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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on November 10, 2025. Claims 1-15 were previously pending, of which claims 1-15 have been amended, no have been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-11 filed November 10, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the interpretation under USC § 112(f) , the amendments have been accepted by the examiner. However, the term “acquisition unit” still remains in claims 1,8 and 10. Therefore, the interpretation has been maintained for these claims.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/103, applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,) are clearly defined in the prior art under Knitt (and Ohashi in claim 7) and maintained for the rejection in view of the amended claims. The specific limitation in claim 1 "... a virtual moving object that represents a plurality of peripheral vehicles (200) near the leaning vehicle (100)” is clearly defined in Knitt FIGS. 7A-B and [0030]. As such, Knitt discloses controlling the motorcycle 10 based on an object represented by a GUI element. The GUI element (i.e., icons of the motorcycle 30, the motorcycle 40, or the rectangular boxes) of Knitt represents a live visual representation of a plurality of objects in the field of view as a GUI display is related to terms that are known in the art. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/103 is maintained in light of the amended claims , as presented in the Final Office Action below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“acquisition unit” in claims 1, 8 and 10. A review of the specification shows that it acquires a surrounding environment information that is information about environment surrounding the leaning vehicle 100 and embodies on a computer in [0027]-[0029] and also Fig. 2, items 20/21/22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. The Claim 1 limitation of “execute an automatic acceleration and deceleration operation based on the surrounding environment information acquired by the acquisition unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it has not been properly introduced.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Note: Claims 8 and 10 also contain "the acquisition unit."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knitt et al., US 2019/0248367 Al (Hereinafter, “Knitt”).
Regarding Claim 1 and 15, Knitt discloses an electronic controller (20) configured to maneuver a leaning vehicle (10), the electronic controller (20) configured to: acquire a surrounding environment information that is information about an environment surrounding the leaning vehicle (10), wherein the surrounding environment information is acquired while the leaning vehicle travels; and cause the leaning vehicle to execute an automatic acceleration and deceleration operation based on the surrounding environment information acquired by the acquisition unit ; See [0024], “FIG. 2 is a block diagram of the adaptive cruise control system 20. In the example illustrated, the system 20 includes a transceiver 210, an electronic an electronic controller 220, a display device 230, speed sensors 240, a braking system 250, an acceleration control system 260, a camera 270, and a communication bus 280”. Also, in [0025], “the transceiver 210 includes one or more radar sensors, LIDAR (light detection and ranging) sensors, ultrasonic sensors, or a combination thereof located at different positions of the motorcycle 10. The transceiver 210 is configured to receive signals (for example, RF or sound signals) indicative of the motorcycle's distance from and position relative to, vehicles in the vehicle's surrounding environment”. Also, in [0030], “FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating a method 400 of providing adaptive cruise control for a motorcycle 10 (shown in FIG. 1) performed by the system 20”.
wherein when a group ride mode in which the leaning vehicle travels together with a plurality of other leaning vehicles in a group is operable, the electronic controller (20) causes the leaning vehicle to execute, as the automatic acceleration and deceleration operation, a positional relationship adjustment control with respect to a virtual moving object that represents a plurality of peripheral vehicles near the leaning vehicle. See Fig.7A/B and [0030], “… the method is described as being performed by the system 20 and, in particular, the electronic an electronic controller 220 … a graphical user interface to be displayed on the display device 230 and adaptive cruise control for the motorcycle 10 while riding amongst a group of motorcycles, such as in a staggered formation. As illustrated in FIG. 4, at block 402, an adaptive cruise control application 224 is executed. At block 404, the electronic controller 220 determines if one or more vehicles (such as motorcycles) are available for locking based on data received from the transceiver 210 ... If one or more vehicles are identified at block 404, the method 400 proceeds to block 406 otherwise the method 400 proceeds to block 412. At block 406, the display device 230 displays a graphical user interface showing relative locations of the objects available for locking”.
Regarding Claim 2, Knitt discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
wherein the virtual moving object represents only the plurality of other leaning vehicles belonging to the group. See [0034], “FIGS. 5A-5B illustrate a motorcycle traveling in a group riding scenario in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 5A shows the motorcycle 10 detecting the motorcycle 40 riding directly in front in the path of travel of the motorcycle 10. In some embodiments, a graphical user interface displayed in the display device 230 shows motorcycle 40 as being highlighted. In the example shown in FIG. 5A, the motorcycle 40 is shown within a rectangular box 42 having dotted lines to indicate that motorcycle 10 speed is being controlled by the motorcycle 40. In some embodiments, the motorcycle also detects and displays the motorcycle 30 that is staggered and offset to the right of the motorcycle 10 when the motorcycle 30 is within the field-of-view of the transceiver 210”. Note: There is no mention of locking to any other vehicles in the cited prior art, so it is interpreted this is not an available option in the group ride.
Regarding Claim 3, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 2:
wherein the virtual moving object represents: the plurality of other leaning vehicles forming a first line to which the leaning vehicle belongs; and the plurality of other leaning vehicles forming a second line to which the leaning vehicle does not belong. See [0045], “FIGS. 7A-7B are illustrations of graphical user interfaces having various objects used for controlling the speed of a motorcycle in a group riding scenario, in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 7A is a graphical user interface 710 showing the motorcycle riding in the back of the group and locked in with motorcycle 30 that is riding staggered to the right of motorcycle 10”.
Regarding Claim 4, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: acquire, as the surrounding environment information, a set of positional relationship information that is information about a plurality of positional relationships between the leaning vehicle and respective ones of the peripheral vehicles, and determine, based on the set of positional relationship information a target value used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the virtual moving object. See [0046][, “FIGS. 8A-8B are illustrations of graphical user interfaces having objects used for controlling the speed of the motorcycle 10 by locking to a target (motorcycle 30) that
is offset in a lane begins overtaking a vehicle in the same lane, in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 8B shows the motorcycle 30 shifting to the left lane to get ready for overtaking vehicle 50. Once the motorcycle 30 moves over to the left lane, then the speed of motorcycle 10 needs to be lowered to maintain the desired gap to vehicle 50 other than keeping the desired gap to vehicle 30. As a result, motorcycle 10 may begin to control to vehicle 50 (if the output of the kinematic an electronic controller tracking vehicle 50 is proving a speed/acceleration request that is less than the output of the kinematic an electronic controller tracking motorcycle 30) but does not lock onto motorcycle 50 because system 20 is already locked onto motorcycle 30”.
Regarding Claim 5, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 4:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: derive a virtual positional relationship information based on the set of positional relationship information, the virtual positional relationship information is information about a positional relationship between the leaning vehicle and the virtual moving object, and determine, based on the virtual positional relationship information , the target value used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the virtual moving object. See Fig.10 and [0049], “At block 1020, the electronic processor 222 dynamically controls the speed of the motorcycle dynamically based on an output of a first kinematic an electronic controller 225, wherein the first kinematic an electronic controller is configured to receive a first input including at least one of an item selected from at least one of a distance of the motorcycle 10 to the motorcycle 30, the velocity of the motorcycle 30, velocity of the motorcycle 10, a desired separation distance (for example, a gap distance) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30, and a desired separation time (for example, a gap time) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30 (as shown in FIG. 9)”.
Regarding Claim 6, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 4:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: determine a separate target value based on the set of positional relationship information, the separate target value is set with respect to the respective ones of the peripheral vehicles and used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the respective ones of the peripheral vehicles; and determine, based on the separate target value, the target value that is used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the virtual moving object. See [0050], “In some embodiments, the electronic processor 222 determines the presence of a second vehicle 30, wherein the second vehicle 40 is in the direct path of travel of the motorcycle. The electronic processor 222 is further configured to control the speed of the motorcycle 10 dynamically based on an output of a second kinematic an electronic controller 226, wherein the second kinematic an electronic controller 226 is configured to receive a second input including at least one of an item selected from the group consisting of distance of the motorcycle to the second vehicle, velocity of the second vehicle, velocity of the motorcycle, the cruise set speed associated with the motorcycle, a desired separation distance between the motorcycle and the second vehicle, and a desired separation time between the motorcycle and the second vehicle
(as shown in FIG. 9)”.
Regarding Claim 8, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 4:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: determine a weight with respect to each of the plurality of peripheral vehicles for which the positional relationship information is acquired by the acquisition unit; and determine, based on the weight, the target value that is used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the virtual moving object. See [0045], “FIGS. 7A-7B are illustrations of graphical user interfaces having various objects used for controlling the speed of a motorcycle in a group riding scenario, in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 7A is a graphical user
interface 710 showing the motorcycle riding in the back of the group and locked in with motorcycle 30 that is riding staggered to the right of motorcycle 10. Rectangle 32 indicates to the rider of motorcycle 10 that the motorcycle 10 is locked onto the motorcycle 30. Also riding ahead of motorcycle 10 and motorcycle 30 is the leader of the group (motorcycle 40). FIG. 7B is a graphical user interface 720
that shows the motorcycle 10 that is locked onto motorcycle 30 further controlling to motorcycle 40 as it slows its speed. When motorcycle 40 slows down and is within a predetermined gap time with either the motorcycle 30 or motorcycle 40, then the rectangle 42 indicates that the system 20 is controlling motorcycle 10 based on the speed and position of motorcycle 40 rather than motorcycle 30 because controlling to motorcycle 40 requires a slower speed/greater deceleration than by controlling to motorcycle 30. Note: For purposes of this examination, weight will be interpreted as an arbitrary percentage assigned by the execution unit and does not corroborate to a specific value based on information obtained from the specification. The electronic processor in Knitt can calculate a positional relationship for the motorcycle based on the kinematic an electronic controller data (i.e. weight, speed, and location).
Regarding Claim 9, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 8:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to determine the weight based on a line information that is information about a line formed by the group. See [0045], “FIGS. 7A-7B are illustrations of graphical user interfaces having various objects used for controlling the speed of a motorcycle in a group riding scenario, in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 7A is a graphical user interface 710 showing the motorcycle riding in the back of the group and locked in with motorcycle 30 that is riding staggered to the right of motorcycle 10. Rectangle 32 indicates to the rider of motorcycle 10 that the motorcycle 10 is locked onto the motorcycle 30. Also riding ahead of motorcycle 10 and motorcycle 30 is the leader of the group (motorcycle 40). FIG. 7B is a graphical user interface 720 that shows the motorcycle 10 that is locked onto motorcycle 30 further controlling to motorcycle 40 as it slows its speed”. Note: For purposes of this examination, weight will be interpreted as any value that encourages a prioritization to the vehicle which should be the target. In Knitt, the higher deceleration determination between the two surrounding vehicles is a value that would be a deciding weight in the calculation. The electronic processor in can calculate a positional relationship weighting for the motorcycle based on the kinematic an electronic controller data (i.e. size, speed, and location).
Regarding Claim 10, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to determine the weight (k1, k2) based on the surrounding environment information acquired by the acquisition unit (21). See [0049], “ At block 1020, the electronic processor 222 dynamically controls the speed of the motorcycle dynamically based on an output of a first kinematic an electronic controller 225, wherein the first kinematic an electronic controller is configured to receive a first input including at least one of an item selected from at least one of a distance of the motorcycle 10 to the motorcycle 30, the velocity of the motorcycle 30, velocity of the motorcycle 10, a desired separation distance (for example, a gap distance) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30, and a desired separation time (for example, a gap time) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30 (as shown in FIG. 9)”. Note: For purposes of this examination, weight will be interpreted as an arbitrary percentage assigned by the execution unit and does not corroborate to a unique value based on information obtained from the specification. The electronic processor in Knitt can calculate a positional relationship for the motorcycle based on the kinematic an electronic controller data (i.e. weight, speed, and location).
Regarding Claim 11, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 8:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to determine the weight based on a setting information that is information about an input by a rider of the leaning vehicle. See Fig. 11-15 and [0049-0051], “wherein the first kinematic an electronic controller is configured to receive a first input including at least one of an item selected from at least one of … a desired separation distance (for example, a gap distance) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30… a second input including at least one of an item selected from the group consisting of… a desired separation distance between the motorcycle and the second vehicle”.
Regarding Claim 12, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 8:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to determine the weight based on a behavior information that is information about a behavior of the leaning vehicle. See [0045], “FIG. 7B is a graphical user interface 720 that shows the motorcycle 10 that is locked onto motorcycle 30 further controlling to motorcycle 40 as it slows its speed. When motorcycle 40 slows down and is within a predetermined gap time with either the motorcycle 30 or motorcycle 40, then the rectangle 42 indicates that the system 20 is controlling motorcycle 10 based on the speed and position of motorcycle 40 rather than motorcycle 30 because controlling to motorcycle 40 requires a slower speed/greater deceleration than by controlling to motorcycle 30”.
Regarding Claim 13, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to execute an operation that causes a notification device to display a mark representing the virtual moving object. See [0034], “ FIGS. 5A-5B illustrate a motorcycle traveling in a group riding scenario in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 5A shows the motorcycle 10 detecting the motorcycle 40 riding directly in front in the path of travel of the motorcycle 10. In some embodiments, a graphical user interface displayed in the display device 230 shows motorcycle 40 as being highlighted. In the example shown in FIG. 5A, the motorcycle 40 is shown within a rectangular box 42 having dotted lines to indicate that motorcycle 10 speed is being controlled by the motorcycle 40”.
Regarding Claim 14, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the electronic controller (20) executes an operation that causes a notification device to notify of an information about the virtual moving object. See Fig.6 and [0038], “At block 606, the electronic an electronic controller 220 determining whether the motorcycle 10 is locked to an object to the left side of motorcycle 10. When the motorcycle is locked onto a nearby motorcycle 30 (as shown in FIG. 5A) that is to the left of motorcycle 10, then the method 600 displays a "MOTORCYCLE" icon to the left of the motorcycle 10 in a graphical user interface displayed on the display device 230 (block 610). When the motorcycle 10 does not have an object to its right or to its left, the method 600 proceeds to block 614. At block 614, the display device 230 displays a "MOTORCYCLE" icon directly to the front of the motorcycle 10 in the graphical user interface displayed on the display device 230 (block 614)”. In [0039], “ Returning to block 618, the electronic an electronic controller 220 determines whether an object is in the path of travel of motorcycle 10. When it is determined that there is an object in the path of travel of motorcycle 10, the display device 230 displays a "CAR" icon in the path of travel of the motorcycle 10. Upon displaying the "CAR" icon, the method 600 further proceeds to block 632”.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt, in view of Ohashi et al., US2017/0144665 A1 (Hereinafter, “Ohashi”).
Regarding Claim 7, Knitt discloses an electronic controller for a vehicle, but does not disclose the lateral positional relationship. However, Ohashi teaches the following limitations dependent on claim 4:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: acquire, as the positional relationship information: a longitudinal positional relationship information that is information about a positional relationship between the leaning vehicle and the respective ones of peripheral vehicles along a front-rear direction of the leaning vehicle; and a lateral positional relationship information that is information about a positional relationship between the leaning vehicle and the respective ones of peripheral vehicles in a left-right direction of the leaning vehicle. See [0088], “The cruise control means 5 of the present embodiment can determine a forward intervehicular distance Y which is a distance relative to the preceding vehicle in a traveling direction and a side intervehicular distance X which is a distance relative to the preceding vehicle in a vehicle width direction ( direction substantially orthogonal to the traveling direction) based on information detected by detection means 10. The cruise control means 5 can perform the cruise control in accordance with the forward intervehicular distance Y and the side intervehicular distance X, judge a plurality of vehicles traveling in a same traffic lane as preceding vehicles, and perform the cruise control in accordance with the forward intervehicular distance Y and the side intervehicular distance X relative to the preceding vehicles respectively”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Knitt’s device with the intervehicular spacing limitation disclosed in Ohashi with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform a cruise control superior in the basic characteristics and the vehicle approach avoiding performance of motorcycles. , see Ohashi [0006].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669