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 .
This is the Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on August 13, 2026 for Application No. 19/060,098 filed on February 21, 2025, title: “Autonomous Vehicle Operation Feature Monitoring And Evaluation Of Effectiveness”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. By the 08/13/2026 Amendment, claims 21, 23-28, 30-31, 33-38, and 40 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled via the 02/21/2025 Amendment. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This application is a CON of US Application No. 18/134,334 filed on 04/13/2023 (Patented No. 12,259,726) which is a CON of US Application No. 16/744,250 filed on 01/16/2020 (Patented No. 11,669,090) which is a CON of 15/421,521 filed on 02/01/2017 (Patented No. 10599155) which is a CIP of 14/713,249 filed on 05/15/2015 (Patented No. 10529027) which has PRO 62/056,893 filed on 09/29/2014; 62/047,307 filed on 09/08/2014; 62/035,983 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,859 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,729 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,980 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,669 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,723 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,867 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/036,090 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,769 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,660 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,780 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,878 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/035,832 filed on 08/11/2014; 62/018,169 filed on 06/27/2014; and 62/000,878 filed on 05/20/2014.
The claim limitations of “building a training data set …” are not supported in the parent CIP application 14/713,249. This subject matter is not introduced until the parent Application 15/421,521 which has a filing date of 02/01/2017, therefore, the 02/01/2017 is considered to be the effective filing date for the present Application and is used for the purpose of examination. This Application does not claim foreign priority.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,259,726, Claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,669,090, and Claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 10,599,155. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present Application recite substantially the same limitations as the claims of the Patents with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. The present Application and the Patents are directed to the same invention for monitoring an autonomous vehicle having an autonomous system, have the same inventors, and are commonly owned.
Therefore, this rejection is deemed proper.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 21-30 recite a computer system for monitoring an autonomous vehicle having an autonomous system, claims 31-39 recite a computer-readable medium with stored executable instructions for monitoring an autonomous vehicle having an autonomous system, and claim 40 recites a computer-implemented method of monitoring an autonomous vehicle having an autonomous system. Therefore, the claims are directed to a machine, manufacture, and process which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 40, A computer-implemented method of monitoring an autonomous vehicle having an autonomous system, the method comprising:
building a training data set including a plurality of control decision records for a plurality of drivers and autonomous vehicles, the control decision records include (i) one or more control decisions of an autonomous system of an autonomous vehicle, (ii) autonomous feature data including data representing autonomous feature capabilities of the autonomous system of the autonomous vehicle, (iii) driver profile data of a driver of the autonomous vehicle, the driver profile data representing a driving behavior of the driver, and (iv) condition data including conditions that the autonomous vehicle was traveling in while the control decisions for the autonomous system were made;
training a machine learning program using the training data set to determine preferred control decisions of an input autonomous system for an input autonomous vehicle, in response to input data including input driving behavior and input autonomous feature data associated with the input autonomous vehicle;
providing current autonomous feature data of a current autonomous vehicle, including data representing autonomous feature capabilities of the current autonomous vehicle, and current driving behavior of a current driver of the current autonomous vehicle as inputs to the trained machine learning model to receive preferred control decisions for the current autonomous vehicle; and
monitoring vehicle operation data to determine whether the preferred control decisions are implemented at the current autonomous vehicle as actual control decisions.
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., an autonomous system, an autonomous vehicle, processors, a machine learning program, and non-transitory computer-readable medium with stored executable instructions – see claims 21 and 31). The claim recites steps, such as building a training data set including control decision records, training a machine learning program using the training data set to determine preferred control decisions, providing current autonomous features to the trained machine learning model to receive preferred control decisions, and monitoring vehicle operation data to determine whether the preferred control decisions are implemented. The claim recites the steps for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of autonomous vehicle operation features having an autonomous system via a computer system. The claim steps are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea via a computer. The claim is directed to a method of monitoring and evaluating of effectiveness of autonomous operation features for controlling vehicle operation for accident avoidance and insurance, which is a fundamental economic practice because it relates to insurance (e.g., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk).
Thus, the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as a fundamental economic practice and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed to mitigate risk before accident and reduce insurance – fundamental economic practice). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
While claim 40 is addressed above, the analysis above can be applied to claim 21 where the processors and memories also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Similarly, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31 is an additional element that serves as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and does not provide a practical application of significantly more than the judicial exception. The mere nominal recitation of the generic computer components (e.g., an autonomous system, an autonomous vehicle, processors, and non-transitory computer-readable medium with stored executable instructions) and instructions (building, training, providing, and monitoring) do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Therefore, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The newly added amendments, such as "providing … " and "monitoring …" further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the analysis. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. A claim must be significant more to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter in order to make the claim patent-eligible per the Supreme Court in Alice.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims (21, 31, and 40) recite the additional elements of: an autonomous system, an autonomous vehicle, processors, a machine learning program, and non-transitory computer-readable medium with stored executable instructions. The computer hardware/software are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the machine learning program is performed at a high level of generality and merely shows an end result. The additional elements of using a computer for building a training data set including control decision records, training a machine learning program using the training data set to determine preferred control decisions, providing current autonomous features to the trained machine learning model to receive preferred control decisions, and monitoring vehicle operation data to determine whether the preferred control decisions are implemented, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere nominal recitation of the generic computer components (e.g., an autonomous system, an autonomous vehicle, processors, a machine learning program, and non-transitory computer-readable medium with stored executable instructions) and instructions (building, training, providing, and monitoring) do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
As discussed above, the independent claims recite the essential steps (i.e., building a training data set, training a machine learning program to determine preferred control decisions, providing current autonomous feature data to the trained machine learning model to receive preferred control decisions, and monitoring whether the preferred control decisions are implemented) to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of autonomous vehicle operation features via a generic computer system (e.g., an autonomous system, an autonomous vehicle, processors, a machine learning program, and non-transitory computer-readable medium with stored executable instructions). The steps are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a compute over a network and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions including building a training data set (gathering data), training a machine learning program using the training data set to determine preferred control decisions (inputting data), providing autonomous features to receive preferred control decisions (providing data), and monitoring such preferred control decisions are implemented (monitoring result) in order to avoid accident and reduce insurance. All these generic computer functions are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
The independent claims (21, 31, and 40) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using a computer hardware and/or software amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions (building a training data set, training a machine learning program using the training data set, and monitoring the effectiveness) to apply an exception using a generic computer component (e.g., an autonomous system, an autonomous vehicle, processors, a machine learning program, and non-transitory computer-readable medium with stored executable instructions) cannot provide an inventive concept.
In addition, the instant application’s Specification states, “The mobile device 110 may be either a general-use personal computer, … The on-board computer 114 may be a general-use on-board computer capable of performing many functions relating to vehicle operation or a dedicated computer for autonomous vehicle operation…” [0070]; “… Any of the plurality of software applications 230 may be designed to operate independently of the software applications 230 or in conjunction with the software applications 230.” [0082]; “… or any other suitable user-input device…” [0086]. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-30 and 32-39 depend on claims 21 and 31, and thus include all the limitations and features of claims 21 and 31. Therefore, the dependent claims also are directed the same abstract idea of claims 21 and 31.
Claims 22 and 32 recite additional elements “wherein the one or more preferred control decisions are virtually time-stamped.” (Additional detailed instructions for the preferred control decisions. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 23 and 33 recite additional elements “wherein the executable instructions further cause the computer system to: receive collision data associated with a vehicle collision involving the current autonomous vehicle, the collision data including information indicating conditions under which the vehicle collision occurred and information related to functionality of the autonomous system of the current autonomous vehicle during a period of time associated with the vehicle collision; and process the collision data using the trained machine learning program to determine one or more preferred control decisions the autonomous system was capable of making to control the autonomous vehicle immediately before or during the vehicle collision to mitigate or prevent the vehicle collision, for comparison to the actual control decisions.” (Additional detailed instructions for receiving and processing the collision data using the trained machine learning program. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 24 and 34 recite additional elements “wherein the executable instructions further cause the computer system to: train the machine learning program to determine the preferred control decisions based upon one or both of (i) data related to individual driver driving behavior, or (ii) telematics data associated with the individual driver driving behavior.” (Additional detailed instructions for training the machine learning program to determine control decisions. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 25 and 35 recite additional elements “wherein the executable instructions further cause the computer system to: train the machine learning program to determine the preferred control decisions based upon data related to a plurality of the following: environmental conditions, road conditions, construction conditions, and traffic conditions.” (Additional detailed instructions for training the machine learning program to determine control decision. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 26 and 36 recite additional elements “wherein the executable instructions further cause the computer system to: train the machine learning program to determine the preferred control decisions based upon data related to levels of pedestrian traffic.” (Additional detailed instructions for training the machine learning program to determine control decisions. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 27 and 37 recite additional elements “wherein at least one of the preferred control decisions and the actual control decisions include one or both of a control decision to change lanes or to turn the autonomous vehicle.” (Additional detailed instructions for the control decisions. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 28 and 38 recite additional elements “wherein at least one of the preferred control decisions and the actual control decisions include one or both of (i) a control decision to accelerate or to decelerate, or (ii) an indication of a rate of acceleration or deceleration.” (Additional detailed instructions for the control decisions. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 29 and 39 recite additional elements “wherein the control decision records include collision data that indicates (i) one or more environmental conditions in which a vehicle collision occurred and (ii) an identification of a person positioned within the autonomous vehicle to operate the autonomous vehicle at a time of the vehicle collision.” (Additional detailed instructions for the control decisions. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 30 recites additional elements “wherein the executable instructions further cause the computer system to adjust a model parameter associated with the current autonomous vehicle or the current autonomous system based upon one or more of the actual control decisions made by the current autonomous system.” (Additional detailed instructions for the computer system to adjust a model parameter associated with autonomous vehicle or the autonomous system. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 21 and 31 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. There is no inventive concept found in the claims. The claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims (21-40) is on a method of monitoring and evaluating of effectiveness of autonomous vehicle operation features for controlling vehicle operation for accident avoidance and insurance. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, a computer network, or a system memory, nor do they provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independent abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Applicant’s claimed invention is basically a “business solution” to a “business problem”, especially in determination of insurance premium. This is supported by Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs 3-5:
[0003] The present disclosure generally relates to systems and methods for determining risk, pricing, and offering vehicle insurance policies, specifically vehicle insurance policies where vehicle operation is partially or fully automated.
[0004] Vehicle or automobile insurance exists to provide financial protection against physical damage and/or bodily injury resulting from traffic accidents and against liability that could arise therefrom. Typically, a customer purchases a vehicle insurance policy for a policy rate having a specified term. In exchange for payments from the insured customer, the insurer pays for damages to the insured which are caused by covered perils, acts, or events as specified by the language of the insurance policy. The payments from the insured are generally referred to as “premiums,” and typically are paid on behalf of the insured over time at periodic intervals. An insurance policy may remain “in-force” while premium payments are made during the term or length of coverage of the policy as indicated in the policy. An insurance policy may “lapse” (or have a status or state of “lapsed”), for example, when premium payments are not being paid or if the insured or the insurer cancels the policy.
[0005] Premiums may be typically determined based upon a selected level of insurance coverage, location of vehicle operation, vehicle model, and characteristics or demographics of the vehicle operator. The characteristics of a vehicle operator that affect premiums may include age, years operating vehicles of the same class, prior incidents involving vehicle operation, and losses reported by the vehicle operator to the insurer or a previous insurer. Past and current premium determination methods do not, however, account for use of autonomous vehicle operating features. The present embodiments may, inter alia, alleviate this and/or other drawbacks associated with conventional techniques.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments filed on 08/13/2026, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per pages 9-11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that claim 21 is not directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application assuming that an abstract idea is found in the claim under Prong One. Applicant argues that claim 21 further integrates any such abstract idea into a practical application by improving the technical field of evaluating autonomous vehicle control system based upon whether an autonomous vehicle system exhibits consistency or inconsistency between actual control decision data and model-generated preferred control decisions. Applicant argues that amended claim 21 integrates any recited abstract idea into a practical application by reciting elements that reflect the improvement to this technical field, namely, reciting an improved technique including:
training a machine learning program to determine preferred control decisions of an input autonomous system in response to input data including input driving behavior and input autonomous feature data; providing current autonomous feature data of a current autonomous vehicle, including data representing autonomous feature capabilities of the current autonomous vehicle, and current driving behavior of a current driver of the current autonomous vehicle as inputs to the trained machine learning model to receive preferred control decisions for the current autonomous vehicle; and monitoring vehicle operation data to determine whether the preferred control decisions are implemented at the current autonomous vehicle as actual control decisions.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagree. As explained in the 101 rejection above, the newly added amendments further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the analysis. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. A claim must be significant more to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter in order to make the claim patent-eligible per the Supreme Court in Alice. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Amended independent claims 31 and 40 recited the same comparable elements and limitations as discussed in claim 21. Therefore, claims 31 and 40 are also rejected. Further, dependent claims 22-30 and 32-39 are also rejected because of their dependency on their respective independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In view of the 08/13/2026 Amendment, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn.
The closest prior arts, Luo (US Pub. No. 2018/0164810) and Boroditsky (US Pub. No. 2016/0026182), do not teach or disclose the following limitations:
(i) one or more control decisions of an autonomous system of an autonomous vehicle, (ii) autonomous feature data including data representing autonomous feature capabilities of the autonomous system of the autonomous vehicle, (iii) driver profile data of a driver of the autonomous vehicle, the driver profile data representing a driving behavior of the driver, and (iv) condition data including conditions that the autonomous vehicle was traveling in while the control decisions for the autonomous system were made;
provide current autonomous feature data of a current autonomous vehicle, including data representing autonomous feature capabilities of the current autonomous vehicle, and current driving behavior of a current driver of the current autonomous vehicle as inputs to the trained machine learning model to receive preferred control decisions for the current autonomous vehicle; and
monitor vehicle operation data to determine whether the preferred control decisions are implemented at the current autonomous vehicle as actual control decisions.
Conclusion
Claims 21-40 are rejected.
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 HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights