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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 01/07/2025 and 06/05/2026 has been acknowledged
Status of Application
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 06/01/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13, 16, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210248399-A1 to Martin et. al. (“Martin”) in view of US-20220126837-A1 (“Croxford”), further in view of US-11072366-B2 (“Szepessy”).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a system onboard a vehicle (Martin Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one memory that stores computer executable components; and at least one processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components (Martin [0026] “ECU 104 of vehicle 102 may execute one or more applications operating systems, vehicle systems and subsystem executable instructions. In some examples, ECU may include a respective microprocessor, one or more application specific integrated circuit(s) (ASIC), or other similar devices. ECU 104 may also include respective internal processing memory,”) that:
determines a level of awareness of a driver (Martin [0024] “ADAS models 120 may predict the situational awareness of the driver based on real time data received from camera system 118 and/or eye tracking sensor(s)”);
detects a hazard (Martin [0024] “Camera system 118 may be configured to detect one or more road hazards with computer vision techniques (e.g., object detection and recognition).”); and
regulates lateral control of the vehicle by generating, using a machine learning model (Martin [0025] “In some examples, ADAS models 120 may predictively model and score the awareness of a driver with one or more machine learning regression based models”), an automated overlay correction (Martin [0025] “vehicle autonomous controller 110 may provide appropriate assistance or intervention (e.g., vehicle braking, turning, acceleration, and/or other types of evasive maneuvering) in response to ADAS 124 assessing the likelihood that a driver will react to the one or more detected road hazards.”), wherein the regulating comprises:
sending control signals to a road wheel activator to apply a steering correction to road wheels (Martin [0025] “vehicle autonomous controller 110 may provide appropriate assistance or intervention (e.g., vehicle braking, turning, acceleration, and/or other types of evasive maneuvering) in response to ADAS 124 assessing the likelihood that a driver will react to the one or more detected road hazards.”), and
contemporaneously scaling a steering-wheel overlay provided by a hand wheel activator as a function of the determined level of awareness of the driver (Martin [0028] “ADAS 124 may request, based on predicted driver awareness, that vehicle autonomous controller 110 provide no driving assistance, partial driving assistance, conditional assistance, or complete assistance… ADAS 124 may communicate with vehicle autonomous controller 110 to control an autonomous operation of one or more driving functions of vehicle 102. The one or more driving functions may include, but are not limited to, steering, braking, accelerating, merging, turning, coasting, and the like.”).
Martin does not explicitly disclose that the machine learning model takes as input the detected hazard and the determined level of awareness of the driver. However, Croxford teaches that the machine learning model takes as input the detected hazard and the determined level of awareness of the driver (Croxford [0045] “this determination is done using a machine learning model trained with a dataset of hazard locations and gaze characteristics for one or more hazard types. For example, the dataset includes a training set of images that include hazards, belonging to the one or more hazard types, in an environment. The dataset may also include gaze characteristics for a given driver during a time period where a given hazard belonging to the one or more hazard types occurred. In certain cases, the dataset also includes perception data, e.g. representative of whether the a given driver did perceive a given hazard separate to the gaze characteristic data, depending on the machine learning model used”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin to incorporate the teachings of Croxford such that the machine learning model takes as input the detected hazard and the determined level of awareness of the driver. Doing so would automate, adapt, and enhance vehicle systems for safety and improved driving (Croxford [0002]).
Martin as modified by Croxford does not explicitly teach regulating lateral control of the vehicle by generating an automated overlay correction of steering angle that minimizes driver interference. However, Szepessy teaches regulating lateral control of the vehicle by generating an automated overlay correction of steering angle that minimizes driver interference (Szepessy Abstract “If driver-controlled, the first control unit may rotate the steering wheel by a turning angle by activating the actuator according to a pre-set function depending on a rotation angle of a pinion to simulate the steering feel. If vehicle-controlled, the first control unit may rotate the steering wheel by a reduced turning angle by activating the actuator according to a fraction of the pre-set function.”). Szepessy further discloses that the regulating comprises: sending control signals to a road wheel activator to apply a steering correction to road wheels (Szepessy Abstract “A steer-by-wire steering system may include an actuation control system to actuate road wheels via a rack and pinion steering gear”) and contemporaneously (Szepessy Fig. 1) scaling a steering-wheel overlay provided by a hand wheel activator as a function of the determined level of awareness of the driver (Szepessy Abstract “If driver-controlled, the first control unit may rotate the steering wheel by a turning angle by activating the actuator according to a pre-set function depending on a rotation angle of a pinion to simulate the steering feel. If vehicle-controlled, the first control unit may rotate the steering wheel by a reduced turning angle by activating the actuator according to a fraction of the pre-set function.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Szepessy to Martin as modified by Croxford such that the system comprises regulating lateral control of the vehicle by generating an automated overlay correction of steering angle that minimizes driver interference, wherein the regulating comprises: sending control signals to a road wheel activator to apply a steering correction to road wheels and contemporaneously scaling a steering-wheel overlay provided by a hand wheel activator as a function of the determined level of awareness of the driver. Doing so would cause less confusion for the driver and prevent serious injury if the driver gets their hand into the steering wheel during a more dynamic maneuver (Szepessy (3)).
Regarding claim 2, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin further discloses that at least one of the computer executable components further uses data from at least one of a camera, a radar, a lidar, or an ultrasonic sensor to determine the level of awareness of the driver (Martin [0024] “ADAS models 120 may predict the situational awareness of the driver based on real time data received from camera system 118 and/or eye tracking sensor(s)”).
Regarding claim 13, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Croxford further discloses that the hand wheel activator provides steering-wheel input and haptic feedback decoupled from a mechanical connection to the road wheels (Croxford [0034] “the indication to the driver may include haptic feedback via a steering apparatus 170 of the vehicle, e.g. a steering wheel of a car or one or both handlebars of a motorcycle or bicycle. In examples, the haptic feedback is directional, e.g. the 360-degree surroundings of the vehicle are mapped onto the 360 degrees of a steering wheel in the vehicle. In other examples, the haptic or other somatosensory feedback, e.g. vibrating of the steering apparatus 170, is to alert the driver that there is a hazard and to be aware of a directional hazard indicator. For example, the haptic feedback may alert the driver to check the display 160 for a directional indication of the hazard in the environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Croxford to Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy such that the hand wheel activator provides steering-wheel input and haptic feedback decoupled from a mechanical connection to the road wheels. Doing so would automate, adapt, and enhance vehicle systems for safety and improved driving (Croxford [0002]).
Regarding claim 16, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin further discloses that the at least one of the computer executable components further train the machine learning model to determine the level of awareness of the driver based on driver monitoring signals from one or more sensors (Martin [0024] “ADAS models 120 may predict the situational awareness of the driver based on real time data received from camera system 118 and/or eye tracking sensor(s)” and [0025] “ADAS models 120 may predictively model and score the awareness of a driver with one or more machine learning regression based models (e.g., linear regression, polynomial regression, multi variable linear regression, and/or regression trees). In some examples, vehicle autonomous controller 110 may provide appropriate assistance or intervention (e.g., vehicle braking, turning, acceleration, and/or other types of evasive maneuvering) in response to ADAS 124 assessing the likelihood that a driver will react to the one or more detected road hazards.” and [0085]).
Regarding claim 18, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin further discloses that the at least one of the computer executable components further trains the machine learning model to regulate operation of the vehicle based on the detected hazard and the determined level of awareness of the driver (Martin [0025] “ADAS models 120 may predictively model and score the awareness of a driver with one or more machine learning regression based models (e.g., linear regression, polynomial regression, multi variable linear regression, and/or regression trees). In some examples, vehicle autonomous controller 110 may provide appropriate assistance or intervention (e.g., vehicle braking, turning, acceleration, and/or other types of evasive maneuvering) in response to ADAS 124 assessing the likelihood that a driver will react to the one or more detected road hazards.” and [0085]).
With respect to claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 1. The system taught/disclosed in claim 1 can clearly perform the method of claim 19. Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 1, except for the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor onboard a vehicle, facilitate performance of operations. However, Martin teaches the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor onboard a vehicle, facilitate performance of operations (Martin [0008]). The system taught/disclosed in claim 1 can clearly perform the remaining limitations of claim 20. Therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 21, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 20. Martin further discloses using data from at least one of a camera, a radar, a lidar, or an ultrasonic sensor to determine the level of awareness of the driver (Martin [0024] “ADAS models 120 may predict the situational awareness of the driver based on real time data received from camera system 118 and/or eye tracking sensor(s)”).
Claim(s) 3 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Croxford, further in view of Szepessy and US-20210107527-A1 (“Karve”).
Regarding claim 3, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that the at least one of the computer executable components further uses data from a seat pressure detector or a hands on wheel detector to determine the level of awareness of the driver. However, Karve teaches that the at least one of the computer executable components further uses data from a seat pressure detector or a hands on wheel detector to determine the level of awareness of the driver (Karve [0007] “the human appending tracking module utilizes data from at least one optical sensor or an image from at least one camera to determine that a human driver wishes to take control of a steering interface based at least upon at least one of the human driver's hand position or hand pose characteristics according to a number of variations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy to incorporate the teachings of Karve such that the at least one of the computer executable components further uses data from a seat pressure detector or a hands on wheel detector to determine the level of awareness of the driver. Doing so would allow for driver intervention to be sensed in autonomous steering systems (Karve [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that in response to a determination of the level of awareness being above a first defined threshold or a determination of a level of the hazard being above a second defined threshold, the level of regulation of the hand wheel activator is increased. However, Karve teaches that in response to a determination of the level of awareness being above a first defined threshold or a determination of a level of the hazard being above a second defined threshold, the level of regulation of the hand wheel activator is increased (Karve claim 1 “the product further comprises at least one camera or optical sensor configured to track at least one of the position or pose of a human appendage and wherein the autonomous steering system is configured to shift between steering modes based at least upon the tracked position or pose of the at least one human appendage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy to incorporate the teachings of Karve such that in response to a determination of the level of awareness being above a first defined threshold or a determination of a level of the hazard being above a second defined threshold, the level of regulation of the hand wheel activator is increased. Doing so would allow for driver intervention to be sensed in autonomous steering systems (Karve [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that in response to a determination of the level of awareness being below a first defined threshold or a determination of a level of the hazard being below a second defined threshold, the level of regulation of the hand wheel activator is decreased. However, Karve teaches that in response to a determination of the level of awareness being below a first defined threshold or a determination of a level of the hazard being below a second defined threshold, the level of regulation of the hand wheel activator is decreased (Karve claim 1 “the product further comprises at least one camera or optical sensor configured to track at least one of the position or pose of a human appendage and wherein the autonomous steering system is configured to shift between steering modes based at least upon the tracked position or pose of the at least one human appendage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy to incorporate the teachings of Karve such that in response to a determination of the level of awareness being below a first defined threshold or a determination of a level of the hazard being below a second defined threshold, the level of regulation of the hand wheel activator is decreased. Doing so would allow for driver intervention to be sensed in autonomous steering systems (Karve [0004]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Croxford, further in view of Szepessy and US-20230106487-A1 to Alexander et. al. (“Alexander”).
Regarding claim 4, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that the at least one of the computer executable components further uses data from a pedal pressure detector to determine the level of awareness of the driver. However, Alexander teaches that the at least one of the computer executable components further uses data from a pedal pressure detector to determine the level of awareness of the driver (Alexander [0080] “In another example, other cabin sensory information may be integrated into the HMIM 104 as inputs to form a holistic driver state estimation. In addition to eyes on road information, the HMIM 104 may subscribe to hands on steering wheel, pedal information, seat sensors, seat belt status, etc. to form a holistic driver state estimation model. The HMIM 104 may leverage feedback from each of these inputs to detect and mitigate inattentiveness.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy to incorporate the teachings of Alexander such that the at least one of the computer executable components further uses data from a pedal pressure detector to determine the level of awareness of the driver. Doing so would allow for the detection and mitigation of inattentiveness (Alexander [0080]).
Regarding claim 5, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that the at least one of the computer executable components further detects presence of passengers in the vehicle. However, Alexander teaches that the at least one of the computer executable components further detects presence of passengers in the vehicle (Alexander [0034] “an interior camera 126 is used to identify which occupant in vehicle 100 actuated a user-interface control. Since only UI input from the driver is relevant to monitoring the driver's attention status, driver monitoring module 220 disregards input from another vehicle occupant (e.g., a front-seat passenger)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy to incorporate the teachings of Alexander such that the at least one of the computer executable components further detects presence of passengers in the vehicle. Doing so would allow for the detection and mitigation of inattentiveness (Alexander [0080]).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Croxford, further in view of Szepessy and US-20220363266-A1 to Yasuda et. al. (“Yasuda”).
Regarding claim 8, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that the at least one of the computer executable components further detects use of a media system in the vehicle. However, Yasuda teaches that the at least one of the computer executable components further detects use of a media system in the vehicle (Yasuda Fig. 5 and [0050] “driver monitoring module 220 monitors the attention status of the driver of a vehicle 100. As discussed above, driver monitoring module 220 can employ techniques such as (1) gaze detection/tracking; (2) face orientation detection; (3) detecting that the driver is interacting with a mobile device, such as a smartphone, or some other object in his or her hand(s); and (4) detecting input to vehicle UIs for infotainment, HVAC, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy to incorporate the teachings of Yasuda such that the at least one of the computer executable components further detects use of a media system in the vehicle. Doing so would improve driver attention awareness (Yasuda [0003]).
Regarding claim 9, Martin as modified by Croxford, Szepessy, and Yasuda teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8. Yasuda further discloses that the at least one of the computer executable components further in response to detecting the use of a media system in the vehicle, determines the level of awareness of the driver has been reduced (Yasuda Fig. 5 and [0051] “using some or all of the four attention-monitoring techniques discussed above, driver monitoring module 220 compares where the driver's attention should be, as determined by perception subsystem 183 and/or ADAS 180, with where the driver's attention actually is. If they match, the driver's attention status is deemed to be “attentive.” If, on the other hand, they do not match (e.g., a pedestrian has just stepped into a crosswalk at the intersection ahead, but the driver is looking out the driver-side window at a storefront), the driver's attention status is deemed to be “distracted.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Yasuda to Martin as modified by Croxford, Szepessy, and Yasuda such that the at least one of the computer executable components further in response to detecting the use of a media system in the vehicle, determines the level of awareness of the driver has been reduced. Doing so would improve driver attention awareness (Yasuda [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that the at least one of the computer executable components further trains the machine learning model to detect hazards based on signals from one or more sensors. However, Yasuda teaches that the at least one of the computer executable components further trains the machine learning model to detect hazards based on signals from one or more sensors (Yasuda [0032] “ADAS 180 and perception subsystem 183 can employ a variety of techniques to perceive (“understand”) traffic situations. Such techniques include, without limitation, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, and any of a variety of machine-learning-based and non-machine-learning-based object-recognition and trajectory-prediction algorithms.” and [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy to incorporate the teachings of Yasuda such that the at least one of the computer executable components further trains the machine learning model to detect hazards based on signals from one or more sensors. Doing so would improve driver attention awareness (Yasuda [0003]).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Croxford, further in view of Szepessy and US-20230271604-A1 to Gray et. al. (“Gray”).
Regarding claim 6, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that the at least one of the computer executable components further detects an interaction between the driver and a passenger in the vehicle. However, Gray teaches that the at least one of the computer executable components further detects an interaction between the driver and a passenger in the vehicle (Gray Fig. 5 and [0054] “The audio component can be based on whether the driver is audibly interacting with another person or thing, such as speaking with a passenger or conducting a telephone call, or a general noise level in the host vehicle 12.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Gray to Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy such that the at least one of the computer executable components further detects an interaction between the driver and a passenger in the vehicle. Doing so would improve road safety (Gray [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Martin as modified by Croxford, Szepessy, and Gray teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Gray further discloses that in response to detecting the interaction between the driver and the passenger in the vehicle, determines the level of awareness of the driver has been reduced (Gray Fig. 5 and [0054] “a plurality of meters 78 reflecting various components of the current state of the driver 28. The components of the current state of the driver 28 can include, but are not limited to, a visual component, a control component, an audio component, and/or a drowsy component. The visual component can be based on the head position of the driver 28. The control component can be based on hand and foot position of the driver. The audio component can be based on whether the driver is audibly interacting with another person or thing, such as speaking with a passenger or conducting a telephone call, or a general noise level in the host vehicle 12.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Gray to Martin as modified by Croxford, Szepessy, and Gray such that in response to detecting the interaction between the driver and the passenger in the vehicle, determines the level of awareness of the driver has been reduced. Doing so would improve road safety (Gray [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that the at least one of the computer executable components further determines an amount of time the driver has been operating the vehicle. However, Gray teaches that the at least one of the computer executable components further determines an amount of time the driver has been operating the vehicle (Gray [0055] “A line graph 80 displayed on the instrument panel 68 reflects the current state of the driver 28 over time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy to incorporate the teachings of Gray such that the at least one of the computer executable components further determines an amount of time the driver has been operating the vehicle. Doing so would improve road safety (Gray [0002]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Croxford, further in view of Szepessy and US-20230382339-A1 to Beach et. al. (“Beach”).
Regarding claim 11, Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy does not teach that the at least one of the computer executable components further determines an amount of time a passenger has been present within the vehicle. However, Beach teaches that the at least one of the computer executable components further determines an amount of time a passenger has been present within the vehicle (Beach Claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Martin as modified by Croxford and Szepessy to incorporate the teachings of Beach such that the at least one of the computer executable components further determines an amount of time a passenger has been present within the vehicle. Doing so would allow for vehicle occupancy monitoring and alerts (Beach [0004]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 06/01/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights