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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated March 11, 2026. In the Response, submitted on April 17, 2026, claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20 were amended, claims 6-7, and 14-15 were cancelled, and claimed 21-23 were added. Therefore, claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-23 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Page 9 of the Response regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims. However, the claim amendments are subject to new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 9-11 of the Response regarding the rejection of the previous claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 for subject matter eligibility have been fully considered an are found persuasive in view of the amended claims. However, Examiner notes the rejection of claims 17-20 for being directed to a non-statutory subject matter is maintained, as Applicant has not amended the claims nor made arguments regarding the rejection.
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.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 18-19 are 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 2 (and similarly claims 10, and 18) recites “receiving a message from the at least one follower vehicle…transmitting….the message….to the at least one follower vehicle”. It is unclear how the message can be both received from the at least one follower vehicle, and then also transmitted to the at least one follower vehicle. Similarly, claim 2 (and similarly claims 10, and 18) recites “receiving an additional message from the AI model….transmitting …the additional message to…the AI model.” It is unclear how the additional message can be both received from the AI model and then also transmitted to the AI model. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “transmitting at least one of: the additional message to the at least one follower vehicle, and the message to the AI model based on the sensor measurement.”
Claim 3 (and similarly claims 11, and 19) recites “receiving a message from the leader vehicle…transmitting…the message to the leader vehicle”. It is unclear how the message can be both received from the leader vehicle, and then also transmitted to the leader vehicle. Similarly, claim 3 (and similarly claims 11, and 19) recites “receiving an additional message from the AI model….transmitting …the additional message to…the AI model.” It is unclear how the additional message can be both received from the AI model and then also transmitted to the AI model. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “transmitting at least one of: the additional message to the leader vehicle, and the message to the AI model based on the sensor measurement.”
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter (a non-statutory computer readable
storage medium).
Claim 17 recites “a computer-readable storage medium” in the preamble. The specification does not set forth what constitutes statutory subject-matter for a computer- readable storage device, and only sets forth exemplary embodiments of computer- readable storage medium (See e.g., paragraphs [0193]-[0194] of the Specification, “The above examples of the instant solution may be implemented in hardware, in a computer program executed by a processor, in firmware, or in a combination of the above. A computer program may be embodied on a computer-readable storage medium, such as a storage medium. For example, a computer program may reside in random access memory (“RAM”), flash memory, read-only memory (“ROM”), erasable programmable read-only memory (“EPROM”), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (“EEPROM”), registers, hard disk, a removable disk, a compact disk read-only memory (“CD-ROM”), or any other form of storage medium known in the art. An exemplary storage medium may be coupled to the processor such that the processor may read information from, and write information to, the storage medium. In the alternative, the storage medium may be integral to the processor. The processor and the storage medium may reside in an application-specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”). In the alternative, the processor and the storage medium may reside as discrete components. For example, FIG. 6 illustrates an example computing system architecture 600, which may represent or be integrated in any of the above-described components, etc”) (emphasis added). Therefore, in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage medium and in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, said computer-readable storage medium could be directed towards a transitory propagating signal per se and considered to be non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claims 18-20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim and are therefore also rejected.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 4, 8- 9, 12, 16-17, 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0201128 to Katkoori et al. (hereinafter “Katkoori”) in view of “Intelligent Agents in Vehicle Platooning for Smart Cities” by Mala et al., dated October, 2022 (hereinafter “Mala”).
In regard to claims 1 and 17, Katkoori discloses receiving, by a vehicle, intent messages from at least one other vehicle in a platoon comprising a leader vehicle and at least one follower vehicle (Paras. 50, 69, 90) (A platoon of vehicles generally includes at least two vehicles, but may include many more. One of the vehicles is designated as the Platoon Leader (PL) 202…Other vehicles are designated as Platoon Members (PM) 204-208 that follow the PL (i.e., a platoon comprising a leader vehicle and at least one follower vehicle)… connected vehicle messages sent among the platoon vehicles can be utilized for these purposes in a way that allows for dynamically-forming platoons of heterogeneous vehicle composition…. the PM may support dynamic role reassignment within the platoon. For instance, if the current PL exits the platoon (or notifies of an impending exit) (i.e., receiving, by a vehicle, intent messages from at least one other vehicle), the PM may assume leadership responsibilities based on pre-established criteria such as proximity to the front of the platoon or sensor capabilities. Alternatively, the PM may negotiate with other platoon members to assign a new PL and reconfigure the platoon accordingly.)
Katkoori discloses determining a planned action of the at least one other vehicle based on the intent messages (Para. 90) (…if the current PL exits the platoon (or notifies of an impending exit) the PM may assume leadership responsibilities (i.e., determining a planned action of the at least one other vehicle base).)
Katkoori discloses generating, by the vehicle, a control decision with a role adjustment for the vehicle within the platoon based on the planned action; and controlling operation of the vehicle to update a position of the vehicle in the platoon based on the control decision (Paras. 10, 86, 90, 93) (…if the current PL exits the platoon (or notifies of an impending exit) the PM may assume leadership responsibilities (i.e., generation, by the vehicle, a control decision with a role adjustment)...The PL may be equipped with integrated communication and control systems that allow for autonomous or semi-autonomous execution of these activities (i.e., controlling operation of the vehicle to update a position of the vehicle in the platoon based on the control decision), with variations depending on the PL's hardware and software capabilities.)
As discussed above, Katkoori discloses the intent messages. Katkoori does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Mala teaches execution of an AI model on the (intent) messages (of Katkoori) (Pages 1-2) (for Platooning automated driving systems, an intelligent agent (i.e., AI Model) with vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications (i.e., on the messages) technology [3] must be installed in each vehicle to take dynamic decision making and effective communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the intelligent agent of Mala with the intent messaging of the vehicles of Katkoori for “dynamic decision making and effective communication.” (See Page 1 of Mala).
In regard to claim 9, Katkoori discloses a processor; and a memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicable coupled, and the processor configured to perform a method (Para. 132) (The processors may reflect general-purpose computational resources that control the entire vehicle, or may be dedicated processing resources for managing platooning functions…. the memory can include any suitable storage device or devices that can be used to store suitable data (e.g., software to run the platooning functions described above, user settings or predefined requirements and preferences for platoon drive characteristics, route mapping information, sensor data, and any other data or information used in performing the types of platooning described herein).)
Katkoori in view of Mala teaches the other limitations of claim 9 as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claims 4, 12, and 20, Katkoori discloses receiving an intent message from at least one of the leader vehicle and the at least one follower vehicle (Paras. 50, 69, 90) (if the current PL exits the platoon (or notifies of an impending exit) (i.e., receiving, an intent message from the leader vehicle), the PM may assume leadership responsibilities based on pre-established criteria such as proximity to the front of the platoon or sensor capabilities…)
Katkoori discloses creating a response message based on the intent message (Paras. 50, 69, 90) (if the current PL exits the platoon (or notifies of an impending exit) (i.e., the intent message), the PM may assume leadership responsibilities based on pre-established criteria such as proximity to the front of the platoon or sensor capabilities. Alternatively, the PM may negotiate with other platoon members to assign a new PL and reconfigure the platoon accordingly (i.e., creating a response message based on the intent message).)
Katkoori discloses transmitting the response message to at least one of the leader vehicle and the at least one follower vehicle.(Paras. 50, 69, 90) (…the PM may negotiate with other platoon members to assign a new PL and reconfigure the platoon accordingly (i.e., transmitting the response message to at least one of the leader vehicle and the at least one follower vehicle).)
In regard to claims 8 and 16, Katkoori discloses iteratively evaluating platoon formation based on the planned action to identify an updated role distribution within the platoon; and transmitting the updated role distribution to at least one of the leader vehicle and the at least one follower vehicle (Fig. 3; Paras. 76 and 104) (…dynamic role reassignment may occur after a platoon has been formed. …the vehicles may re-negotiate roles and confirm the role reassignment. Or, the vehicles may predefine a length of time that each will serve as PL/PM so that each vehicle can experience a given (e.g., equal) fuel economy benefit from the platooning, and initiate a role switch periodically or at a given time/geography… the PL coordinates the departure of members for which it is determined they should exit the platoon. For instance, when a member notifies the PL of its intent to leave (e.g., via a Platoon Exit Notification (PEN)), the PL acknowledges the notification and may provide instructions for a safe exit maneuver, or guidelines for how to exit (e.g., if the platoon is about to shift into another lane, the exiting vehicle should not attempt to leave the platoon by that lane). This may also include instructions to be sent to other PMs, such as reducing the platoon's speed or adjusting its lane position to facilitate the departing member's separation. If the departing member is a local leader, the PL reassigns the role to another member to maintain platoon structure.).
In regard to claim 22, Katkoori discloses wherein the determining the planned action comprises determining a predicted change to a role of the at least one vehicle and generating the control decision to adjust the role of the vehicle within the platoon based on the predicted change to the role of the at least one other vehicle (Paras. 10, 50, 69, 86, 90, 93) (…if the current PL exits the platoon (or notifies of an impending exit) the PM may assume leadership responsibilities ... the PM may negotiate with other platoon members to assign a new PL and reconfigure the platoon accordingly).
In regard to claim 23, Katkoori discloses wherein the controlling comprises adjusting, by a vehicle control system, propulsion or braking of the vehicle to reposition the vehicle within the platoon relative to at least one of the leader vehicle and the at least one follower vehicle based on the control decision (Para. 81) (..the PM may determine its position within the platoon and take actions to maintain that position. In particular, the PM may utilize Basic Safety Messages (BSMs) to both determine and broadcast its relative location within the platoon. For example, the PM may periodically receive BSMs from the PL and other platoon members, including data fields specifying their current position, speed, heading, acceleration, and braking status (i.e., breaking of the vehicle). By comparing these data fields to its own position and trajectory, the PM may calculate its relative position within the platoon (i.e., reposition the vehicle within the platoon relative to at least one of the leader vehicle and the at least one follower vehicle based on the control decision).)
Claims 2-3, 10-11, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katkoori in view of Mala, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 respectively, and even further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0056854 to Ucar et al. (hereinafter “Ucar”).
In regard to claims 2, 10, and 18, Katkoori discloses capturing a sensor measurement of the vehicle (Para. 44) (One type of communication that occurs over DSRC is known as “Basic Safety Messages” or the “BSM” protocol. Basic Safety Messages are standardized data packets exchanged between vehicles (Vehicle-to-Vehicle, or V2V) or between vehicles and roadside infrastructure (Vehicle-to-Infrastructure, or V2I). In terms of packet communication, BSMs can have multiple parts to each packet, multiple rates of packet transmission, and/or multiple packet types. For example, one part of a packet, or packet type, may have frequently updated, safety-critical data transmitted regularly at high rates, such as vehicle position, speed, heading, acceleration, brake status, vehicle size/dimension, etc (i.e., capturing a sensor measurement of the vehicle).)
Katkoori discloses receiving a message from the at least one follower vehicle (Paras. 43-44) (One type of communication that occurs over DSRC is known as “Basic Safety Messages” or the “BSM” protocol. Basic Safety Messages are standardized data packets exchanged between vehicles (Vehicle-to-Vehicle, or V2V) or between vehicles and roadside infrastructure (Vehicle-to-Infrastructure, or V2I). In terms of packet communication, BSMs can have multiple parts to each packet, multiple rates of packet transmission, and/or multiple packet types. For example, one part of a packet, or packet type, may have frequently updated, safety-critical data transmitted regularly at high rates, such as vehicle position, speed, heading, acceleration, brake status, vehicle size/dimension, etc. Another part of a packet, or packet type, may contain additional, event-driven information that is transmitted whenever necessary, such as when adverse weather or interference is detected or emergency maneuvers are taken, needed, or detected. The event-drive information may include information such as path history, path prediction, event flags (hard braking, airbag deployment, etc.), environmental information, and vehicle feature and sensor states (e.g., tire pressure, wiper status, headlight status, ABS operation, AWD status, etc.).
Katkoori in view of Mala does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Ucar teaches receiving an additional message from the AI model, and transmitting the additional message to the at least one follower vehicle (Paras. 85-87) (the AI platoon system 141 includes: a communication module 202 (i.e., from the AI model)…The communication module 202 sends and receives data, via the communication unit 145A, to and from one or more elements of the operating environment 100. For example, the communication module 202 transmits, via the communication unit 145A, instruction data (i.e., an additional message) describing an instruction to execute a vehicle platooning maneuver at a particular area to the vehicle 110 (i.e., transmitting the additional message to the at least one follower vehicle).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the communication features of the AI platoon of Ucar with the platooning system including an intelligent agent of Katkoori in view of Mala, in order to provide more efficient communication.
In regard to claims 3, 11, and 19, Katkoori discloses capturing a sensor measurement of at least one follower vehicle (Para. 44) (One type of communication that occurs over DSRC is known as “Basic Safety Messages” or the “BSM” protocol. Basic Safety Messages are standardized data packets exchanged between vehicles (Vehicle-to-Vehicle, or V2V) or between vehicles and roadside infrastructure (Vehicle-to-Infrastructure, or V2I). In terms of packet communication, BSMs can have multiple parts to each packet, multiple rates of packet transmission, and/or multiple packet types. For example, one part of a packet, or packet type, may have frequently updated, safety-critical data transmitted regularly at high rates, such as vehicle position, speed, heading, acceleration, brake status, vehicle size/dimension, etc (i.e., capturing a sensor measurement of the at least one follower vehicle).)
Katkoori discloses receiving a message from the leader vehicle (Paras. 43-44) (One type of communication that occurs over DSRC is known as “Basic Safety Messages” or the “BSM” protocol. Basic Safety Messages are standardized data packets exchanged between vehicles (Vehicle-to-Vehicle, or V2V) or between vehicles and roadside infrastructure (Vehicle-to-Infrastructure, or V2I). In terms of packet communication, BSMs can have multiple parts to each packet, multiple rates of packet transmission, and/or multiple packet types. For example, one part of a packet, or packet type, may have frequently updated, safety-critical data transmitted regularly at high rates, such as vehicle position, speed, heading, acceleration, brake status, vehicle size/dimension, etc. Another part of a packet, or packet type, may contain additional, event-driven information that is transmitted whenever necessary, such as when adverse weather or interference is detected or emergency maneuvers are taken, needed, or detected. The event-drive information may include information such as path history, path prediction, event flags (hard braking, airbag deployment, etc.), environmental information, and vehicle feature and sensor states (e.g., tire pressure, wiper status, headlight status, ABS operation, AWD status, etc.).
Katkoori in view of Mala does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Ucar teaches receiving an additional message from the AI model, and transmitting the additional message to the leader vehicle (Paras. 85-87) (the AI platoon system 141 includes: a communication module 202 (i.e., from the AI model)…The communication module 202 sends and receives data, via the communication unit 145A, to and from one or more elements of the operating environment 100. For example, the communication module 202 transmits, via the communication unit 145A, instruction data (i.e., an additional message) describing an instruction to execute a vehicle platooning maneuver at a particular area to the vehicle 110 (i.e., transmitting the additional message to the leader vehicle).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the communication features of the AI platoon of Ucar with the platooning system including an intelligent agent of Katkoori in view of Mala, in order to provide more efficient communication.
In regard to claim 21, Katkoori discloses receiving sensor data including at least one of acceleration associated with the vehicle (Para. 44) (One type of communication that occurs over DSRC is known as “Basic Safety Messages” or the “BSM” protocol. Basic Safety Messages are standardized data packets exchanged between vehicles (Vehicle-to-Vehicle, or V2V) or between vehicles and roadside infrastructure (Vehicle-to-Infrastructure, or V2I). In terms of packet communication, BSMs can have multiple parts to each packet, multiple rates of packet transmission, and/or multiple packet types. For example, one part of a packet, or packet type, may have frequently updated, safety-critical data transmitted regularly at high rates, such as vehicle position, speed, heading, acceleration, brake status, vehicle size/dimension, etc (i.e., sensor data including at least one of acceleration associated with the vehicle).)
Katkoori in view of Mala does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Ucar teaches wherein the determining the planned action further comprises determining the planned action based on execution of the AI model on the sensor (Paras. 25-27, 62) (sensor set 154 may include….vehicle speed sensor… the AI platoon system hierarchically leverages large scale and fragmented vehicle data (e.g., sensor data) in real time or near real time to generate hierarchical AI data. The AI platoon system incorporates the hierarchical AI data into a determination of whether to perform a vehicle platooning maneuver on the vehicle platoon or not and where (or when) to perform the vehicle platooning maneuver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the AI platoon of Ucar with the platooning system including an intelligent agent of Katkoori in view of Mala, in order to provide more efficient platoon maneuvering decisions (See Para, 27 of Ucar “AI platoon system may perform a platoon reconfiguration maneuver on the vehicle platoon to achieve a maximum efficiency”).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katkoori in view of Mala, as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, and even further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0334989 to Campanaro et al. (hereinafter “Campanaro”).
In regard to claims 5 and 13, as discussed above, Mala teaches the AI model (i.e., intelligent agent). Katkoori in view of Mala does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Campanaro teaches wherein the model is configured to perform: creating at least one incentive message in response to receiving at least one intent message from at least one of the leader vehicle and the at least one follower vehicle; and transmitting the at least one incentive message to at least one of the leader vehicle and the at least one follower vehicle (Paras. 47-49) (In some cases, a first vehicle that is operating as a lead vehicle of a convoy for a first duration of time may rotate out of a lead position (i.e., receiving at least one intent message from at least one of the leader vehicle), and allow a second vehicle to assume the lead position …. The remuneration paid to the second vehicle (i.e., transmitting the at least once incentive message to the at least one follower vehicle) for operating as a lead vehicle (i.e., creating at least one incentive message in response) can be a larger amount when the second vehicle rotates out of a follower vehicle role and assumes the lead position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the renumeration of Campanro with the platooning system including an intelligent agent of Katkoori in view of Mala, in order to provide user satisfaction with incentives.
Prior Art
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0244743 to Ganlath et al. (hereinafter “Ganlath”). Ganlath discloses determining terms of a contract for the plurality of vehicles to form the vehicle platoon comprising a lead vehicle and one or more follower vehicles, and transmitting terms of the contract to the plurality of vehicles. The terms of the contract comprise the lead vehicle receiving a first payment, at least one of the follower vehicle making a second payment, and each of the follower vehicles receiving vehicle data from the lead vehicle according to a unique service profile associated with each follower vehicle.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0201128 to Katkoori et al. (hereinafter “Katkoori”). Katikoori discloses temperatures and storage amounts of emissions control devices in vehicles of the vehicle platoon provide a basis for determining which vehicle is a leader and which vehicles are followers in a vehicle platoon.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0348791 to Hendrickson et al. (hereinafter “Hendrickson”). Hendrickson discloses temperatures and storage amounts of emissions control devices in vehicles of the vehicle platoon provide a basis for determining which vehicle is a leader and which vehicles are followers in a vehicle platoon.
JP2023119395A to Toyokazu (hereinafter “Toyokazu”). Toyokazu discloses transmitting, to at least one of the identified vehicles, information encouraging the vehicle to become the leading vehicle in the platoon, with the provision of benefits including reduced costs associated with running the vehicle as incentive information.
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 Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is 571-270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 AM – 6:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on Monday – Friday at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights