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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 and 9 lacks an “or” or “and” between the 2nd and 3rd Markush option. Emend to fix it.
Claim 7 has “the future point in time”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, it will either be assumed it depends on Claim 6 or antecedent basis was properly provided.
Claim 1 recites “charging process”, where the operation seems to be more of a charging/discharging process (since the vehicle battery is described to both charge and discharge). Emend to make clearer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method steps of Claims 1-9 and 11-20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not describe both the charging and discharging process claimed and also does not include a sink i.e. load/discharging object. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: (see 112[b] rejections and Claim objections).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 17-19 are unclear as they lack a transitional phrase (see MPEP 2111.03) to [a] clearly define where the preamble ends and the body starts (a claim has [a] preamble, [b] transitional phrase], and [c] a body), and
[b] define the claim limitations which are part of the body are to be interpreted as only including the limitations claimed [i.e. equivalent to “consisting of”] or allowing for further limitations than what is claimed [i.e. equivalent to “comprising”].
Due to the lack of a transitional phrase, for purposes of examination, it is noted that the claim limitations with the exception of the subject matter covered by Claims 5, 14-16, and 20 which clearly has a transitional phrase comprising, the subject matter will be ambivalently interpreted as either the preamble or the body. It should be noted that Applicant’s arguments may rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claims. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claims 5 and 14-16 recite the broad recitation “the predetermined criterion according to which it is checked whether a charging process should be carried out using the intermediate store”, and the claim also recites “in particular only using the intermediate store” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claims 5 and 14-16 recite the broad recitation “that a first efficiency value for the charging process to be carried out with direct coupling of the energy store to the energy source or the energy sink is determined as a function of at least one situation parameter, the relationship”, and the claim also recites “ in particular a second charging power value specified by the energy source or the energy sink is determined and if this first efficiency value falls below a predetermined limit value, the predetermined criterion is considered to be met” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claims 5 and 14-16 recite recites the broad recitation “that a first efficiency value for the charging process to be carried out with direct coupling of the energy store to the energy source or the energy sink is determined as a function of at least one situation parameter, the relationship”, and the claim also recites “in particular a charging power value determined by the energy source or the energy sink, and is compared with a second efficiency value, which is assigned to the charging process with the determined first charging power value by means of the intermediate store according to relationship, and the predetermined criterion is considered to be met if the first efficiency value is smaller by a predetermined minimum value than the second efficiency value” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claims 5 and 14-16 recite recites the broad recitation “that the intermediate store is at least partially charged”, and the claim also recites “in particular has a predetermined high state of charge for carrying out the charging process” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claims 6 and 17-20 recite the broad recitation “a first value of the situation parameter is determined at a first point in time, a forecast for a future change over time of the first value of the situation parameter is determined and, as a function of the forecast ”, and the claim also recites “in particular of the relationship, a future point in time for the start of the charging process is determined, and the charging process is started at the future point in time” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “the future point in time is also determined as a function of a specified next time of use of the motor vehicle”, and the claim also recites “in particular wherein the next time of use is predicted as a function of stored usage data of the motor vehicle and/or is specified by a user input” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation “the at least one situation parameter is a temperature”, and the claim also recites “in particular
an ambient temperature of an environment of the motor vehicle;
a temperature of the motor vehicle and/or of the energy store;
a temperature of the intermediate store.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “a type of current flow”, and the claim also recites “in particular of a domestic power supply connection” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “a connection or charging power of the energy source,”, and the claim also recites “in particular of a domestic power supply connection” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “”, and the claim also recites “” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “”, and the claim also recites “” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the “in particular” limitations are simply optional.
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, 2, 4, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Dow (USPGPN 20210008996)
Independent Claim 1, Dow discloses a method (abstract, Figs. [4-6]) for carrying out a charging process using an energy store (120) of a motor vehicle (100, see Figs. [2, 3]), wherein the motor vehicle can be connected to an intermediate store (noted that applicant failed to definitively define what an intermediate store is meant to be [exemplary language is used, and while described sometimes as an intermediate storage, intermediate store is only used in the claim], thus until applicant amends the claims to more clearly define this element as a battery, an EVs which temporarily stores power meant for the EV, or reversibly for the grid as the power is temporarily stored in the EVs in transit, i.e. in a wire/cable inherently part of the EVSE, [or potentially in an internal battery/capacitor/inductor which would often be included in such equipment] meets the claimed limitation of an intermediate store, i.e. element 190) coupled to an energy source (200) and/or to an energy sink (210, 220) in order to carry out the charging process, wherein
a relationship between at least one situation parameter, a charging power and an efficiency of the charging process is provided (¶’s [03, 08-22, 73, 87, 88] has efficiency relating to power and voltage situation parameter);
a value of the situation parameter is determined (see at least Figs. [4-6]);
it is determined whether a charging process should be carried out using the intermediate store according to a predetermined criterion (s14-s18 of Fig. 4, s26-s32 of Fig. 6); and
at least if the charging process is to be carried out using the intermediate store according to the predetermined criterion, a charging process is carried out in which electrical energy is transmitted between the intermediate store and the energy store of the motor vehicle with the charging power according to a first charging power value, which was determined as a function of the specific value of the situation parameter and the relationship in order to optimize the efficiency (¶’s [09, 87, 88], Figs. [4-6]).
Dependent Claim 2, Dow discloses during the charging process, the energy is transferred from the intermediate store to the energy store and the energy store is thereby charged (see power flow shown in at least Fig. 2).
Dependent Claims 4 and 12, Dow discloses a consumer representing the energy sink is coupled to the intermediate store and the consumer is charged by energy from the intermediate store (see power flow shown in at least Fig. 2, where power from the grid and/or vehicle can supply power to the consumers via the EVSE/intermediate store).
Dependent Claim 9, Dow discloses the at least one situation parameter or at least one second situation parameter represents at least one of the following:
a type of current flow, in particular direct current or alternating current, between the energy store and the intermediate store or the energy source (¶[06]);
a connection or charging power of the energy source, in particular of a domestic power supply connection;
the second charging power value that can currently be provided by a PV system as the energy source;
an operating state of further consumers of the motor vehicle that are active during the charging process to be carried out;
a state of charge and/or aging state of the energy store (s26 of Fig. 6)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dow (USPGPN 20210008996) in view of Gao et al (USPGPN 20230035744)
Dependent Claims 3 and 11, Dow discloses during the charging process, the energy is transferred from the energy store to the intermediate store and the intermediate store is thereby charged (as noted above, as the power is temporarily stored in at least the wiring of the EVSE, it is charged as electrical charges are inside of it).
In the alternative, if the applicant claims the charge is stored in a battery of the intermediate store, then Dow is silent to a battery in the intermediate store.
Gao teaches a battery in the intermediate store (220 has battery 340 in EVSE equivalent 220/340 of Fig. 3, described by ¶’s [242, 281, 327, 347] each describe the system of Fig. 3 to perform V2G operations, defined by ¶[42] as Vehicle to grid and that the battery of Fig. 3 is a vehicle battery ¶[38], meaning it is analogous to the system of Dow and the present application, with ¶’s [343, 349, 350, 352] defining the EVSE equivalent circuit 220 as bidirectional, and ¶’s [51-56, esp. 52] defining 340 as a battery). Gao teaches the battery provides improved output capability of the charging and discharging system (¶[59])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dow with Gao to provide improved capability.
Dependent Claim 13, Dow and/or the combination of Dow and Gao teaches a consumer representing the energy sink is coupled to the intermediate store and the consumer is charged by energy from the intermediate store (Dow teaches power is provided from the vehicle and/or grid to the loads through the intermediate store, meaning the intermediate store is charged by having electrical charges inside, and/or Gao teaches a battery in the intermediate store).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 8, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow (USPGPN 20210008996) in view of Gao et al (USPGPN 20230035744)
Dependent Claim 8, Dow is silent to the at least one situation parameter is a temperature, in particular an ambient temperature of an environment of the motor vehicle; a temperature of the motor vehicle and/or of the energy store; a temperature of the intermediate store.
Gao teaches the at least one situation parameter is a temperature, in particular an ambient temperature of an environment of the motor vehicle; a temperature of the motor vehicle and/or of the energy store; a temperature of the intermediate store (¶’s [352, 396] describe that the temperature of at least the battery are used to modify battery power settings of a charge/discharge operations on a battery, see analogous structure in Figs. [1, 3, esp. 3]). ¶[352] describes that the battery temperature can have impacts on the health of the battery, thus one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by modifying the battery settings according to the temperature, it serves to improve the efficiency, longevity, and esp. the safety of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dow with Gao to provide improved efficiency, longevity, and esp. the safety.
Dependent Claims 5 and 14-16, Dow is silent to the predetermined criterion according to which it is checked whether a charging process should be carried out using the intermediate store, in particular only using the intermediate store, comprises
that a first efficiency value for the charging process to be carried out with direct coupling of the energy store to the energy source or the energy sink is determined as a function of at least one situation parameter, the relationship and in particular a second charging power value specified by the energy source or the energy sink is determined and if this first efficiency value falls below a predetermined limit value, the predetermined criterion is considered to be met;
and/or that a first efficiency value for the charging process to be carried out with direct coupling of the energy store to the energy source or the energy sink is determined as a function of at least one situation parameter, the relationship and in particular a charging power value determined by the energy source or the energy sink, and is compared with a second efficiency value, which is assigned to the charging process with the determined first charging power value by means of the intermediate store according to relationship, and the predetermined criterion is considered to be met if the first efficiency value is smaller by a predetermined minimum value than the second efficiency value; and/or
that the intermediate store is at least partially charged and in particular has a predetermined high state of charge for carrying out the charging process.
Gao teaches the predetermined criterion according to which it is checked whether a charging process should be carried out using the intermediate store (220 has battery 340 in EVSE equivalent 220/340 of Fig. 3, described by ¶’s [242, 281, 327, 347] each describe the system of Fig. 3 to perform V2G operations, defined by ¶[42] as Vehicle to grid and that the battery of Fig. 3 is a vehicle battery ¶[38], meaning it is analogous to the system of Dow and the present application, with ¶’s [343, 349, 350, 352] defining the EVSE equivalent circuit 220 as bidirectional, and ¶’s [51-56, esp. 52] defining 340 as a battery),
the intermediate store is at least partially charged and in particular has a predetermined high state of charge for carrying out the charging process (abstract, ¶’s [55, 56, 59] in light of structure of Fig. 3 describes that the SOC of the intermediate store determines whether to apply power from it in a grid or vehicle discharging operation, see further Figs. [4-13]). . Gao teaches the battery provides improved output capability of the charging and discharging system (¶[59])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dow with Gao to provide improved capability.
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow (USPGPN 20210008996) in view of Jeon et al (USPGPN 20210053457)
Dependent Claims 6, 17, and 19, Dow is silent to a first value of the situation parameter is determined at a first point in time, a forecast for a future change over time of the first value of the situation parameter is determined and, as a function of the forecast and in particular of the relationship, a future point in time for the start of the charging process is determined, and the charging process is started at the future point in time.
Jeon teaches a first value of the situation parameter is determined at a first point in time, a forecast for a future change over time of the first value of the situation parameter is determined and, as a function of the forecast and in particular of the relationship, a future point in time for the start of the charging process is determined, and the charging process is started at the future point in time (Figs. [3, 4], ¶[39] describes that the temperature difference over time is estimated, and this difference forecast is employed to determine a modified charge start time). Jeon teaches this process serves to improve the charging [efficiency & optimization] (¶’s [16,32,40,43,45,46])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dow with Jeon to provide improved charging efficiency and optimization.
Dependent Claim 7, the combination of Dow and Jeon teaches the future point in time is also determined as a function of a specified next time of use of the motor vehicle, in particular wherein the next time of use is predicted as a function of stored usage data of the motor vehicle and/or is specified by a user input (Jeon teaches Fig. 3 showing 310 takes in an [expected departure time]/[specified next time of use of the motor vehicle], ¶’s [27-30] into consideration for the modification of the charging start time).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow (USPGPN 20210008996) in view of Gao et al (USPGPN 20230035744), further in view of Jeon et al (USPGPN 20210053457)
Dependent Claims 18 and 20, Dow is silent to a first value of the situation parameter is determined at a first point in time, a forecast for a future change over time of the first value of the situation parameter is determined and, as a function of the forecast and in particular of the relationship, a future point in time for the start of the charging process is determined, and the charging process is started at the future point in time.
Jeon teaches a first value of the situation parameter is determined at a first point in time, a forecast for a future change over time of the first value of the situation parameter is determined and, as a function of the forecast and in particular of the relationship, a future point in time for the start of the charging process is determined, and the charging process is started at the future point in time (Figs. [3, 4], ¶[39] describes that the temperature difference over time is estimated, and this difference forecast is employed to determine a modified charge start time). Jeon teaches this process serves to improve the charging [efficiency & optimization] (¶’s [16,32,40,43,45,46])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dow in view of Gao with Jeon to provide improved charging efficiency and optimization.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow (USPGPN 20210008996) in view of Wu et al (USPGPN 20180072180)
Independent Claim 10, Dow teaches a charging system (Figs. [2, 3]) for carrying out a charging process (Figs. [4-6]) using an energy store (120) of a motor vehicle (100), wherein the motor vehicle is connectable to an intermediate store (noted that applicant failed to definitively define what an intermediate store is meant to be [exemplary language is used, and while described sometimes as an intermediate storage, intermediate store is only used in the claim], thus until applicant amends the claims to more clearly define this element as a battery, an EVs which temporarily stores power meant for the EV, or reversibly for the grid as the power is temporarily stored in the EVs in transit, i.e. in a wire/cable inherently part of the EVSE, [or potentially in an internal battery/capacitor/inductor which would often be included in such equipment] meets the claimed limitation of an intermediate store, i.e. element 190) coupled to an energy source (200) in order to carry out the charging process, wherein the charging system has a control device with a memory (control device 130, to perform steps of Figs. [4-6] a memory would be required, further to perform a comparison, at least a temporary data storage/memory would be required, ¶’s [67, 75]),
a relationship between at least one situation parameter, a charging power and an efficiency of the charging process is provided (¶’s [03, 08-22, 73, 87, 88] has efficiency relating to power and voltage situation parameter); and
the control device is designed for
determining, whether a charging process should be carried out using the intermediate store according to a predetermined criterion (s14-s18 of Fig. 4, s26-s32 of Fig. 6),
determining a first charging power value as a function of a determined value of the situation parameter and the relationship for optimizing the efficiency (¶’s[09,87, 88], Figs.[4-6]),
and at least if the charging process is to be carried out using the intermediate store according to the predetermined criterion, triggering the execution of the charging process by specifying the specific first charging power value, so that during the charging process electrical energy is transmitted between the intermediate store and the energy store of the motor vehicle with the charging power according to the first charging power value (¶’s[09, 87, 88], Figs. [4-6]).
Dow is silent to a relationship between at least one situation parameter, a charging power and an efficiency of the charging process is stored in the memory of the control device.
Wu teaches a relationship between at least one situation parameter, a charging power and an efficiency of the charging process is stored in the memory of the control device (Figs. 1-3 show analogous structure to Dow and the present application, memory for 206 ¶’s [17, 42], with ¶[42] describing this relationship). Wu teaches this storage serves to maximize efficiency; where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by storing data in repeatable memory, instead of having to compute it each time, it can improve the repeatability, reliability [similar features each time vs variations from different compute cycles] and compute efficiency [i.e. not having to calculate the relationship each time].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dow with Wu to provide improved efficiency, reliability, and repeatability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights