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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on September 8, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have not filed any arguments. It is unclear why the Applicants would file an RCE without any comments or amendments. There were no amendments from the after-final submission (8/6/25) to official enter. All comments regarding claim 11 were addressed and rebutted (see Advisory Action 8/13/25). The Examiner attempted to arrange an interview with the Applicants’ representative – a voicemail message was left on 9/10/25 to inquire about the RCE. It has been a week and the call was not returned. Thus, it is presumed that it is the Applicants’ intention to file an RCE without amendments. As the pending claims have been finally rejected, this Action is also made Final. MPEP §706.07(b).
The Advisory Action comments regarding the art rejection are repeated below. Following that, the Examiner provides addition comments regarding the claim 12 objection and rebuttals to the arguments in the after-final reply.
The Applicants present a five-point list to summarize the lengthy after-final arguments (Remarks, page 7). These five issues are all rebutted as follows:
1) "on-board" and "vehicle" in the PREAMBLE do not breathe life into the claim. Jurisch does not use "utility" or "grid" in its specification - thus, its electric power supply path is not limited to "a section of a utility transmission line". The Applicants' suggestion that "on-board" "IMPLIES packaging, placement, or integration into a vehicle system" (Remarks, page 5, emphasis added) is not persuasive, as claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of which the Applicants are seeking patent protection - not rely in "implications" and "inferences". It appears that the Applicants are taking the position that their claims are indefinite.
2) The Applicants have misread the art rejection. Jurisch has three different features (within the same embodiment) that each anticipate the cross-correlation. The "any one of these" is not some type of combination or admission that the anticipation rejection is faulty. The Applicants have not offered any amendments to clarity how the claimed cross-correlation is different than the prior art.
3) The specification discloses that the user/controller takes the coefficient (phi) and compares it to a threshold to determine the state of the system (par 19). This is exactly what Jurisch is doing (par 64). Maybe the Applicants have a different threshold value that Jurisch - but no specific thresholds are claimed. At best, the Applicants' arguments are directed to unclaimed subject matter. A "fault" is a "degradation state". The specification (par 15) gives "degradation state" a broad definition to include most non-normal states - this would include a complete failure. Again, it is the Applicants' burden to amend the claim to overcome the prior art.
4) It is not. It is the same structurally (two voltage sensors on either end of a power path, an evaluation device to analyze the voltages) and functionally (par 64 has the same equation as the Applicants' par 13).
5) As discussed in #2 - Jurisch has three voltage analyzing functions - they are clearly in the same embodiment (see fig 1). They are not "disparate functions" - they are part of the same voltage analysis circuit and are clearly connected to each other. These functions, individually or in combination, anticipate the claim language.
In reconsidering the objection to “coefficient”, the Examiner notes the following. Claim 12 is unclear because it recites “wherein the criterion is”. Claim 11 recites the comparison of “a cross-correlation” to the “criterion”. If claim 12 is only further defining the criterion – then the evaluation in claim 11 becomes “when a result of a cross-correlation meets a cross-correlation coefficient reaching or falling below a predefined threshold value. This is incorrect because the “result” of the cross-correlation IS the cross-correlation coefficient.
Claim 12 should recite, “wherein the result of the cross correlation is a cross-correlation coefficient, the predefined criterion is a predefined threshold, and the evaluation includes determining when the cross-correlation coefficient reaches or falls below the predetermined threshold”. The Applicants are invited to suggest other language. This interpretation would allow the “coefficient” to change over time as it doesn’t have to be fixed.
If the Applicants disagree, they are requested to address the statement that the “coefficient” is the “result” – not part of the criterion.
The claim 12 objection is maintained to reflect this new interpretation.
Regarding the art rejection of claim 11, Jurisch makes no mention of any “grid” or “utility”. The Applicants’ contention that the reference is limited to “a utility transmission line” is an unsupported assumption (Remarks, page 4).
The vehicle is an intended use limitation. MPEP §2111.02(II). The phrase “on-board” does not change this analysis. The body of the claim does not recite any vehicle components. There are no limitations that support the Applicants’ contention that the system is “structurally integrated into a vehicle’s on-board power system” (Remarks, page 5, top). Even the Applicants’ argue relies on what “on-board” “implies” (Remarks, page 5, end of line 2). The claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention – not rely on implications and inferences. The Applicants’ arguments actually supports the position that the claim is indefinite.
In bold, the Applicants state, “Jurisch does not disclose voltage measuring devices at ends of a power supply path” (Remarks, page 5, original emphasis removed). The Jurisch measuring devices (11, 12) are clearly at the end of line 20. If the Applicants intend for their power supply path to be something different, they are invited to amend the claims accordingly.
The Applicants’ contention that Jurisch 11 and 12 are “not physical voltage-measuring devices” does not make sense. The reference explicitly discloses a voltage measuring/sensing device and illustrates its location on the power supply path 20. Electrical circuits, such as Jurisch’s, to measure voltage are clearly “physical” (they take up space and exist in three dimensions). If the Applicants are going to continue this line of argument, they are requested to provide more detailed explanation.
The Applicants then contend that the Jurisch measuring devices “are not described as being part of a power supply system, but rather part of a diagnostic monitoring system external to the transmission line.” (Remarks, page 5). It is unclear why the Applicants underline such a clearly erroneous and rebuttable statement. First, the claim recites that the measuring devices are “at ends” of the path. This is what Jurisch discloses. Second, a power supply path is a conductor and does not include any measuring devices. So, to add a measuring device would clearly make that device adjacent (i.e. external) to the path. Lastly, all of the Applicants’ claimed components that are not the path are external to the path – they form a “diagnostic monitoring system” that is connected to the path.
The Applicants then bold the argument that “nothing in Jurisch discloses or even suggests the claimed” wherein clause of claim 11. Before addressing the comments, Jurisch explicitly uses the term “evaluation device” 400. Thus, at the minimum, there is clearly a “suggestion” in the reference of the wherein clause. The Applicants’ response does not address this disclosure to provide any reason why the reference’s use of the same word is irrelevant to the art rejection.
The claim does not require “a very specific” cross-correlation, as alleged (Remarks, page 5, bottom). The claim simply recites the cross-correlation of voltage “profiles” and that the “result” of this cross-correlation is compared against a criterion. The “profiles” are only broadly recited as created “by way of” the measuring devices – it is unclear what the profiles actually are. The claim then only broadly states that the “result” of the cross-correlation is important without actually explaining how it is derived.
First, the Jurisch “fictitious” voltages are U1’ and U2’. These two voltages only make up a small part of the evaluation device (see fig 2) and do not rebut that the rest of the circuitry completes the recited functionality.
Second, the claim recites that the voltage “profiles” are created “by way of” the measurement devices. This indicates that the outputs of the voltage measurement devices are not directly used, but that some adjustments/modifications are made to the signals to create a “profile”. This is what Jurisch does. If the Applicants intend for their profiles to be different than Jurisch’s signals (which are not limited to U1’, U2’), they are invited to amend the claim accordingly.
Jurisch’s fault localization anticipates the claim language of “detecting degradation” (Remarks, page 6, top). The Applicants’ specification gives “degradation” a broad definition including, at least, “damage on the power line”, “line impairments due to unusually high current loads”, and “cable damage and breakages” (par 15). If the Applicants intend for their “anomalous degradation” to be something different than Jurisch’s faults, they are invited to amend the claims accordingly.
The Examiner has not “conflated multiple functions” (Remarks, page 6). The Examiner has shown that there are at least three Jurisch functions that, individually, anticipate the claim language. The fact is that the Applicants do not address any of them. The three Jurisch evaluations are all in the same embodiment (figure 2) and the Applicants’ contention to the contrary is baseless.
Jurisch is not “silent regarding an anomalous degradation state of the power supply path” (Remarks, page 7, top, emphasis removed), as the specification gives the anomalous degradation a broad definition that includes Jurisch’s disclosure. The Applicants have not provided any analysis of this term or narrowing amendments to explicitly distinguish over the prior art.
The five points in the conclusion (Remarks, page 7) have been addressed in the Advisory Action.
Regarding claim 14, the Applicants’ comments are directed to unclaimed subject matter. The following statements have phrases (all from page 8, top paragraph) are not claimed: “compare a current correlation profile to a previously stored profile, “analyze ‘cross-correlation coefficient profiles’ over time”, “evolving ‘profile’ of coefficients”. The Applicants have not amended the claim to more clearly define what their profile is in any manner to distinguish over Jurisch.
Further, the Applicants state that “the phrase ‘profile of a cross-correlation coefficient’ implies a time-varying sequent of [] values” (Remarks, page 8, emphasis added). As stated above, claims should particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention – not rely on “implications” and inferences
Regarding claim 15, the Jurisch reference profile is interpreted as “near or at zero” - not that it is limited to zero, as the Applicants’ state. The vehicle remains an intended use limitation and claim 15 does not change this. The claim defines a reference profile “that is typical for a journey of the vehicle”. This quoted phrase describes the reference profile – it is not a structural limitation that incorporates the vehicle or any specific journey into the claim. The claims do not recite that the power supply path is a conductor between a vehicle battery and a motor so that it would be expected to experience certain cross-correlation coefficients during operation of the vehicle. The Applicants general disagreement with the language of their own claim does not show any error in the art rejection.
Also, there is no “statistical profile”, “repeated journeys” or any definition of “behavior” (let alone “typical behavior”) in the claim itself.
Regarding claim 16, Jurisch’s sensors (11, 12) are constantly measuring voltage. Thus, they would do so concomitantly. Further, this term has various definitions, not all of which require the events to happen “at the same time”. See:
Merriam Webster Dictionary: “accompanying especially in a subordinate or incidental way”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concomitant
Cambridge Dictionary: “something that happens with something else and is connected with it: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/concomitant#google_vignette
Oxford Learner’s Dictionary: “happening at the same time as something else, especially because one thing is related to or causes the other”. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/concomitant_1
Just in this small sampling, there is only one definition, out of three, that supports the Applicants’ preferred interpretation. If the Applicants intend for the claim to only be interpreted as requiring the measurements to happen “at the same time”, they are invited to amend the claim accordingly. Such an amendment, however, would not overcome the reference.
The Applicants state that Jurisch’s fictitious voltages are “not raw measured voltage profiles” (Remarks page 9). This appears to be the crux of the disagreement. A voltage measurement device is a sensor, it produces a numerical value that represents the real-time voltage at the sensing location. The Applicants, however, are claiming a “profile” that is measured “by way of” the measurement device. The profile, by the Applicants own definition, is intended to be something done “over time” (Remarks, page 8). If this is so, then the profile must be some type of collection or manipulation of a series of measurement values. It is not “raw”. Thus, Jurisch is not required to disclose a raw output of the measurement device. Further, the Jurisch “fictitious” voltages are only U1’ and U2’, which make up only a small fraction of the overall evaluation device. Even if the Applicants’ arguments were persuasive, the fact that Jurisch has “fictitious” voltages does not address or rebut the rest of the reference’s evaluation device.
“Cross-correlation inherently involves a shift in time to find the best alignment” (Remarks, page 9). If the Examiner is bound by certain rules to prove inherency, then the Applicants should be held to the same standard. MPEP §2112(IV). No evidence has been provided to show that Jurisch’s use of “cross-correlation” is any different than the Applicants’.
Regarding claim 20, Jurisch anticipates the apparatus of claim 11. The vehicle of claim 11 is an intended use limitation because it is only present in the preamble. Claim 20 does exactly the same thing.
The Applicants contend that “nothing in the claim recites ‘for’ …” (Remarks, page 10). This is easily rebutted by the preamble of claim 11. Claim 20 recites “A vehicle comprising the on-board power supply system according to claim 11”. Well, claim 11 recites that this system is “for a vehicle”. So, “for” clearly appears in the claim and it is only in the preamble. There are no limitations in the body of the claim that define any vehicle components. Nor have the Applicants amended the claim to overcome this analysis.
Jurisch’s system is not limited to “a stationary power grid diagnostic system used on transmission lines”. (Remarks, page 10).
Jurisch anticipates claim 11 and therefore, placing an anticipated system in a new location (vehicle, even if the vehicle were claimed) does not overcome the rejection.
“The Examiner admits no electrical connection to the vehicle is shown” (Remarks page 10) – but none are claimed either. “Vehicle comprising” does not require any physical or electrical connection between the claim 11 system and the purported vehicle. There is no requirement in claims 11 or 20 that the system must interact with the vehicle. Claim 20 is anticipated by a person shipping the Jurisch system to a new location. The Jurisch system would be load onto a vehicle (boat, plane, truck, etc.) and becomes “a vehicle comprising” the claim 11 system. It is the Applicants’ burden to amend the claim to overcome this broad language (see citations in the Final Rejection 5/6/26, pages 3-4).
The art rejection is maintained. The Applicants have not filed any amendments to more narrowly define ambiguous language or to add limitations that would explicitly overcome the prior art. Thus, the same reference and same rejection are presented and this Action is made Final.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because it incorrectly defines the “coefficient” as part of the criterion. Rather, the coefficient is the “result” of the evaluation and is more accurately associated with the “result of the cross-correlation” in claim 11.
The comments provided above (page 4) are incorporated here.
As previously noted, for the purpose of the art rejection of the claim, “coefficient” will be interpreted as the “result”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 14-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jurisch (US 2017/0146587).
With respect to claim 11, Jurisch discloses an on-board power supply system for a vehicle (fig 2; par 63-66, 70-90), the on-board power supply system comprising:
an electric power supply path (20),
a first voltage-measuring device (11) at a first end of the power supply path,
a second voltage-measuring device (12) at a second end of the power supply path, and
an evaluation apparatus (rest of fig 2, namely any one or more of items 100, 110, 300, 310, 400 – these elements together for the “apparatus” to evaluate the cross-correlation, as explained below) that is connected to the first voltage-measuring device and the second voltage-measuring device,
wherein the evaluation apparatus is configured to cross-correlate a first voltage profile measured by way of the first voltage-measuring device and a second voltage profile measured by way of the second voltage-measuring device and, when a result of a cross-correlation meets a predefined criterion, to identify an anomalous degradation state of the power supply path (par 63-66, 70, 84-89).
The limitation in the preamble that the power supply is “on-board” and “for a vehicle” are interpreted as intended use limitation. MPEP §2111.02(II). The claim body is limited entirely to the power supply system and there are no vehicle components. There are no limitations in the claim to explicitly recite any “packaging, placement, or integration into a vehicle system” (RCE Remarks, page 5, top). Even “placement” is overly broad and would be anticipated as stated in the art rejection of claim 20.
Jurisch discloses taking two voltage measurements at either end of a power supply path (cable 20). Jurisch then completes at least three distinct actions on the measurements – any one of these measurements anticipates the undefined “cross correlation” in claim 11. First, the two measurements are compared to each other (at 100, 110). They are expected to be equal during a fault-free case. Thus, when they are unequal, the cross-correlation meets a predefined criterion that indicates a fault (anomalous degradation state). Second, the outputs of each measuring device is applied to difference formers (300, 310), which compares the voltages to thresholds. If either voltage is above the threshold, the predefined criterion is satisfied. Third, the evaluation device (400) uses the result of the threshold comparison to make its own criterion analysis. This includes a cross correlator 410 that performs a cross correlation function (par 64). The Jurisch equation (par 64) appears to be identical to what is disclosed by the Applicants (who are not claiming the equation – only the broad functionality of “cross correlate”). If the reference uses the same language, the presumption is that it is doing the same thing. The claim has not been amended to more narrowly define the cross correlation to be any structure/functionality that is not disclosed by Jurisch.
Each of these three functions, individually, anticipates the claim. Any combination of the three functions also anticipates the claim. The Applicants, despite a general disagreement, have not explained how their cross-correlation is different nor amended the claim to explicitly distinguish over the Jurisch functions.
These three functions are all carried out by an evaluation “apparatus”. That Jurisch may disclose the apparatus as including many different boxes is irrelevant. Together, they form an “apparatus”, as claimed. Drawing a big box around all of these components to indicate that they are one collective item is just a labeling exercise, it is not a modification of the reference.
The specification defines “anomalous degradation” broadly as any being any event in the open-ended list in paragraph 15. Jurisch’s fault detection anticipates the broad term, as it qualifies as at least one of the items from the list (damage on the power line, line impairments due to unusually high current loads, cable damage, and cable breakages). The Applicants have not amended the claim to more narrowly define what they are detecting and how they are detecting it to overcome Jurisch.
With respect to claim 14, Jurisch discloses the criterion comprises a deviation of a profile of a cross-correlation coefficient from a reference profile.
Jurisch’s criterion is when the cross-correlation exceeds a threshold. Over time, the difference between the measured voltages will create a “profile”. This profile would, without faults, be near or at zero (par 85). Thus, if this profile deviates from zero, then a fault (degradation) is present.
With respect to claim 15, Jurisch discloses the reference profile comprises a profile of cross-correlation coefficients that is typical for a journey of the vehicle (see discussion of claim 14). A reference profile of values at/near zero for the lifetime of the system is normal. This is interpreted as being “typical” for some undefined “journey” of an undefined/unclaimed “vehicle”. The Applicants have not amended the claim to correct the ambiguity in the language.
With respect to claim 16, Jurisch discloses the first voltage profile and the second voltage profile are determined in a concomitant time window (par 47, 71, 85). Jurisch discloses constant sensing. This means that the two voltage profiles are taken at the same time. Support for this can be found in that Jurisch discloses that values of the two sensors are compared to each other and the reference does not disclose any intermittent sensing.
With respect to claim 20, Jurisch discloses a vehicle comprising the power supply system of claim 11. The term “vehicle” in the preamble does not breathe life into the claim. Id. The body of the claim is limited to the electrical components of claim 11 and what they are “for”. Adding “vehicle” again to the preamble does not overcome the intended use analysis.
Further, even if the vehicle were claimed, simply physically placing the Jurisch power supply system into a vehicle would anticipate the claim. Claim 20 is anticipated by a user physically carrying it onto a vehicle (bringing the system to a trade show) or having someone else do it (shipping the system cross country). Neither of these examples are modifications of the prior art – they do not negate the anticipation analysis. Even the Applicants state that the system in a vehicle can be met by “placement” (RCE Remarks, page 5, line 3).
There is no requirement in the claims that the system must be electrically connected to, or interacting with, the vehicle. Thus, no corresponding features need to be cited to in the prior art.
With respect to claim 21, Jurisch discloses the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 11 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurisch.
With respect to claim 12, Jurisch discloses that the cross-correlation result is a “coefficient” (par 64). Jurisch appears to determine that the criterion is satisfied when the correlation result is above a threshold (see fig 3; par 66). At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to create a “coefficient” that is the inverse of the voltage difference that is measured in Jurisch. This would invert the logic statement in Jurisch, such that the criterion is satisfied when the result is at or below a threshold.
Taking Jurisch’s correlation result and inversing it (n becomes 1/n) and changing the signs of the comparison (n>threshold becomes 1/n<threshold) would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is simply a mathematics trick; no new structure or functionality is achieved by this. The Applicants do not address or rebut this interpretation in any of their remarks – thus, it is presumed to be correct.
With respect to claim 13, Jurisch obviously teaches the threshold value depends on at least one ambient parameter and/or ageing of the power supply path. The skilled artisan would have understood that they should consider factors of the cable when setting the Jurisch threshold. The language of the claim (“depends on”) does not require that these factors are actually used or impact the threshold in any material way.
Also, the claim does not recite any structure for actually changing the threshold (no ambient parameter sensors, timers (or other type of clock to keep track of age), no comparators, no controllers, etc.). The claim is written as a descriptive sentence, not a narrowing structural limitation.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurisch in view of Vordermaier (US 6,369,537).
With respect to claims 18-19, Jurisch discloses the power supply path, but does not disclose it comprises a connection system or plug. Vordermaier (fig 9 and/or 12; col. 5) discloses an on-board power supply system for a vehicle comprising an electrical power supply path (34) that comprises at least one electrical connection system that is a plug (36 and/or 42).
In figure 9, Vordermaier discloses a connector (36) between the cable as the assembly (2). To connect one to the other, it would appear that the connector is a “plug”. Alternatively, figure 12 more explicitly shows that the cable comprises a plug (42). The Vordermaier plug (claim 18) is interpreted as the same thing (just narrower) as the connection (claim 17).
Jurisch and Vordermaier are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely power supply cables. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Jurisch cable to include . The motivation for doing so would have been to connect the cable to a source/load. Cables obvious need to be connected to a circuit in order to use them for electrical transmission.
With respect to claim 19, Vordermaier discloses the first end of the power supply path and/or the second end of the power supply path has an electronic fuse (col. 2, lines 41-44). Vordermaier discloses a fuse is located at the cable plug/socket. In other words, the fuse it at one end of the cable. Similarly, Jurisch has its voltage sensors are at either end of its cable. Thus, the combination teaches the Jurisch first voltage-measuring device or second voltage-measuring device is integrated into the Vordermaier fuse.
Jurisch and Vordermaier are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely power supply cables. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Jurisch cable to include a fuse, as taught by Vordermaier. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect the cable. Fuses are commonly known in the art for this purpose. Included one for its intended use would obviously produce expected and predictable benefits.
At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to integrate the Jurisch sensor and Vordermaier fuse. The motivation for doing so would have been the obviousness to integrated known parts. MPEP §2144.04(V)(B).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114.
The Examiner adds that all claims have been finally rejected on the grounds and art rejection of record in the previous office action (5/6/25). The Applicants filed an after-final submission (8/6/25) and RCE (9/8/25) without any amendments to change the scope of the claim.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights