Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 & 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the provide, via the user interface and in response to the selection of the graphical indicator, a second indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a second power tool” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (USPGPN 2014/0361740 A1 – published Dec. 11, 2014), in view of Furui et al. (USPGPN 2014/0151079).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki (Fig.15, 18, & 19) teaches a charging system comprising:
a battery charger (316) including:
a housing (318 & 320 have a housing as shown in Fig.18),
a battery pack interface (30) configured to receive a plurality of power tool battery packs (charger 316 has three battery interfaces 30; Abstract: battery system is for power tool batteries),
a wireless communication controller (330; ¶0114: controller 330 communicates with an external device via communication circuit 152; ¶0096: communication circuit 152 connects wirelessly or wired to an external device) configured to communicate with an external device (200), and
a charger controller (350) connected to the battery pack interface (30) and the wireless communication controller, the charger controller configured to:
receive status information associated with each of the plurality of power tool battery packs (¶0114: controller 350 acquires battery information), and
transmit, with the wireless communication controller, the status information to the external device (¶0114: battery information is transmitted from controller 350 to controller 330 to external device 200); and
the external device including:
a display (202); and
an external device controller (¶0097: external device may be a smartphone, which include a controller for processing data) connected to the display, the external device controller configured to:
receive the status information from the charger controller (¶0114: external device 200 receives battery information from charger 316), and
control the display to display the status information via a user interface (¶0097: display 202 may display battery information or state information).
Suzuki fails to explicitly teach wherein the status information includes an indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a power tool associated with a first battery pack of the plurality of power tool battery packs based on a state of charge of the first battery pack.
However, Furui teaches a system which transmits information including an indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a power tool (¶0167: determine the predicted number of remaining power tool operations before recharging is required), based on a state of charge of the battery pack (¶0167: value indicative of the current battery voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki with Furui to include an indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a power tool associated with a first power pack, based on a state of charge of the battery pack. Doing so allows a user to determine if the battery has a sufficient charge level to perform the necessary number of uses the user intends to perform.
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki teaches wherein the external device controller is further configured to:
provide, via the user interface, a plurality of graphical indicators (Fig.15, 204/206), each of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of the plurality of power tool battery packs connected to the battery pack interface (Fig.15, 204/206).
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki teaches wherein the status information includes at least one selected from a group consisting of charge capacity of each power tool battery pack, a remaining charge time of each power tool battery pack, a type of each power tool battery pack, and an identification number of each power tool battery pack (Fig.15, 206).
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki teaches a method for notifying battery pack status, the method comprising:
receiving, with a battery pack charger, status information associated with a plurality of power tool battery packs connected to the battery pack charger (¶0114: controller 350 acquires battery information), wherein the battery pack charger includes a housing (318 & 320 have a housing as shown in Fig.18);
transmitting, with a wireless communication controller, the status information to an external device (¶0114: battery information is transmitted from controller 350 to controller 330 to external device 200);
receiving, with the external device, the status information from the charger controller (¶0114: battery information is transmitted from controller 350 to controller 330 to external device 200); and
controlling, with the external device, a display to display the status information via a user interface (¶0097: display 202 may display battery information or state information).
Suzuki fails to explicitly teach wherein the status information includes an indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a power tool associated with a first battery pack of the plurality of power tool battery packs based on a state of charge of the first battery pack.
However, Furui teaches a system which transmits information including an indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a power tool (¶0167: determine the predicted number of remaining power tool operations before recharging is required), based on a state of charge of the battery pack (¶0167: value indicative of the current battery voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki with Furui to include an indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a power tool associated with a first power pack, based on a state of charge of the battery pack. Doing so allows a user to determine if the battery has a sufficient charge level to perform the necessary number of uses the user intends to perform.
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki further teaches providing, via the user interface, a plurality of graphical indicators, each of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of the plurality of power tool battery packs connected to the battery pack charger (Fig.15, 204/206).
Claim(s) 2, 8, 9, 15, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of Furui, as applied to claims 1 & 10, and further in view of Conrad et al. (USPGPN 2014/0119575 A1 – published May 1, 2014).
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki further teaches the status information includes the charge voltage of each of the plurality of power tool battery packs (¶0097: display may display other state information, including charge level of a battery; ¶0091: charge level of a battery is determined using detected voltage of battery cells).
Suzuki fails to explicitly teach the battery charger includes one or more voltage sensors configured to sense a charge voltage of each of the plurality of power tool battery packs.
However, Conrad (Fig.2) teaches a battery charger (140, 165, & 170) which includes a voltage sensor for sensing a charging voltage of a battery (¶0023: battery monitoring module 170 includes a voltage sensor for determining a voltage of a battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, to move the voltage sensor from the battery pack, as taught in Suzuki, to the battery charger, as taught by Conrad. Doing so allows the charger to provide a state of charge indication for batteries which do not include internal voltage sensors, therefore expanding the usability of the charger.
Regarding Claims 8 & 9, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach wherein the external device controller is further configured to:
provide, via the display, a first toggle input graphic;
receive, via the display, a selection of the first toggle input graphic; and
provide, in response to selection of the first toggle input graphic and in response to one of the plurality of battery packs being fully charged, a notification indicative of the battery pack being charged on the display;
provide, via the display, a second toggle input graphic;
receive, via the display, a selection of the second toggle input graphic; and
provide, in response to selection of the second toggle input graphic and in response to one of the plurality of battery packs having a fault condition, a notification indicative of the fault condition on the display.
However, Conrad teaches an external device controller which provides a toggle input graphics (Fig.4H: Charged toggle and Battery Too Hot toggle are equated to first and second toggle input graphics), receives a selection of the toggle input graphics (¶0046: user is able to enable and disable notifications using toggles), and provides notifications in response to a selection of the toggle input graphics (¶0046: user enables notifications with the toggle selections) and in response to a battery pack being charged (Fig.4B, 313a) or a fault condition of a battery pack (Fig.4B, 313c) via the display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Conrad to include toggle inputs to enable notifications of a full charged battery or fault condition, and to display a notification when those states occur. Doing so allows a user to selectively disable notifications that are unneeded at the time, and allows the user to be alerted via the notification that the tracked condition has occurred instead of requiring the user to periodically manually check.
Regarding Claims 15 & 16, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach the method further comprising:
providing, via the display, a first toggle input graphic;
receiving, via the display, a selection of the first toggle input graphic; and
providing, in response to selection of the first toggle input graphic and in response to one of the plurality of battery packs being fully charged, a notification indicative of the battery pack being charged on the display;
providing, via the display, a second toggle input graphic;
receiving, via the display, a selection of the second toggle input graphic; and
providing, in response to selection of the second toggle input graphic and in response to one of the plurality of battery packs having a fault condition, a notification indicative of the fault condition on the display.
However, Conrad teaches an external device controller which provides a toggle input graphics (Fig.4H: Charged toggle and Battery Too Hot toggle are equated to first and second toggle input graphics), receives a selection of the toggle input graphics (¶0046: user is able to enable and disable notifications using toggles), and provides notifications in response to a selection of the toggle input graphics (¶0046: user enables notifications with the toggle selections) and in response to a battery pack being charged (Fig.4B, 313a) or a fault condition of a battery pack (Fig.4B, 313c) via the display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Conrad to include toggle inputs to enable notifications of a full charged battery or fault condition, and to display a notification when those states occur. Doing so allows a user to selectively disable notifications that are unneeded at the time, and allows the user to be alerted via the notification that the tracked condition has occurred instead of requiring the user to periodically manually check.
Claim(s) 4 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of Furui, as applied to claims 1 & 10, and further in view of Willey et al. (USPGPN 2019/0353712 A1 – published Nov. 21, 2019).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach wherein the external device controller is further configured to:
receive, via the display, a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of the plurality of power tool battery packs; and
provide, via the user interface and in response to the selection of the one of the plurality of graphical indicators, the status information associated with the selected power tool battery pack.
However, Willey teaches where an external device (Fig.1, 140) where the display receives a selection associated with a power tool battery pack and provides the status information associated with the selected power tool battery pack (Figs. 7 & 8: user may select a battery icon after which the application displays the screen of Fig.8, which includes status information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Willey to include a configuration of the external device controller to receive a selection of a power tool battery through the user interface, and display status information of the selected power tool battery. Doing so allows for a view that shows multiple power tool battery pack charging statuses while the selection allows a use to see more detailed information, without complicating the multiple battery pack view, while also allowing for editing the information of the selected power tool battery pack when changes are needed, as evidenced by Willey.
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach the method further comprising:
receiving, via the display, a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of the plurality of power tool battery packs; and
providing, via the user interface and in response to the selection of the one of the plurality of graphical indicators, the status information associated with the selected power tool battery pack.
However, Willey teaches where an external device (Fig.1, 140) where the display receives a selection associated with a power tool battery pack and provides the status information associated with the selected power tool battery pack (Figs. 7 & 8: user may select a battery icon after which the application displays the screen of Fig.8, which includes status information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Willey to include a configuration of the external device controller to receive a selection of a power tool battery through the user interface, and display status information of the selected power tool battery. Doing so allows for a view that shows multiple power tool battery pack charging statuses while the selection allows a use to see more detailed information, without complicating the multiple battery pack view, while also allowing for editing the information of the selected power tool battery pack when changes are needed, as evidenced by Willey.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of Furui, as applied to claims 1 & 10, and further in view of Butler et al. (USPGPN 2021/0354582 A1 – effectively filed Aug. 14, 2014).
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery charger is one of a plurality of battery chargers, and wherein the external device controller is further configured to:
provide, via the user interface, a plurality of graphical indicators, each of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of the plurality of battery chargers.
However, Butler teaches a battery monitoring system which provides a plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of a plurality of battery chargers (Fig.5d, Chargers 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Butler to provide a plurality of battery chargers and have the external device controller provide a plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of a plurality of battery chargers. Doing so allows for an increased number of batteries to be charged while providing a concise view for a user to view each available charger, before selecting a more detailed view for a desired charger, as evidenced by Butler.
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki further teaches wherein the external device controller is further configured to:
provide, via the user interface, the status information associated with each power tool battery pack connected to the battery interface (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1).
Suzuki fails to explicitly teach external device controller is further configured to receive, via the display, a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with the battery charger and provide the status information in response to a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with the battery charger.
However, Butler further teaches the external device controller receiving a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with the battery charger (¶0071: user may select a desired battery charger), and provides status information in response to this selection (¶0071: selection of a desired battery charger provides a more detailed screen, Fig.5e, which includes status information of a battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Butler to include a configuration of the external device controller to receive a selection of a battery charger graphical indicator and display status information of batteries connected to the selected charger. Doing so allows a user a concise view of all connected chargers, and the ability to view detailed information related to a desired, selected charger when necessary.
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery charger is one of a plurality of battery chargers, and wherein the method further comprises:
providing, via the user interface, a plurality of graphical indicators, each of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of the plurality of battery chargers.
However, Butler teaches a battery monitoring system which provides a plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of a plurality of battery chargers (Fig.5d, Chargers 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Butler to provide a plurality of battery chargers and have the external device controller provide a plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of a plurality of battery chargers. Doing so allows for an increased number of batteries to be charged while providing a concise view for a user to view each available charger, before selecting a more detailed view for a desired charger, as evidenced by Butler.
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki further teaches the method further comprising:
providing, via the user interface, the status information associated with each power tool battery pack connected to the battery interface (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1).
Suzuki fails to explicitly teach receiving, via the display, a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with the battery charger and providing the status information in response to a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with the battery charger.
However, Butler further teaches the external device controller receiving a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with the battery charger (¶0071: user may select a desired battery charger), and provides status information in response to this selection (¶0071: selection of a desired battery charger provides a more detailed screen, Fig.5e, which includes status information of a battery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Butler to include a configuration of the external device controller to receive a selection of a battery charger graphical indicator and display status information of batteries connected to the selected charger. Doing so allows a user a concise view of all connected chargers, and the ability to view detailed information related to a desired, selected charger when necessary.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of Furui, as applied to claims 1, 3, 10, & 11, and further in view of Willey and Masumori et al. (WIPO Publication WO 2020/241330 A1)
Regarding Claim 21, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach the external device controller is further configured to:
receive, via the display, a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of the plurality of power tool battery packs; and
provide, via the user interface and in response to the selection of the one of the plurality of graphical indicators, the indication of the remaining number of tool operations for the power tool associated with the first battery pack of the plurality of power tool battery packs.
However, Willey teaches where an external device (Fig.1, 140) where the display receives a selection associated with a power tool battery pack and provides the status information associated with the selected power tool battery pack (Figs. 7 & 8: user may select a battery icon after which the application displays the screen of Fig.8, which includes status information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Willey to include a configuration of the external device controller to receive a selection of a power tool battery through the user interface, and display status information of the selected power tool battery. Doing so allows for a view that shows multiple power tool battery pack charging statuses while the selection allows a use to see more detailed information, without complicating the multiple battery pack view, while also allowing for editing the information of the selected power tool battery pack when changes are needed, as evidenced by Willey.
Moreover, Masumori teaches a graphical display for an external device which displays the indication of the remaining number of tool operations for the power tool associated with the first battery pack (Fig.13; Pg. 12, para.1: number workable/usable times for the connected tool and previous connected tools is displayed in areas 166-168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Masumori to include displaying the indication of the remaining number of tool operations for the power tool associated with the first battery pack. Doing so allows a user to determine if the battery has a sufficient charge level to perform the necessary number of uses the user intends to perform.
Regarding Claim 22, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach wherein the external device controller is further configured to:
provide, via the display, a graphical indicator associated with a change in the power tool associated with the first battery pack of the plurality of power tool battery packs,
receive, via the display, a selection of the graphical indicator representing a change in the power tool associated with the first battery pack of the plurality of battery packs, and
provide, via the user interface and in response to the selection of the graphical indicator, a second indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a second power tool associated with the first battery pack of the plurality of power tool battery packs based on the state of charge of the first battery pack.
However, Masumori teaches a graphical display for an external device which displays the indication of the remaining number of tool operations for the power tool associated with the first battery pack (Fig.13; Pg. 12, para.1: number workable/usable times for the connected tool and previous connected tools is displayed in areas 166-168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Masumori to include displaying a graphical indicator associated with a change in the power tool associated with the first battery pack and providing a second indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a second power tool associated with the first battery pack. Doing so allows a user to determine if the battery has a sufficient charge level to perform the necessary number of uses the user intends to perform, and if the battery pack has a sufficient charge level to perform a necessary number of uses for a different tool that a user may intend to perform.
Moreover, Willey teaches where an external device (Fig.1, 140) where the display receives a selection associated with a graphical indicator and provides the status information associated with the selected graphical indicator (Figs. 7 & 8: user may select a battery icon after which the application displays the screen of Fig.8, which includes status information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Willey to include a configuration of the external device controller to receive a selection of a graphical indicator associated with a change in the power tool through the user interface, and display a second indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a second power tool. Doing so allows for a view that shows multiple graphical indicators while the selection allows a user to see more detailed information, without complicating the multiple graphical indicator view as evidenced by Willey.
Regarding Claim 23, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach receiving, via the display, a selection of one of the plurality of graphical indicators associated with one of the plurality of power tool battery packs; and
providing, via the user interface and in response to the selection of the one of the plurality of graphical indicators, the indication of the remaining number of tool operations for the power tool associated with the first battery pack of the plurality of power tool battery packs.
However, Willey teaches where an external device (Fig.1, 140) where the display receives a selection associated with a power tool battery pack and provides the status information associated with the selected power tool battery pack (Figs. 7 & 8: user may select a battery icon after which the application displays the screen of Fig.8, which includes status information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Willey to include a configuration of the external device controller to receive a selection of a power tool battery through the user interface, and display status information of the selected power tool battery. Doing so allows for a view that shows multiple power tool battery pack charging statuses while the selection allows a use to see more detailed information, without complicating the multiple battery pack view, while also allowing for editing the information of the selected power tool battery pack when changes are needed, as evidenced by Willey.
Moreover, Masumori teaches a graphical display for an external device which displays the indication of the remaining number of tool operations for the power tool associated with the first battery pack (Fig.13; Pg. 12, para.1: number workable/usable times for the connected tool and previous connected tools is displayed in areas 166-168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Masumori to include displaying the indication of the remaining number of tool operations for the power tool associated with the first battery pack. Doing so allows a user to determine if the battery has a sufficient charge level to perform the necessary number of uses the user intends to perform.
Regarding Claim 24, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach providing, via the display, a graphical indicator associated with a change in the power tool associated with the first battery pack of the plurality of power tool battery packs,
receiving, via the display, a selection of the graphical indicator representing a change in the power tool associated with the first battery pack of the plurality of battery packs, and
providing, via the user interface and in response to the selection of the graphical indicator, a second indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a second power tool associated with the first battery pack of the plurality of power tool battery packs based on the state of charge of the first battery pack.
However, Masumori teaches a graphical display for an external device which displays the indication of the remaining number of tool operations for the power tool associated with the first battery pack (Fig.13; Pg. 12, para.1: number workable/usable times for the connected tool and previous connected tools is displayed in areas 166-168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Masumori to include displaying a graphical indicator associated with a change in the power tool associated with the first battery pack and providing a second indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a second power tool associated with the first battery pack. Doing so allows a user to determine if the battery has a sufficient charge level to perform the necessary number of uses the user intends to perform, and if the battery pack has a sufficient charge level to perform a necessary number of uses for a different tool that a user may intend to perform.
Moreover, Willey teaches where an external device (Fig.1, 140) where the display receives a selection associated with a graphical indicator and provides the status information associated with the selected graphical indicator (Figs. 7 & 8: user may select a battery icon after which the application displays the screen of Fig.8, which includes status information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suzuki, in view of Furui, with Willey to include receiving a selection of a graphical indicator associated with a change in the power tool through the user interface, and display a second indication of a remaining number of tool operations for a second power tool. Doing so allows for a view that shows multiple graphical indicators while the selection allows a user to see more detailed information, without complicating the multiple graphical indicator view as evidenced by Willey.
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 JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859