DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/26/25 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 6 and 10 have been amended. New claims 11-17 have been added. Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejections are made (under 35 USC § 102 and 103 (details below)) and claims 1-17 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see ‘Remarks’; page 10 of 16; filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims 1-5, 7 and 10 as being anticipated by Matsuda, especially for “a front fixing portion fixed to the front frame,” the examiner disagrees. Matsuda expressly teaches each and every structural feature recited in claims 1, 5, 7 and 10. The reference discloses a straddle-type electric vehicle including a vehicle body frame, a battery case supported by the frame, and a motor case positioned rearward of the battery case and above the battery lower level, with multiple fixing portions that secure the motor case to the frame. The reference discloses every structural limitation as required by claims 1, 5, 7 and 10, including the front fixing portion, upper-rear fixing portion, and lower-rear fixing portion of the motor case relative to the vehicle frame and battery case. The reference teaches the same overall frame architecture and the same multi-point motor-case mounting configuration. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 7 and 10 are anticipated. Any alleged difference in the location of the front fixing portion is merely a routing rearrangement of known mounting structures and cannot confer patentability. See MPEP 2144.04(IV) and supported by in re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975), relocating or rearranging known elements to achieve the same function constitute an obvious design choice. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7 and 10 under 35 USC § 102 are therefore maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6, specific to “at least one of the ribs extends between two fixing portions adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction of the outer peripheral surface and couples the two fixing portions to each other…….” has been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Torri expressly teaches the rib structure where at least one of the ribs 41a or 41b extends between two fixing portions and in circumferential manner and further couples the two fixing portions to each other. The motivation to combine the teaching of Torii into the invention of Matsuda arises from the shared objective of enabling rib structure to the motor housing with the expectation to the structural rigidity and securing attachment to dynamic driving environments. The claimed configuration doesn’t yield unexpected results but reflects routing engineering design choices based on known principles of securing means to battery and motors and provide better terrain adaptability. The rejection of claims 6-9 under 35 USC § 103 are therefore maintained. Any claims, not being addressed here in the argument section are the dependent claims from their respective parent claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsuda (US 20140299393 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda discloses: a straddle electric vehicle (1, fig. 1-13 and [0038]) comprising:
a vehicle body frame (body of frame 4) including
a head pipe (11, [0040]) inside which a steering shaft (7, [0039]) is located,
a front frame (frames 12, [0040]) extending rearward (fig. 1) from the head pipe (11, fig. 1)
a pivot frame (frame 13 that constitutes13g; fig. 10) with which a swing arm (15, [0040]) supporting a rear wheel (3) is in connection through a pivot shaft (via stay 13g, fig. 10 and [0163]) and which is located behind the front frame (12) [fig. 10 and para. 0163 discloses that pivot shaft 13g which is elongated in the rightward or leftward direction is joined to the rear end portions], and
a motor case (18, [0043]; fig. 15) located between the front frame (12) and the pivot frame (13 with 13g); and
an electric motor (5, [0043]) including a motor driving shaft (motor shaft 17, fig. 2 and [0043]) that outputs driving force by which the rear wheel (3) is driven [ para. 0043 discloses that the driving power (“driving force”) generated in the electric motor 5 is transmitted to the rear wheel 3 via a driving power transmission mechanism 17; note that as depicted in fig. 2, transmission component 17 is being interpretated as output shaft 17 and motor shaft 17], wherein:
the motor case (18) includes
a motor accommodating portion (‘region’, [0043, line 1-2]) accommodating the electric motor (5),
a front fixing portion (A, annotated fig. 1 below) fixed (fig. 1) to the front frame (12),
an upper-rear fixing portion (fixing portion 14A of pivot frame 14, see annotated fig. 1 below) fixed to the pivot frame (14), and
a lower-rear fixing portion (fixing portion 14B of pivot frame 14, see annotated fig. 1 below) fixed to the pivot frame (14); and
in a side view (view looking at fig. 1) of the vehicle (1), an axis (axis at the motor shaft 17) of the motor driving shaft (17) is located in a region (‘region’, [0043, line 1-2]) surrounded by a virtual triangle (see annotated fig. 1 below where A, 14A and 14B forms a ‘virtual triangle’) defined by connecting the front fixing portion (A), the upper-rear fixing portion (14A), and the lower-rear fixing portion (14B).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Matsuda
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda further discloses that the front frame (12) includes a left frame (left 12, fig. 10) and a right frame (right 12, fig. 10) which are located away from each other in a left-right direction ( shown in fig. 10, left 12 and right 12 are located away each other in a left-right direction) and; the left frame (left 12) includes a motor fixing portion (fig. 1); the right frame includes a motor fixing portion (fig. 1); and the motor fixing portion of the left frame (left 12) and the motor fixing portion of the right frame (right 12) are coupled (via 117, fig. 10) to each other in the left-right direction (fig. 10 shows in left-right direction) through the motor case (18) while sandwiching the front fixing portion (A, annotated fig. 1 above) of the motor case (18) in the left-right direction [para. 0043 discloses: “the electric motor 5 is placed in a region which is below the down frames 13 and forward relative to the pivot frames 14”; It should be understood that “below the down frame 13” is understood to represent the motor case region while sandwiching the front fixing portion that is structurally sandwiched between adjacent frame components: left 12 and right 12 as depicted in fig. 1 and 10.]
Regarding claim 3, Matsuda further discloses that the vehicle body frame (body of frame 4) includes a first frame (13a, fig. 1) and a second frame (D, annotated fig. 1 above) which are joined to each other at a joined portion (portion P1, annotated fig. 1 above) that is adjacent (fig. 1) to the front fixing portion (A) of the motor case (18, fig. 1); and the vehicle body frame (body of frame 4) includes a third frame (12a, fig. 1) and a fourth frame (12b, fig.) which are joined to each other at a joined portion (portion E, annotated fig.1 above) that is adjacent (fig. 1 shows ‘adjacent’) to the upper-rear fixing portion (14A) of the motor case (18). See fig. 1 and annotated fig. 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuda further discloses that the front fixing portion (A) of the motor case (18) is located lower than the upper-rear fixing portion (14A) and higher than the lower-rear fixing portion (14B) [see annotated fig. 1 above fixing portion A is positioned lower than 14A]; and the pivot shaft (13g) is located between the upper-rear fixing portion (14A) and the lower-rear fixing portion (14B) in an upper-lower direction [As illustrated in annotated fig. 1 above, it should be understood that the pivot shaft 13g, which connects to the rear swing arm 15, is positioned between upper fixing portion (14A) and lower fixing portion (14B) and in an upper-lower direction.]
Regarding claim 5, Matsuda further discloses that the motor driving shaft (17) extends in a left-right direction (fig. 10 shows 13 g is extended in a left-right direction); the motor accommodating portion (‘region’, [0043, line 1-2]) of the motor case (18) has a cylindrical shape (fig. 1 shows round cylindrical shape motor accommodated to the casing and shown in fig. 2 projected box view where 18 is positioned) extending around the motor driving shaft (17); and in the side view of the vehicle (side view in fig. 1), the front fixing portion (A), the upper-rear fixing portion (14A), and the lower-rear fixing portion (14B) project outward (fig. 1 shows project outward) from the motor accommodating portion.
Regarding claim 7, Matsuda further discloses that the vehicle body frame further includes a rear frame (seat frame 16, [0040]) supporting a seat on which a rider is seated; the rear frame (rear 16) includes a support frame (F, annotated fig. 1 above) connected to a rear end portion of the front frame (12) and extending diagonally (towards 16) toward an upper-rear side (upper rear side of frame 16); and a straight line connecting the front fixing portion (A) and the upper-rear fixing portion (14A) of the motor case (18) extends along an extended line (XX', annotated fig. 1 above) of the support frame (4). See fig. 1 and annotated fig. 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Matsuda discloses: a straddle electric vehicle (1) comprising:
a vehicle body frame (body of frame 4) including
a head pipe (11, [0040]) inside which a steering shaft (7, [0039]) is located,
a front frame (frames 12, [0040]) extending rearward (fig. 1) from the head pipe (11),
a pivot frame (frame 13 that constitutes13g; fig. 10) with which a swing arm (15) supporting a rear wheel (3) is in connection through a pivot shaft (via stay 13g, fig. 10) and which is located behind the front frame (12, fig. 10) with a gap therebetween (fig. 1 shows the gap, see annotated fig. 1 of Matsuda above), and
a motor case (18) located is a space sandwiched (fig. 1) by the front frame (12) and the pivot frame (13g of 13); and in a front-rear direction (fig. 1) and coupling the front frame (12) and the pivot frame (13g of 13, fig. 1).
an electric motor (5) including a motor driving shaft (transmission shaft 17 and motor shaft 17, fig. 2 and [0043]) that extends in a left-right direction (left right direction of vehicle) and outputs driving force (“driving power”) by which the rear wheel (3) is driven, wherein:
the motor case (18) includes
a motor accommodating portion (‘region’, [0043, line 1-2]) accommodating the electric motor (5),
a front fixing portion fixed (A, annotated fig. 1 above) to front frame (frame 12) and connecting the front frame (12) and the motor accommodating portion (via front fixing portion A).
an upper-rear fixing portion (fixing portion 14A of pivot frame 14, see annotated fig. 1 above) fixed to the pivot frame (14) and connecting the pivot frame and the motor accommodating portion (via 14A).
a lower-rear fixing portion (fixing portion 14B of pivot frame 14, see annotated fig. 1 above) fixed to the pivot frame (14) and connecting the pivot frame and the motor accommodating portion (via triangular fixing portions; fig. 1).
the motor accommodating portion has a cylindrical shape (fig. 1 shows round cylindrical shape motor accommodated to the casing and shown in fig. 2 projected box view where 18 is positioned) extending around (fig. 2) the motor driving shaft (17); and
in a side view of the vehicle (view in fig. 1), the front fixing portion (A, annotated fig. 1 above), the upper-rear fixing portion (14A), and the lower-rear fixing portion (14B) project outward [fig. 1 shows both the fixing portions are projected outward]; from the motor accommodating portion (region where the motor is positioned.) and an axis of the motor driving shaft (axis of 17) is located in a region surrounded by a virtual triangle (see annotated fig. 1 above) defined by connecting the front fixing portion (A), the upper-rear fixing portion (14A), and the lower-rear fixing portion (14B). Thus, Matsuda anticipates the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Matsuda further teaches that in the side view of the vehicle (fig. 1), the front fixing portion (A) is located in front of the axis of the motor driving shaft (17); in the side view of the vehicle (fig. 1), the upper-rear fixing portion (14A) is located behind and above the axis of the motor driving shaft (17) and above the pivot shaft (shaft at pivot frame); and in the side view of the vehicle (fig. 1), the lower-rear fixing portion (14B) is located behind and below the axis of the motor driving shaft (17) and below the pivot shaft (Shaft positioned on the pivot frame as depicted in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuda further teaches that the front frame (12, [0040]) includes a left frame (left12b, fig. 10) and a right frame (right 12b) which are located away from each other in a left-right direction (fig. 10);the left frame (left 12b) includes a motor fixing portion (A);the right frame (right 12b) includes a motor fixing portion (A);the motor fixing portion of the left frame (left 12b) and the motor fixing portion (A) of the right frame are coupled to each other (via 13a) in the left-right direction (fig. 10) through the motor case (case of the motor, fig. 1) while sandwiching the front fixing portion (A) of the motor case in the left-right direction ( see figs. 1 and 10) ;the left frame (12b) includes an upper longitudinal frame (12a) and a lower longitudinal frame (13) ;the right frame (12b) includes an upper longitudinal frame (right 12a) and a lower longitudinal frame (13); the upper longitudinal frames (12a) extend from an upper portion of the head pipe (fig. 1 shows extended from an upper portion of the head pipe) to a lower-rear side (fig. 1); the lower longitudinal frames (13) extend from a lower portion of the head pipe (fig. 1) to the lower-rear side and are located away from the upper longitudinal frames toward a lower side (fig. 1 shows 13 extended rear side and located away from 12a); the upper longitudinal frames (12a) and the lower longitudinal frames (13) are coupled to each other by bridge frames (13c, fig. 10) in a truss manner (it is in the truss manner as depicted in fig. 10; note that: “truss manner” is being interpretated by the examiner as configuration in which multiple members are arranged to form a triangulated structure); and the motor fixing portions (14A and 14B) are located at respective rear ends of the lower longitudinal frames (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuda further teaches that a battery case (80) located in front of the motor case (18), wherein a lower end of the battery case (see fig. 2) is located lower than an upper end of the motor case (18; [ see fig. 2 where battery case 80 is in front of the motor case wherein a lower end of the battery case is located lower than an upper end of the motor case]).
Regarding claim 16, Matsuda further teaches that the motor case (fig. 1) directly couples a lower end of the front frame (12) and the pivot frame (14) in a front-rear direction (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Matsuda further teaches that in the side view of the vehicle (fig.1), each motor fixing portion (A, 14A or 14B) is adjacent to a joined point where the lower longitudinal frame (13) and the bridge frame (13c), which is located closest to the motor case (fig. 1) in a front-rear direction, are joined to each other [fig. 10 shows motor fixing portion is positioned adjacent to a joined point where the lower longitudinal frame (13) and the bridge frame (13c), which is located closest to the motor case.]
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Torii et al. (US Pub. 20010026105 A1; hereinafter “Torii”).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda discloses the motor case that includes “an outer peripheral surface”, “the front fixing portion”, and “the lower-rear fixing portion”; however, fails to teach that the case includes “ribs projecting” in a circumferential direction of the outer peripheral surface extending from the front fixing portion to the upper-rear fixing portion and from the front fixing portion to the lower-rear fixing portion; however,
Torii in another geared motor including ribbed gear housing similar to Matsuda teaches that at least one of the ribs (plurality of ribs 41a and 41b) extends between two fixing portions (fig. 1, upper and lower 37) adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction of the outer peripheral surface (fig. 1 shows adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction of the outer peripheral surface) and couples the two fixing portions to each other (fig. 1 shows couples the two fixing portions 37 to each other) ; and the ribs (41a and 41b) include at least one of a rib (41a) extending from the front fixing portion ( front 37) to the upper-rear fixing portion (fig. 1, upper- rear 37), a rib (41b) extending from the front fixing portion (front 37) to the lower-rear fixing portion (lower rear 37), or a rib (41a) extending from the upper-rear fixing portion (37) to the lower- rear fixing portion (lower-rear 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motor case that includes ribs projecting from an outer peripheral surface of the motor case and extending in a circumferential direction; and the ribs include at least one rib extending between the front, upper-rear, and lower-rear fixing portions as taught by Torii into the invention of Matsuda in order to advantageously configure an optimized design of the cylindrical motor housing, allowing to align such ribs between fixing portions to reinforce the motor casing, improve structural integrity under vehicle load and thereby a mechanical strength can be further improved [ para. 0037, line 10-15 of Torii.]
Regarding claim 8, Matsuda further discloses that the motor accommodating portion (‘region’, [0043, line 1-2]) has a cylindrical shape (fig. 1 shows cylindrical shape) extending around the motor driving shaft (17, fig. 2); in the side view of the vehicle (fig. 1), the front fixing portion (A, annotated fig. 1 above), the upper-rear fixing portion (14A), and the lower-rear fixing portion (14B) project outward from the motor accommodating portion [fig. 1 shows both the upper-rear and lower-rear fixing portions are projected outward]; the front fixing portion (A) and the lower-rear fixing portion (14B) are located higher than a lower end of the motor accommodating portion [as depicted in annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 1 of Matsuda, 14A and 14B are positioned higher than a lower end of the motor accommodating portion; see annotated fig. 1 above where 14A.], but
Matsuda fails to teach that the upper-rear fixing portion is located lower than an upper end of the motor accommodating portion; however,
Torii teaches that the upper-rear fixing portion (upper rear 37, fig. 1) is located lower (fig. 1 where upper-rear portion 37 is positioned “lower”) than an upper end of the motor accommodating portion (upper surface end of casing 3b.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motor accommodating portions that a person of ordinary skill in the art, such as teaching of Torii into the invention of Matsuda and implement such as arrangement as a routine design variant, since positioning fixing portions at intermediate vertical locations( rather than flush the cylinder’s extremes) is a known practice to avoid stress concentration at edges, allow clearance for swing arms and suspension geometry, and facilitate welding or bolting operations. A skilled artisan would reasonably expect success in varying the vertical location of such bosses as a matter of ordinary engineering judgment, without any inventive insight.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Takaya (US Pub. 20170183055 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuda discloses the vehicle body frame and the pivot frame, but fails to teach that the pivot frame includes a pair of vertical frames lined up in a left-right direction; and supports an upper portion of a rear suspension located behind the vertical frames; however,
Takaya in another swingarm support structure similar to Matsuda teaches that the pivot frame (16, fig. 2) includes a pair of vertical frames (1b, 1b, fig. 2 and ‘Abstract’) lined up in a left-right direction (fig. 4); the vehicle body frame further includes a bracket (9L or 9R, fig. 2) which is joined to the pair of vertical frames (‘Abstract’) and supports an upper portion of a rear suspension (30, [0040]) located behind the vertical frames (1b, 1b); and the bracket is welded [para. 0052 teaches: “the inner member and the outer member are welded across the vertical direction to opposing left-right direction”] inner surfaces of the pair of vertical frames [para. 0020 teaches: “A rear suspension 30 that absorbs shock received by the rear wheel 14 from a road surface is suspended between the rear wheel 14 and the vehicle body frame FR. In the present embodiment, a single rear suspension 30 is connected between the vehicle body frame FR and the swingarm 12”; thus, a bracket (9L or 9R, fig. 2) which is joined to the pair of vertical frames (‘Abstract’) and supports an upper portion of a rear suspension; see fig. 2 to 7 of Takaya]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the welded inner-surface bracket arrangement into the vertical frame arrangement of Takaya into the vehicle body frame of Matsuda in order to advantageously achieve a well-known improvement in rigidity, durability, and suspension load handling. Such a modification is a predictable use of known techniques in the vehicle body frame design and does not involve inventive ingenuity.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Shirasuna Takamori (WO 2019186954 A1; hereinafter, “Takamori”).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuda further teaches that the straddle electric vehicle according to claim 1, wherein in the side view of the vehicle (fig. 1), in the side view of the vehicle, the upper-rear fixing portion (14A) is located behind and above the axis of the motor driving shaft (17, fig. 1); and in the side view of the vehicle, the lower-rear fixing portion (14B) is located behind and below the axis of the motor driving shaft (17), fails to explicitly teach that the front fixing portion is located in front of and below the axis of the motor driving shaft; however,
Takamori in another ‘saddle riding- type electric vehicle’ similar to Matsuda teaches that the front fixing portion (133, fig. 1) is located in front of and below the axis of the motor driving shaft (311, page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the front fixing portion, positioned in front of and below the axis of the motor driving shaft as taught by Takamori into the invention of Matsuda in order to advantageously achieve a well-known improvement in rigidity, durability, where the frame sees less torsional load. Such a modification is a predictable use of known techniques in the vehicle body frame-mounting design and does not involve inventive ingenuity.
Regarding claim 12, Matsuda further teaches that the straddle electric vehicle according to claim 1, wherein in the side view of the vehicle (fig. 1), the pivot shaft (shaft positioned on the pivot frame 14) is located behind the motor driving shaft (17) and on a virtual line connecting the front fixing portion and the axis of the motor driving shaft [see annotated fig. 1of Matsuda above where the pivot shaft is located behind the motor driving shaft and on a virtual line connecting the front fixing portion and the axis of the motor driving shaft]. Matsuda does not explicitly teach that in the side view of the vehicle, the front fixing portion is located in front of and below the axis of the motor driving shaft; however,
Takamori teaches that in the side view of the vehicle, the front fixing portion (133, fig. 1) is located in front of and below the axis of the motor driving shaft (311, page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the front fixing portion, positioned in front of and below the axis of the motor driving shaft as taught by Takamori into the invention of Matsuda in order to advantageously achieve a well-known improvement in rigidity, durability, where the frame sees less torsional load. Such a modification is a predictable use of known techniques in the vehicle body frame-mounting design and does not involve inventive ingenuity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
• JP 2016172457 A to Yoshimoto discloses: an electric vehicle comprises: a power device which has a drive motor to drive wheels.
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 extension fee 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 NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on 571-272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Page 16 Application/Control Number: 18/133,108 Art Unit: 3612 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
April 2, 2026