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 office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 25 July 2025.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1, 3, 21, and 22 have been amended.
All rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 1-9, 11-22 are pending. Claims 1, 21 and 22 are independent claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/25/25 has been entered.
Specification
The amendments to specification filed on 4/24/25 has not been entered for the following reason(s): Fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(i) that states " An instruction, which unambiguously identifies the location, to delete one or more paragraphs of the specification, replace a paragraph with one or more replacement paragraphs, or add one or more paragraphs". The proposed amendments disclosed an instruction for amending paragraphs 0026, 0029. However, Applicant has not provided an amendment for paragraphs 0026 and 0029. In addition, it appears Applicant wish to amend 0027, 0030, 0039,and 0041; however, no instruction(s) which unambiguously identifies the location for amending 0027, 0030, 0039,and 0041 was provided/indicated. Therefore, the amendment is not entered. Because the amendment to the paragraphs of the specification was not entered, the amendment to the abstract is not also not entered since the amendments to the specification/abstract are not entered in part.
The abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since its written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; but not written like a claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on 7/25/25 have not been entered since Applicant replaced numerous replacement sheets; however, not all of the replacement sheets filed on 7/25/25 were not labeled with “Replacement Sheet”. 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).
Thus, the drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “103” has been used to designate both track and rails; reference character “106” has been used to designate both case and extension structure; reference character “108” has been used to designate both U-shaped base structure and mobile base; reference character “116” has been used to designate both extension structure and double deep pantograph mechanism. 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. 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 Interpretation
The limitations of Claims 1, 21, and 22 no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) in response to Applicant’s amendments.
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) 1-4, 6, 12, 17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger et al (WO 2023173150 A1, EFD 3/18/2022) in further view of Dammeyer et al (US5586620,1996) in further view of Yasuhara et al (US 5655870, 1997)
As per independent claim 1, Schwaiger et al discloses a system comprises:
a case; (FIG 1: reference characters 8, 10)
a U-shaped base structure connected to the case; (e.g. page 5, 3rd para: two legs of U shaped chassis)
a set of wheels configured in the U-shaped base structure, each wheel of the set of wheels being steerable; (pg 4, para 7; pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para)
an elevated structure attached to the U-shaped base structure and having a track, wherein the U-shaped base structure is configured in a position relative to the elevated structure and the case;;(FIG 1; pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para: vertical guide. Attached to base units and comprises a track for the lifting carriage (lifting fork tines). In addition the U-shaped base structure is configured in a position relative to the elevated structure and the case (FIG 1) )
an extension structure configured at least in part with the track on the elevated structure, wherein the extension structure is configured to be able to move up and down the track; (pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para: disclose lifting carriage ( lifting fork tines)that moves vertically along the vertical guide)
an engagement structure configured with the extension structure; (pg 6, 2nd para; pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para: fork tines which are attached to the lifting carriage)
a control system, comprising a computing system…,configured to control a motor to control operation of the set of wheels and the extension structure, (discloses a driverless forklift device for the automatic, space-saving and collision-free picking-up, transport, lifting and delivery of pallets. (Abstract) The device comprises a lifting system/device for the lifting of the carriage. ( pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para )The device also include a motor/drive unit for movement of the wheels. (pg 4, , 7th par) The device includes a control system (pg 8, 6th para) In addition, the device includes a drive system has steerable drive unit (motorized) which are controlled that allows the (driverless) device to move omnidirectional (pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para; pg 8, 3rd para) Therefore, since the device is driverless, one of the skilled artisan would realize that the device comprise an control system that controls the lifting device for the lifting of the carriage and the drive units to move the device. Therefore, since the device is 1) driverless, 2) has multiple systems, 3) has motorized wheels controlled by a system, 4) control system, and 5) a device/system for lifting the lifting carriage ( lifting fork tines), one of the skilled artisan would realize that the device comprise an control system that controls the lifting device for the lifting of the carriage and the drive units to move the device. In addition, since it controls the lifting device and the drive, one of the skilled artisan would realize that the control system is a computing system) wherein the system is omnidirectional (abstract, pg.4, 7th para) and enables the extension structure to move up and down the track and retrieve or drop off items at various levels using the engagement structure. (Abstract: picking-up, transport, lifting and delivery of pallets; pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para: lifting carriage ( lifting fork tines), moves vertically along the vertical guide (track))
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the U-shaped base structure is configured in a fixed position relative to the elevated structure and the case and the extension structure is configured to extend and retract only in a horizontal direction using equal-length arms according to a pantograph mechanism. However, Dammeyer et al discloses a forklift truck having U-shaped base structure is configured in a fixed position relative to the elevated structure (FIG 1-4, 6; Col 2, ll 54-55; Col 4, ll 34-44, 54-63; Claim 1: Discloses a U-shape based structure and an elevated structure attached to the U-shape based structure wherein the elevated structure has a track) In addition, Dammeyer et al discloses the extension structure is configured to extend and retract only in a horizontal direction using equal-length arms according to a pantograph mechanism. (FIG 1-4; 23B-C, 24B-C; Col 2, ll 54-58; Col 4, line 63- Col 5,5 line Claim 1: Discloses a carriage assembly that comprises a pair of forks in which the carriage assembly moves up and down within the mast assembly. Furthermore, the forks can extend from the carriage assembly with the use of a reach mechanism attached to the forks and carriage assembly. Thus, the reach mechanism is attached to the carriage assembly. The reach mechanism allows the forks to extend and retract in a horizontal direction to and from the carriage assembly (Col 6, ll 29-30; Col 7, ll 26-28; Claim 3) Furthermore, reach mechanism is form a pantograph mechanism and uses equal-length arms when extracting and retracting (FIG 1, 3; 23B-C, 24B-C)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of Dammeyer et al since it would had provided the intrinsic advantage of allowing the forklift to reach into racking and access loads stored deep within shelves.
Furthermore, Schwaiger discloses the base unit comprising a control system wherein the base unit is attached to the elevated structure/vertical guide. (pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para) Since the base unit is attached to the elevated structure/vertical guide and the base unit include the control system, then the control system is also attached to the elevated structure/vertical guide . As explained above, the control system of Schwaiger discloses controls the lifting device for the lifting of the carriage and the drive units to move the device (thus, computing system as explained above). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the control system… attached to the elevated structure above the case. However, Yasuhara et al discloses a forklift device (stacker crane) that comprises a lower base unit (lower saddle 3) and an elevated structure/lifting mechanism comprising posts, a carriage with a forklift apparatus that lifts and lowers along the posts. The elevated structure, comprising the posts, is attached to the lower saddle. (see FIG 1 showing the combination of parts 4a and 4b comprising parts 6 and 7 being attached to part 3). In addition, the saddle comprises a case which covers the wheels 11a, 11b. Furthermore, FIG 1 shows a control panel 9, for the control of the crane/lift, shows the control panel is positioned/attached on the post of elevated structure (therefore, attached to the elevated structure) and positioned above the saddle having the case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the control system of Schwaiger to be positioned on its elevated structure/vertical guide as similarly disclosed by Yasuhara et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of allowing a person to easily access the unit without the need to remove any additional components or parts for accessing.
As per dependent claim 2, Schwaiger et al discloses at least one wheel of the set of wheels is driven (pg 4, para 7; pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para: driven)
As per dependent claim 3, Schwaiger discloses wherein the extension structure configured to be able to move down the track to a floor level (FIG 1; pg 5, 2nd para ; pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para: disclose lifting carriage (lifting fork tines) that moves vertically along the vertical guide to a floor level). Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Dammeyer et al discloses wherein the extension structure configured to be able to move up-and down to a floor level and extend and retract in the horizontal direction along the floor. (Col 6, ll 29-30; Col 7, ll 26-28; Claim 3 discloses a reach mechanism attached to a carriage assembly that extends and retracts horizontally allowing the forks attached to the reach mechanism to extend and retract horizontally. Furthermore, as explained above, the carriage assembly is able move up and down the mast assembly. In addition, col 8, ll 42-43 and col 9 ll 44-46 discloses that the carriage assembly is can be lowered to the floor. In addition, Col 4, lines 60-62 and FIG 1 show the reach mechanism being extend when the carriage assembly is lower position on the track. Therefore, since the carriage assembly can reach the floor (level) and the reach mechanism (of the carriage assembly) can extend when it’s at a lower position, one of a skilled artisan would have released that Dammeyer et al’s reach mechanism can extend (and retract) when the carriage assembly is at a lower position such as the floor.)
As per dependent claim 4, Schwaiger et al discloses wherein the extension structure can lower down between extension arms of the U-shaped base structure such that the engagement structure can reach a floor level (FIG 1; pg 5, 2nd para)
As per dependent claim 6, Schwaiger et al discloses at least one sensor that enables data about a surrounding environment of the system to be sensed and utilized for movement of the system. (pg 8, 1st para: obstacle detection. Furthermore, Abstract discloses the driverless transport device moves on omnidirectionally along any trajectories between points along with picking-up, transport, lifting and delivery of pallets. One of skilled artisan would understand that obstacle detection involves the use of the sensor to detect obstacle while moving pallets. Thus, utilized for movement)
As per dependent claim 12, Schwaiger et al discloses at least two wheels of the set of wheels is powered (pg 4, para 7; pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para: power driven wheels)
As per dependent claim 17, Schwaiger et al discloses each wheel of the set of wheels is configured in a corner position of the U-shaped base structure (FIG 4: each corner)
As per dependent claim 19, Schwaiger et al discloses a first powered and steerable drive assembly powers a first wheel of the set of wheels and a second powered and steerable drive assembly powers a second wheel of the set of wheels (pg 4, para 7; pg 6, last para – pg 7, 1st para: first and second steerable drive units which are independent of each other)
As per independent claim 21, Claim 21 recites similar limitation as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of Prout (US 10407243, 2019)
As per dependent claim 5, the cited art fails to specifically recite a reroutable automatic storage and retrieval system. However, Prout discloses a forklift like device (lifting module) facilitating the use of ASRS to access various items stored in a warehouse. (Col 3, lines 16-31; FIG 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of Prout since it would had provided the intrinsic advantage of improve efficiency, accuracy, and productivity.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of O’Keffe (US20180179039, 2018)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the extension structure enables double deep capability on a floor level or on a shelf. However, O’Keeffe discloses wherein the extension structure enables double deep capability on a floor level or on a shelf. (FIG 9, 11-12: disclose removing a load from a second position (two deep) on a raised surface. One of skilled artisan would understand a shelf is a form of a raised surface/platform; thus, O’Keeffe is capable of pulling items two deep off raised surfaces such as shelves)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of O’Keeffe since it would had provided the benefit of an improved linkage system and stability for a forklift truck. (0010)
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of Chen (CN215324896U, 12/28/21) (Examiner previously provided an English translation of CN215324896U)
As per dependent claim 8, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the system can utilize drive-in racking or flow racking. However, Chen discloses the use of flow rack. The unmanned forklift places the cargo on the flow rack through the first opening. Under the action of its own gravity, the cargo moves on the flow rack until it abuts against other cargo on the flow rack and stops moving, that is, it moves to a designated position in the storage space (n0068)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of Chen since it would had provided the intrinsic advantage of a useful process of picking and delivering goods, resulting in high efficiency of picking and delivering goods.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of Nakano (JP-2002080195-A, 12/28/21) (Examiner previously provided an English translation of JP-2002080195-A)
As per dependent claim 9, the cited art fails to specifically disclose at least one actuated outrigger for stability. However, Nakano discloses a forklift having at least one actuated outrigger for stability . The outrigger is extended and retracted using hydraulics (form of actuating) (0007; Claim 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of Nakano since it would had provided the benefit of making a forklift that can lift and transport loads no matter how light the body is. (0011)
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of Shinosky (US 9415984, 2016)
As per dependent claim 11, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a raised undercarriage enabling an unobstructed view beneath the system. However, Shinosky discloses a forklift having a high undercarriage. (Col 13, line 45-56) This would enabling an unobstructed view beneath it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of Shinosky since it would had provided the benefit of an inexpensive and simple way to improve the horizontal transport efficiency of a forklift. (Col 1,ll 35-36)
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of Qi et al (CN113954630, EFD 9/26/21) (Examiner previously provided an English translation of CN113954630)
As per dependent claims 13-14, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a hydraulic circuit for coarse control of the engagement structure and a second hydraulic circuit for fine control of the engagement structure. However, Qi et al discloses a extension and retraction mechanism having a coarse control and fine control wherein each type of control has its own hydraulic circuit. (claim 5, n0060)
The motivation to combine the cited art with Qi et al since because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of automated robots would have found it obvious to combine the cited art with Qi et al to update it using an mechanism having hydraulic coarse and fine controls in order to gain the commonly understood intrinsic advantage of such adaptation, such as improve the control of the mechanism and flexibility of the type of control use.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of Yasuda et al (WO2023157235, EFD 2/18/2022) (WO2023157235, EFD 9/26/21(Examiner previously provided an English translation of WO2023157235)
As per dependent claim 15, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the control system utilizes x, y and theta velocity commands for movement of the system. However, Yasuda discloses providing control input x and coordinates and angular velocity (theta velocity) into a mobile robot to make it move. (0020-0021)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of Yasuda since it would had provided the benefit of evaluate the control input candidates more accurately and quicker, and control accuracy can be improved. (0091)
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of Murakami et al (US20150134179, 2015)
As per dependent claim 16, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the control system monitors a position of each of the wheels of the set of wheels and automatically halts drive motor commands until the set of wheels are in position. However, Murakami et al discloses a robot/vehicle having drive wheels that when the robot/vehicle needs to change its travel direction, the drive wheels stop; and then both the drive wheels rotate in directions opposite from each other, with the result that the cleaning robot redirects its travel direction. (0142) In other words, this is a form of adjust the positioning of the robot’s wheels to travel in a new direction, the wheels need to halt movement and readjust before restarting to allow the robot move in the new direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of Murakami since it would had provided the benefit of allowing the robot to self-travel in all around an area where the robot is placed or in all around a desired area as avoiding the object. (0142)
Claim(s) 18, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of Chae et al (US20210023705, 1/28/2021)
As per dependent claim 18, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a planned path for the system can be changed based on real-time sensor feedback. However, Chae et al discloses a robot changing its intended path because of a sensed object that it needs to avoid (Abstract; Claim 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of Chae since it would had provided the intrinsic advantage of improved training method on object detection and avoidance for a moving robot.
As per dependent claim 20, based on the rejection of Claim 18 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Chae et al discloses a machine learning model is configured with the control system to evaluate data, received by at least one sensor, and adjust movement of the system based on the data (Abstract; Claim 8: using a machine learning model to determine if a robot should avoid a sensed object and determine a new path if need to avoid the sense object. )
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaiger et al in further view of Dammeyer et al in further view of Yasuhara et al in further view of Davidson et al (US20220289537, EFD 8/16/2019)
As per independent claim 22, Claim 22 recites similar limitation as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Schwaiger discloses the additional limitations:
retrieving, as managed by the control system, an item via the engagement structure; (Abstract; pg 5, 2nd para: pallet picked up (form of retrieving))
moving the robotic system to a destination; and dropping off, as managed by the control system, the item at the destination. (Abstract; pg 5, 2nd para: pallet is picked up, transported and then set down/delivered. One of skilled artisan would understand that pallet being transported then set down/delivered that the pallet was set down at its destination)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose storing in a non-transitory computer-readable memory a planned path for a robotic system and moving the robotic system according to its planned path to a destination; and dropping off, as managed by the control system, the item at the destination. However, Davidson et al discloses the use of autonomous or semi-autonomous forklifts configured to transport and place pallets and other large objects within the warehouse. Davidson et al discloses a forklift receiving a task comprising a sequence of actions to perform such as traveling along a suitable path between the current location of the forklift and the location of the pallet; identifying a position of the pallet in the pallet rack holding the pallet; loading the pallet onto the pallet forks of the forklift from its location in the pallet rack; traveling along a suitable path from the pallet rack to the specified destination location; placing the pallet in a suitable position at the destination location and disengaging the pallet forks from the pallet. (0013, 0025) In addition, Davidson et al discloses the forklift receiving the task, wirelessly by a task assignment module, comprising data structures (0020, 0022) Since the forklift receives task data includes instructions of which pallet to pick up and deliver and the path from the pick up location to the delivery location, one of skilled artisan would realize that the forklift contains a memory storage for receiving the task data in order to execute the received instructions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the discussed features of Davidson et al since it would had provided the benefit of facilitate continual learning by a robot agent to improve its performance of varied tasks while reducing or eliminating the risk of failure to adequately perform tasks. (0001)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s remarks to the amended Abstract and Drawings on page 10, the Examiner respectfully states these objections remain since the amendment(s) to the specification were not entered for not meeting the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(i) as fully explained above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 21, 22 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
All other arguments on pages 11-14 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described in the rejections above.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172