DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 10/28/2025. Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-13 and 15-24 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Using a weight sensor disposed on a boom to determine a magnitude and a direction of a current force acting on a structural component appears to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the amendments do not add new matter (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 7), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Displaying the direction of the force appears to be new matter. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that an operator of the work vehicle cannot practically determine a magnitude and a direction of a current force based on the weight carried by the boom and the air pressure within the tire (e.g., while operating the work vehicle) because, by the time such a determination has been performed, the determined magnitude and direction of the force may no longer be current (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure does not include predicting or propagating the determination of the magnitude and direction of the force to a future time, therefore, the term current is interpreted under its conventional definition as being applicable to the time at which the measurements were taken. Further, the determination of the force’s magnitude and direction are generically recited, and the disclosure does not bound the processing time nor inherently require a level of complexity that cannot be performed mentally.
In response to Applicant’s argument that using a controller to determine a magnitude and a direction of a current force acting on a structural component of the work vehicle and to control the user interface to display the magnitude and the direction of the current force provides a technical solution to a technical problem thereby integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 13-14), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, determining a magnitude and a direction of a current force acting on a structural component of the work vehicle, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea. Performing the determination on a controller appears to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Displaying the magnitude and direction of the current force is generically recited, and amounts to merely displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
In response to Applicant’s argument that determining a magnitude and a direction of a current force acting on a structural component of the work vehicle based on the weight carried by the boom and the air pressure within the tire is an unconventional step that amounts to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Combining the weight carried by the boom with the air pressure within the tire is generically recited, and paragraph 23 of the Applicant’s specification merely discloses that mathematical models and/or lookup tables may map or correlate their values with associated forces acting on the vehicle structure. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, determining the magnitude and direction of the current force could include the conventional steps of computing an average value of weights calculated using the different sensors, comparing said weights to see if they match, and/or merely looking up predetermined values for the force’s magnitude based on the sensor inputs.
In response to Applicant’s argument that weight sensors disposed on axles of a vehicle do not monitor a weight carried by the boom (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 20), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The weight on the tires of a vehicle comprise the weight of the vehicle and the weight of the vehicle’s payload and is transferred through the axles, therefore, axle weight sensors may be used to monitor a weight carried by a boom. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither Taylor nor Zhang disclose determining a magnitude and a direction of a force acting on a structural component of the vehicle based on air pressure within a tire and the weight carried by a boom (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 20-21), it is noted that it is the combination of Taylor with Zhang that is relied upon to disclose determining the magnitude and direction of the force based on tire pressure and the weight carried by the boom. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the combination of Taylor with Zhang must include suspension cylinder sensors and tire pressure sensors and would therefore not disclose a weight sensor disposed on the boom (Applicant’s remarks; p. 22), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Taylor, in figure 1 and paragraph 46, discloses monitoring a load weight using pressure sensors 150 on a boom comprising the loader arms. Taylor, in paragraph 47, further discloses the load sensors may comprise the lift cylinder pressure sensors, vehicle suspension pressure cylinders to monitor the loads applied through the suspension (i.e., the vehicle and weight carried by the boom applied to the vehicle’s axles), or tire pressure monitoring sensors. Zhang discloses combining the weight applied to a vehicle’s axles with tire pressure measurements to determine a weight distribution of the vehicle and its payload. Taylor also discloses determining the vehicle’s weight distribution based on the vehicle and load moment arms and the vehicle’s effective center of gravity. Taylor is relied upon to separately disclose determining a load weight distribution using a boom weight sensor or a tire pressure sensor, and Zhang is relied upon to determine a vehicle weight distribution by combining a load weight measurement of a vehicle weight sensor with a tire pressure measurement. Therefore, the combination of Taylor with Zhang discloses a weight sensor disposed on a boom and a tire pressure sensor that are used to determine a magnitude and direction of a force applied to the structure of a vehicle. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner has not provided a reasoned explanation why one skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the tire pressure sensors of Zhang with the lift cylinder sensors of Taylor and modify Taylor to establish a system that determines a magnitude and a direction of a current force based on feedback from the tire pressure sensors and the lift cylinder sensors (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 22), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Zhang discloses determining a weight distribution of a vehicle and payload by combining a load weight measurement of a vehicle weight sensor with a tire pressure measurement. Zhang explicitly discloses using weight sensors that can measure the weight applied to the vehicle’s axles. Taylor similarly discloses using lift cylinder pressure sensors or vehicle suspension pressure cylinders to monitor the loads applied to the vehicle’s axles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have combined the weights, as disclosed by Zhang, determined by either the lift cylinder or suspension pressure sensor of Taylor, with the tire pressure measurements, also disclosed by Taylor. As disclosed by Zhang in paragraph 20, and cited in the Non-Final Rejection, on page 24, combining measured values from both weight sensors and tire pressure sensors improves the reliability of the measured results by allowing the system to identify erroneous measurements. See rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 10 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 10 and 16, lines 10, 10 and 6-7, respectively, the limitation “acting on a structural component of the work vehicle” appears to include the boom recited in claim 1, line 2, claim 10, line 3, and claim 16, line 4, because paragraph 18 discloses the structural component may be the boom. The Examiner suggests the limitation should read “acting on the boom or a different structural component”.
In claim 5, lines 1-2, the limitation “the structural component comprises the boom” appears to include the boom recited in claim 1, line 2. The Examiner suggests removing the boom from the structural components recited in claim 5.
In claim 17, lines 3-4, “outputting, by a communication interface” should read “and outputting, by a communication interface”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-13 and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, lines 12, 12 and 9-10, respectively, the limitation “display the … direction of the current force” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of displaying the direction of the force applied to the structural component. Although figures 3A-3G include arrows representing a force, paragraph 27 discloses the figures are block diagrams illustrating the various forces acting on the work vehicle. Figures 3A-3G include the payload indicator and tire pressure indicator display elements that comprise the user interface 220 (para. 20), however, there does not appear to be disclosure that the direction arrows 300, 310, 320, 330, 340, 350 and 360 are displayed on the user interface. The arrows appear to merely represent the load conditions that cause the payload and indicator and tire pressure indicators to assume their appearances in each figure.
Claims 2-5, 9, 12-13, 15 and 17-24 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 16, 18-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 2015/0176253), hereinafter Taylor, in view of Misaki (CN 107542122) and Zhang et al. (US 2021/0048333), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, Taylor discloses a work vehicle, comprising: a boom coupled between a work implement and a chassis of the work vehicle (Taylor; fig. 1: loader arm 44); a sensor network configured to monitor a payload supported by the work implement, wherein the sensor network includes a weight sensor disposed on the boom and configured to monitor a weight carried by the boom (Taylor; para. 46: controller 102 may be coupled to one or more load sensors 140 configured to monitor the load weight of any external loads added to the loader arms 44, 46 via the implement 48. In general, the load sensor(s) 140 may comprise any suitable sensing device(s) that allows the load weight to be monitored. For example, in one embodiment, the load sensor(s) 140 may comprise one or more pressure sensors 150 (FIGS. 1 and 2) in fluid communication with each lift cylinder 50 and/or each tilt cylinder 52) or a tire pressure sensor configured to monitor an air pressure within a tire of the work vehicle (Taylor; para. 47: the load sensors 140 may comprise one or more pressure sensors in fluid communication with one or of the tires of the work vehicle 10 to monitor tire pressure); a user interface (Taylor; fig. 6: display device 128); and a controller communicatively coupled to the sensor network and to the user interface (Taylor; fig. 6: controller 102), wherein the controller is configured to determine a magnitude and a direction of a current force acting on a structural component of the work vehicle based on the weight carried by the boom or the air pressure within the tire (Taylor; paras. 46-47: controller 102 may be coupled to one or more load sensors 140 configured to monitor the load weight [i.e., the force of gravity in the direction of the center of the Earth] of any external loads added to the loader arms 44, 46 via the implement 48 … the load sensors 140 may comprise one or more pressure sensors in fluid communication with one or of the tires of the work vehicle 10 to monitor tire pressure), and the controller is configured to control the user interface to display the magnitude of the current force (Taylor; para. 57: controller 102 may be configured to transmit suitable control signals to a display device 128 (FIG. 6) located within the cab 18 to allow the load weight to be displayed to the operator).
Taylor does not appear to explicitly disclose determining the magnitude and direction of the force, using both load weight and air pressure, in the same embodiment; or displaying the direction of the force.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor (work vehicle load monitoring), discloses a controller is configured to determine a force based on a weight carried by a vehicle and the air pressure within a tire (Zhang; para. 19: determine weight distribution of a vehicle based at least on wireless weight scale sensors that can measure the pressure and/or weight applied to a vehicle's axles and on the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) sensors that measure the air pressures of the vehicle's tires).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, using the lift cylinder weight information and tire pressure measurements, the controller of Taylor, to use both the weight and tire pressure to determine the weight and distribution of the load carried by the vehicle, as disclosed by Zhang, with the motivation of removing one or more measured value that are considered to be erroneous from the set of measured values thereby improving the reliability of the measured results (Zhang; para. 20).
Taylor, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose displaying the direction of the force.
Misaki, in the same field of endeavor (work machine monitoring and display systems), discloses displaying the direction of a force (Misaki; para. 116: In the excavator action display area 431 shown in Figure 7, the vector display shows the force M1 (acceleration) applied to the auxiliary device at time T1 and the force H1 acting on the excavator body to displace it. That is, the magnitude and direction of each force, M applied to the auxiliary device and H applied to the main body of the excavator, are shown as the direction and length of the arrow.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the display control signals sent by the controller of Taylor to display both the magnitude and direction of the force acting on the boom, as disclosed by Misaki, with the motivation of providing the operator with a better understanding of the forces acting on the work machine thereby enabling them to improve the work machine’s stability (Misaki; para. 125).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor, as modified, discloses the controller is configured to determine that the work vehicle is in an overload state in response to determining the current force acting on the structural component is greater than a threshold force (Taylor; para. 51: by monitoring both the load weight and the position of the external load, the controller 102 may be configured to calculate or determine the load moment arm 64 resulting from the external load. Specifically, as indicated above, the load moment arm 64 may be calculated by multiplying the load weight by the distance 74 (FIG. 2) defined between the front pivot point 58 and the load center of gravity 72. This calculated load moment arm 64, together with the vehicle moment arm 62, may then be utilized by the controller 102 to determine the location of the vehicle's combined center of gravity; para. 33: the location of the combined center of gravity 60 relative to the forward tipping plane 76 may be expressed as a tip percentage of the work vehicle … a tip percentage of 100% may indicate that the work vehicle 10 is at the threshold of transitioning to a tipping state such that any additional increase in the load moment arm will cause the vehicle 10 to tip).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor, as modified, discloses the controller is configured to control the user interface to present an alert responsive to detecting that the work vehicle is in the overload state (Taylor; para. 62: the controller 102 may be configured to transmit suitable control signals to provide the operator with a warning that that work vehicle 10 is close to tipping (e.g., when the tip percentage for the vehicle 10 exceeds a given threshold, such as 90%). It should be appreciated that the warning may be a visual warning (e.g., by flashing or turning on a warning light or by displaying a textual message to the operator via the display device 128 (FIG. 6))).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor, as modified, discloses the structural component comprises the boom (Taylor; para. 56: monitoring a load weight of the external load applied through the loader arm(s) 44, 46), the chassis, or an axle coupled to the tire.
Regarding claim 9, Taylor, as modified, discloses the work implement comprises a bucket (Taylor; para. 26: implement 48 (e.g., a bucket, fork, blade and/or the like)), and the work vehicle comprises a wheel loader (Taylor; para. 22: work vehicle 10 is configured as a skid steer loader).
Regarding claims 12, 18 and 20, Taylor, as modified, discloses determining, by the controller, a weight distribution of material (Zhang; the in-vehicle control computer 150 can use it to compare to one or more weight distribution values determined later in time to determine any change in the weight distribution of the vehicle. For example, a first set of one or more weight distribution values can relate to weight or pressure applied on the multiple axles and the pressure applied in the multiple tires by a structure of the semi-trailer truck (e.g., just the tractor unit and the trailer unit without any goods in the trailer unit and with or without driver(s)), and a second set of one or more weight distribution values can relate to weight or pressure applied on the multiple axles and the pressure applied in the multiple tires by the structure of the semi-trailer truck that includes goods) within a volume of a work implement coupled to the boom of the work vehicle (Taylor; para. 54: The monitored position of the implement 48 may then be utilized to calculate or estimate the load center of gravity 72 for the external load.) based on the pressure data from the tire pressure sensor and the weight data from the weight sensor (Taylor; para. 56: the controller 102 may be configured to monitor the load weight using one or more suitable load sensors; para. 54: the external load may generally correspond to any suitable load applied through the loader arms 44, 46 via the implement 48 (e.g., when the bucket is full or otherwise loaded); para. 47: the load sensors 140 may comprise one or more pressure sensors in fluid communication with one or of the tires of the work vehicle 10 to monitor tire pressure; Zhang; para. 19: determine weight distribution of a vehicle based at least on wireless weight scale sensors that can measure the pressure and/or weight applied to a vehicle's axles and on the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) sensors that measure the air pressures of the vehicle's tires).
Regarding claim 19, Taylor, as modified, discloses outputting, by a communication interface of the work vehicle, a notification to a remote computing device in response to the current force acting on the structural component of the work vehicle exceeding a threshold value (Taylor; para. 51: by monitoring both the load weight and the position of the external load, the controller 102 may be configured to calculate or determine the load moment arm 64 resulting from the external load. Specifically, as indicated above, the load moment arm 64 may be calculated by multiplying the load weight by the distance 74 (FIG. 2) defined between the front pivot point 58 and the load center of gravity 72. This calculated load moment arm 64, together with the vehicle moment arm 62, may then be utilized by the controller 102 to determine the location of the vehicle's combined center of gravity; para. 33: para. 33: the location of the combined center of gravity 60 relative to the forward tipping plane 76 may be expressed as a tip percentage of the work vehicle … a tip percentage of 100% may indicate that the work vehicle 10 is at the threshold of transitioning to a tipping state such that any additional increase in the load moment arm will cause the vehicle 10 to tip; para. 62: the controller 102 may be configured to transmit suitable control signals to provide the operator with a warning that that work vehicle 10 is close to tipping (e.g., when the tip percentage for the vehicle 10 exceeds a given threshold, such as 90%). It should be appreciated that the warning may be a visual warning (e.g., by flashing or turning on a warning light or by displaying a textual message to the operator via the display device 128 (FIG. 6))).
Regarding claim 21, Taylor, as modified, discloses the controller is configured to determine the magnitude and the direction of the current force acting on the structural component of the work vehicle based on the weight carried by the boom (Taylor; paras. 46-47: controller 102 may be coupled to one or more load sensors 140 configured to monitor the load weight [i.e., the force of gravity in the direction of the center of the Earth] of any external loads added to the loader arms 44, 46 via the implement 48 … the load sensors 140 may comprise one or more pressure sensors in fluid communication with one or of the tires of the work vehicle 10 to monitor tire pressure), the air pressure within the tire (Zhang; para. 19: determine weight distribution of a vehicle based at least on wireless weight scale sensors that can measure the pressure and/or weight applied to a vehicle's axles and on the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) sensors that measure the air pressures of the vehicle's tires), and one or more mathematical models (Zhang; para. 33: weight distribution module 165 can also perform the error detection and removal operation on the first set of values obtained from the wireless weight sensors and the second set of values obtained from the TPMS sensors by removing one or more values from the respective sets that fail to meet a statistical criterion), one or more lookup tables, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 23, Taylor, as modified, discloses the sensor network comprises an additional tire pressure sensor (Taylor; para. 47: load sensors 140 may comprise one or more pressure sensors in fluid communication with one or of the tires of the work vehicle).
Claim(s) 4, 15, 17, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Misaki and Zhang as applied to claims 1, 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Dion (US 2017/0293517).
Regarding claims 4, 15 and 17, Taylor, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Taylor, as modified, does not explicitly disclose determining, by the controller, a service life of the structural component based on the current force and reference data; and outputting, by a communication interface of the work vehicle, vehicle state data to a remote computing device, wherein the vehicle state data comprises the current service life of the structural component.
Dion, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle component life prediction), discloses determining, by a controller (Dion; fig. 1: HUMS controller 14), a service life of a structural component based on a current force (Dion; para. 20: HUMS controller 14 receives the measured sensor data from sensor(s) 16 via, e.g., communication device(s) 20. As is further described below, HUMS controller 14 can generate a set of predicted load values (i.e., predicted future load values) for physical component 12, and can iteratively determine a set of predicted wear indicator values corresponding to physical component 12 from which HUMS controller 14 can determine a predicted amount of remaining useful life of physical component 12.) and reference data (Dion; para. 28: The constant “k”, correlating load and wear for the at least one physical component (e.g., physical component 12) can be determined based on data gathered, e.g., offline during testing of one or more physical components that are substantially similar to physical component 12.); and outputting, by a communication interface of the work vehicle, vehicle state data to a remote computing device, wherein the vehicle state data comprises the current service life of the structural component (Dion; para. 35: RUL predictor 50 can output an indication of the predicted amount of remaining useful life of the at least one physical component (52). For instance, RUL predictor 50 can store the predicted remaining useful life, as well as the set of predicted load values, the set of predicted wear indicator values, or other information to storage device(s) 22 for later retrieval by, e.g., a maintenance computer or other remote device.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to determine the remaining life of the vehicle component and output it to a remote device, as disclosed by Dion, in the controller of Taylor, as modified, to yield the predictable result of notifying an external facility when the vehicle will require service.
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Taylor, as modified, discloses the reference data comprises an expected service life, a mean time between failure, a design parameter (Dion; para. 21: RUL predictor 30 can determine an estimated amount of remaining useful life of physical component 12 based on the predicted wear indicator values, such as by comparing successive iterations of the predicted wear indicator values to threshold wear criteria to determine an iteration value (and associated relative time) corresponding to a fault condition of physical component 12.), maintenance information, repair information, historical sensor data, or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Misaki and Zhang as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0347368), hereinafter Yang.
Taylor, as modified, discloses the sensor network comprises an additional tire pressure sensor configured to monitor air pressure within an additional tire (Taylor; para. 47: load sensors 140 may comprise one or more pressure sensors in fluid communication with one or of the tires of the work vehicle), and the tire and the additional tire are coupled to different axles of the work vehicle (Taylor; para. 24: drive the left-side wheels 12, 16 via front and rear axles 34, 36, respectively).
Taylor, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to determine that the work vehicle is in an overload state in response to determining that a difference between the air pressure within the tire and the air pressure within the additional tire exceeds a threshold value.
Yang, in the same field of endeavor (tire pressure monitoring systems), discloses a controller is configured to determine that a work vehicle is in an overload state in response to determining that a difference between the air pressure within a tire and the air pressure within an additional tire exceeds a threshold value (Yang; para. 200: notify a driver or passenger of a vehicle check by comparing differences between tire pressures when a tire pressure is calculated for each tire mounted on a vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, using the measured pressures for tires on different axles, the controller of Taylor, as modified, to notify a driver when a difference between tire pressures exceeds a predetermined value, as disclosed by Yang, to yield the predictable result of identifying a failure mode associated with a single tire.
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665