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 Office Action Response dated February 20, 2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 18, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that the independent claims fail to disclose or teach an action signal to control the work machine base on the alleged rotary position.
At the onset, the Office notes that the claim language in dispute, exemplified in claim 1, comprises based on the detected rotary position of the first frame on the work machine relative to the second frame, generating a determination whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation of the blade. As indicated in the Office Action, primary reference Sherlock discloses generating a determination whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation of a second component, and secondary reference Fiser teaches that the second component may comprise a blade. This is currently not in contention. At issue is whether Sherlock or Fiser disclose or teach that this determination is based on the detected rotary position of the first frame on the work machine relative to the second frame. In this regard, Sherlock discloses an excavator 102 that includes machine geometry logic 172 that receives sensor signals from sensor 132 for the purpose of determining positions of the movable elements 150, which at a minimum includes tracks 103 and housing 104 (e.g. see at least Fig. 2 and para 0026). Accordingly, the excavator knows a position of the tracks with respect to the housing. Regarding the determination being based upon a detected rotary position of the first frame with respect to the second frame, as indicated of the Abstract, the invention is related to a self protection system to avoid collision between machine components. Accordingly, it would be expected that the machine would be required to know the position of its components. To this extent, Sherlock teaches the excavator includes collision logic 180 that, once the positions of the controllable subsystems 148, which includes movable elements (e.g. tracks 103 and housing 104), are determined a potential collision can be determined (e.g. see para 0030). As such, Sherlock fairly teaches determining whether execution command would will move the dig component within a threshold separation distance of a blade (e.g. see Fiser) based upon rotary position of the first frame with respect to the second frame.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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 recites 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 recites 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: “a collision avoidance system,” as recited in claim 15, “a position identifying system,” as recited in claim 17, and “a blade position identification system,” as recited in claim 18.
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, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In looking at the Written Description, “a collision avoidance system” is configured to receive data and generate an action signal which would require suitable processor, memory and software (e.g. see para 0059). Additionally, “a position identifying system” and “a blade position identification system” are part of the “collision avoidance system” and hence would also require suitable processor, memory and software (e.g. see Fig. 7).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 § 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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0376260, to Sherlock, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0024829, to Fiser et al. (hereinafter Fiser).
As per claim 1, Sherlock discloses a method of controlling a work machine (e.g. see Abstract, Fig. 1 and para 0016, wherein a work machine 102 (e.g. excavator) with a controllable subsystem is provided), comprising: detecting a rotary position of a first frame on the work machine, to which a dig component is attached, relative to a second frame… (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, wherein the excavator includes potentiometers 136 to detect rotational angles of movable elements 150, including a housing 104 (i.e. first frame) and tracks 103 (i.e. second frame)); detecting a position of the dig component (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, where the potentiometers further determine a boom106 angle); identifying a position of the [second component] (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, wherein the potentiometers detect rotational angles of movable elements 150, including tracks 103 (i.e. second frame)); receiving a command input to actuate an actuator to move the dig component (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom); based on the detected rotary position of the first frame on the work machine relative to the second frame, generating a determination whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation distance of the [second component] (e.g. see para 0024, wherein camera 140 is used to identify and track position of movable elements, which includes housing 104 (i.e. first frame) and tracks 103 (i.e. second frame); and see para 0026, wherein the machine geometry logic 172 receives sensor signals from sensors 132 to determine positions of the movable elements 150, which include the tracks 103 and housing 104, so as to limit movement thereof for the purpose of preventing collision between the movable elements; see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween; accordingly, the rotary position of the first frame member with respect to the second frame member is used to determine separation distance between the first and second frame members based upon positions, including rotatory positions, of the first and second frame members); and if so, generating an action signal to control actuation of the actuator based on the determination (e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning; also see para 0026, wherein movement of the movement elements, which include tracks, housing, boom, stick/arm, attachment and other, are limited to prevent collision).
While Sherlock teaches collision avoidance using a threshold distance between a boom/bucket and tracks, it fails to teach collision avoidance between a boom/bucket and a blade attached thereto. However, Fiser teaches an excavator system configured for preventing collision between a blade, attached to tracks, and a boom (e.g. see Fig. 4, Abstract, and paras 0019, 0046-0047). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 2, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 1, and Sherlock further discloses wherein generating the action signal comprises: controlling actuation of the actuator to limit movement of the dig component to maintain the threshold separation distance between the dig component and the blade (e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
As per claim 3, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 1, and Sherlock further discloses wherein identifying the position of the blade comprises: capturing an image of the blade with an optical sensor; and performing image processing on the image to identify the position of the blade (e.g. see paras 0015 and 0024, wherein a camera may be used to identify a position of the movable elements 150, which would include attachments including a backfill blade; the office further notes that this would require processing of captured images obtained by the camera).
As per claim 4, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 1, and Sherlock further discloses wherein generating the action signal comprises: if execution of the command input will move the dig component to within the threshold separation distance of the blade, generating an operator alert output (e.g. see Figs. 3 and 5, and para 0033, wherein the system rejects or limits commands if they will cause a collision, as ascertained by the threshold 310).
As per claim 5, Sherlock discloses a computer implemented method of controlling a work machine (e.g. see Abstract, Fig. 1 and para 0016, wherein a work machine 102 (e.g. excavator) with a controllable subsystem is provided), comprising: detecting a rotary position of a first frame on the work machine, to which a dig component is attached, relative to a second frame…(e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, wherein the excavator includes potentiometers 136 to detect rotational angles of movable elements 150, including a housing 104 (i.e. first frame) and tracks 103 (i.e. second frame)); identifying a separation value indicative of a distance and direction separating the dig component from the [second component] (e.g. see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween); receiving a command input to actuate an actuator to move one of the dig component or the [second component]; and generating an action signal to control the work machine based on the command input, the rotary position, and the separation value (e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
While Sherlock teaches collision avoidance using a threshold distance between a boom/bucket and tracks, it fails to teach collision avoidance between a boom/bucket and a blade attached thereto. However, Fiser teaches an excavator system configured for preventing collision between a blade, attached to tracks, and a boom (e.g. see Fig. 4, Abstract, and paras 0019, 0046-0047). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 6, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 5, and Sherlock further discloses wherein generating the action signal comprises: controlling actuation of the actuator based on the command input, the rotary position, and the separation value (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein based upon position of moveable elements of the excavator, line of sight threshold value 310 (i.e. separation value), and user command, the controller rejects or limits control).
As per claim 7, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 6, and Sherlock further discloses wherein controlling actuation of the actuator comprises: determining whether execution of the command input will reduce the separation value past a threshold separation distance; and if so, controlling actuation of the actuator to limit movement of the dig component or the blade to maintain the separation value at the threshold separation distance (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein based upon position of moveable elements of the excavator, line of sight threshold value 310 (i.e. separation value), and user command, the controller rejects or limits control).
As per claim 8, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 7, and Sherlock further discloses wherein identifying the separation value comprises: detecting a position of the dig component relative to a position of the blade; and determining the separation value based on the position of the dig component relative to the position of the blade (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein the positions of the moveable components (i.e. bucket and tracks are determined); the Office further notes that Fiser further teaches separation between a bucket and blade, which is another moveable component). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 9, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 7, and Sherlock and Fiser further teaches wherein detecting the position of the dig component relative to the position of the blade comprises: detecting the position of the blade with a blade position sensor (e.g. see rejection of claim 1, wherein Sherlock teaches detecting a position of moveable elements, and Fiser wherein one of the moveable elements may comprise a blade attached to the tracks); detecting the position of the dig component with a dig component position sensor (e.g. see rejection of claim 1, wherein Sherlock teaches detecting a position of moveable elements using potentiometer); and determining the separation value based on the detected position of the blade and the detected position of the dig component (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein the positions (i.e. separation value) of the moveable components (i.e. bucket and tracks are determined); the Office further notes that Fiser further teaches separation between a bucket and blade, which is another moveable component). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 10, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 9, and Sherlock and Fiser further teaches wherein detecting the position of the blade comprises: capturing an image of the blade with an optical sensor; and performing image processing on the image to identify the position of the blade (e.g. see paras 0015 and 0024, wherein a camera may be used to identify a position of the movable elements 150, which would include attachments including a backfill blade; the office further notes that this would require processing of captured images obtained by the camera).
As per claim 12, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 5, and Sherlock further discloses wherein generating the action signal comprises: determining whether execution of the command input will reduce the separation value past a threshold separation distance; and if so, generating an operator alert output (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 220 and 250, wherein the system checks whether a command will cause collision (i.e. reduce a separation value past a threshold) and then issue an alert).
As per claim 13, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 5, and Fiser further teaches wherein identifying the separation value indicative of the distance and direction separating the dig component from the blade comprises: detecting a location of the dig component on a vertical plane; detecting a location of the blade on the vertical plane; and calculating the separation value based on the location of the dig component on the vertical plane and the location of the blade on the vertical plane (e.g. see Figs. 5 and 6, wherein the boom and blade vertically meet to define a separation value of zero).
As per claim 14, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 5, and Fiser further teaches wherein identifying the separation value indicative of the distance and direction separating the dig component from the blade comprises: identifying the separation value as indicative of the distance and direction of separation between the blade and at least one of a boom, an arm, or an attachment on the work machine (e.g. see Figs. 5 and 6, wherein the boom and blade vertically meet to define a separation value of zero).
As per claim 15, Sherlock discloses a work machine (e.g. see Abstract, Fig. 1 and para 0016, wherein a work machine 102 (e.g. excavator) with a controllable subsystem is provided), comprising: a first frame (e.g. see Fig. 5, and para 0017, wherein the work machine includes a house 104 (i.e. first frame)); a house supported by the first frame (e.g. see Fig. 1, and para 0017, wherein a cab (house) is disposed on the first frame); a dig component attached to the first frame (e.g. see Fig. 5, and para 0017, wherein the work machine includes a boom extending from the house (i.e. first frame)); a first actuator configured to drive movement of the dig component relative to the first frame (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom); a second frame (e.g. see Fig. 1, wherein a support structure (i.e. second frame) is provided for tracks 103);…a rotary actuator configured to drive rotation of the first frame relative to the second frame (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0017, wherein the work machine includes actuators 152 to move the boom); a rotary position detector configured to detect a rotary position of the first frame relative to the second frame (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2, and para 0023, wherein the excavator includes potentiometers 136 to detect rotational angles of movable elements 150, including a housing 104 (i.e. first frame) and tracks 103 (i.e. second frame)); and a collision avoidance system configured to identify a position of the dig component and a position of the [second frame], to receive a command input to actuate the first actuator to move the dig component, and to generate an action signal to control the work machine based on the command input, the rotary position, the position of the dig component and the position of the second position (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom; e.g. see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween; e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
While Sherlock teaches collision avoidance using a threshold distance between a boom/bucket and tracks, it fails to teach collision avoidance between a boom/bucket and a blade attached thereto. However, Fiser teaches an excavator system configured for preventing collision between a blade, attached to tracks, and a boom (e.g. see Fig. 4, Abstract, and paras 0019, 0046-0047). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 16, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 15, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the collision avoidance system comprises: an input command processor configured to determine whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation distance of the blade; and a control signal generator configured to generate a control signal to control actuation of the first actuator to limit movement of the dig component to maintain the threshold separation distance between the dig component and the blade (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom; e.g. see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween; e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
As per claim 17, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 16, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the collision avoidance system comprises: a position identifying system configured to identify the position of the dig component relative to the position of the blade (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein the positions of the moveable components (i.e. bucket and tracks are determined); the Office further notes that Fiser further teaches separation between a bucket and blade, which is another moveable component). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 18, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 17, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the position identifying system comprises: a dig component position detector configured to detect the position of the dig component; a second frame location system configured to identify a location of the second frame relative to the dig component; and a blade position identification system configured to identify the position of the blade relative to the second frame (e.g. see Fig. 3, steps 212, 220 and 240, wherein the positions of the moveable components (i.e. bucket and tracks are determined); the Office further notes that Fiser further teaches separation between a bucket and blade, which is another moveable component). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the collision avoidance system of sherlock to include collision avoidance to objects attached to tracks of an excavator, such as blades or otherwise, to provide for adaptations of the excavator.
As per claim 19, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 18, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the blade position identification system comprises: a camera configured to capture an image of the blade; and an image processor configured to process the image to identify the position of the blade (e.g. see paras 0015 and 0024, wherein a camera may be used to identify a position of the movable elements 150, which would include attachments including a backfill blade; the office further notes that this would require processing of captured images obtained by the camera).
As per claim 20, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 15, and Sherlock further discloses wherein the collision avoidance system comprises: an input command processor configured to determine whether execution of the command input will move the dig component to within a threshold separation distance of the blade; and an alert generator configured to generate an operator alert output (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0021, wherein the excavator further includes a user interface mechanism 146 configure to send control signals to the boom; e.g. see Fig. 5, and paras 0018-0019, 0039 and 0042, wherein the excavator includes sensor 308 that monitors a threshold separation distance between an attachment 110 of the of the boom and the house (or tracks (e.g. see para 0018)) to avoid collision therebetween; e.g. see Fig. 3, wherein if the executable command causes collisions between components (e.g. boom/bucket with house/tracks) the system rejects the command and issues a warning).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0376260, to Sherlock, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0024829, to Fiser et al. (hereinafter Fiser), and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0298744, to Horii.
As per claim 11, Sherlock, as modified by Fiser, teaches the features of claim 8, but fail to teach wherein detecting the position of the dig component relative to the position of the blade comprises: obtaining a first blade position in which a distance between the blade and the dig component is least; and identifying the blade position based on the first blade position. However, Horii teaches determining a closest position L2 between a bucket and blade so as to position the bucket to perform a chipping operation (e.g. see Fig. 5 and para 0062).
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 James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
Prosecution Insights