional autonomy features while improving user experience and efficiency (see Zhou, [0002, 0043]).
Regarding Claim 14, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite system of claim 13, wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle (see [0043] target temperature of air condition as internal state condition).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the autonomous vehicle to adjust a temperature of the autonomous vehicle based on the temperature condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the autonomous vehicle to adjust a temperature of the autonomous vehicle based on the temperature condition (see [0076] automatic temperature control, i.e. instructing to adjust air conditioning unit to match target temperature).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 14, wherein the temperature condition includes a temperature of the at least one weather condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the temperature condition includes a temperature of the at least one weather condition (see [0043] target temperature of air condition as internal state condition, see also rejection under 112(b) and interpretation).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 17, Donnelly et al. further discloses identifying weather of a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 2, [0086] regional weather of area 200).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the autonomous vehicle corresponding to a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes a temperature condition for the vehicle corresponding to a geographic area (see [0043] target temperature is for vehicle and corresponds to city).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 18, Donnelly et al. further discloses identifying weather of a geographic area of the pickup or drop off location (see Figure 2, [0086] regional weather of area 200).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify, from a plurality of different geographic areas, the geographic area of the pickup or drop off location, each of the plurality of different geographic areas being associated with a respective temperature condition.
However, Zhou teaches the technique as above,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify, from a plurality of different geographic areas, the geographic area of travel (see [0043] city being visited), each of the plurality of different geographic areas being associated with a respective temperature condition (see [0058-0059]).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Zhou was provided in the rejection of Claim 13.
Claims 3, 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected (in the alternative, for Claims 3 and 13) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0332123A1 (Donnelly et al.) in view of US2019/0137290A1 (Levy et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0047497A1 (Sham).
Regarding Claim 3, Donnelly et al. further discloses the method further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0086] e.g. travel in rain or clear conditions being vehicle state conditions).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition; and
causing, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition.
However, Sham teaches a technique in a vehicle (see e.g. [0021]), comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors (see [0032]) from a plurality of vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition (see [0026] rain condition, out of plural conditions) corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0004, 0018] rain being part of a weather condition); and
causing, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition (see [0026] real-time system 104 may be configured to close an open window of the driving apparatus 102 when a rain condition is detected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the determination of a rainy weather condition of Donnelly et al. to further be used to adjust a vehicle state as taught by Sham, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing convenience by automatic vehicle functionality and avoiding water damage.
Regarding Claim 9, Donnelly et al. discloses the method further comprising identifying the at least one weather condition as including a rainy condition (see [0086]).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 3,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle being in a closed state.
However, Sham teaches the technique as above,
wherein the at least one vehicle state condition includes one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle being in a closed state (see [0026]).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Sham was provided above in the alternative rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 9, further comprising causing, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to adjust the one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle to be in the closed state.
However, Sham teaches the technique as above,
further comprising causing, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to adjust the one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle to be in the closed state (see [0026] and [0032] system 104 can be remote server).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Sham was provided above in the alternative rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, Donnelly et al. further discloses the one or more processors are configured to:
Identify at least one weather condition (see [0086] e.g. travel in rain or clear conditions being vehicle state conditions).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
identify, from a plurality of internal vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition corresponding to the at least one weather condition; and
cause the autonomous vehicle to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition.
However, Sham teaches a technique in a vehicle (see e.g. [0021]), comprising:
identify, from a plurality of internal vehicle state conditions, at least one vehicle state condition (see [0026] open window being an internal vehicle state condition, of plural possible conditions) corresponding to the at least one weather condition (see [0026] correspondence between window and rain condition); and
cause the autonomous vehicle to adjust a state of the autonomous vehicle based on the at least one vehicle state condition (see [0026] real-time system 104 may be configured to close an open window of the driving apparatus 102 when a rain condition is detected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the determination of a rainy weather condition of Donnelly et al. to further be used to adjust a vehicle state as taught by Sham, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing convenience by automatic vehicle functionality and avoiding water damage.
Regarding Claim 19 Donnelly et al. discloses wherein:
the at least one weather condition includes a rainy condition (see [0086]).
Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 13, wherein:
the at least one vehicle state condition includes one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle being in a closed state.
However, Sham teaches the technique as above,
the at least one vehicle state condition includes one or more windows of the vehicle being in a closed state (see [0026]).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Sham was provided above in the alternative rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 20, Donnelly et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the autonomous vehicle to adjust the one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle to be in the closed state.
However, Sham teaches the technique as above,
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the vehicle to adjust the one or more windows of the autonomous vehicle to be in the closed state (see [0026] and [0032] system 104 can be remote server).
The motivation to combine Donnelly et al. and Sham was provided above in the alternative rejection of Claim 13.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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 Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights