DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/01/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 7, 9, 14 and 16-19 have been amended and claims 6, 13, 15 and 20 have been cancelled, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In view of amendment, the previously presented all the objections have been withdrawn. In view of amendment and further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections is made under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick, in view of Grossman (details below) and claims 1-5, 7-12, 14 and 16-19 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/01/2026 [Remarks, pages 5-7], regarding all claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 and §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, the applicant submits in response to the at least one signal to introduce “initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer; after initiating the automated release of the landing gear," and claim 16 submits to introduce: “initiate an automated release of landing gear of a trailer to be towed; after initiating the automated release of the landing gear, automatically initiate unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer,” in view of argument- the examiner disagrees. Patric expressly teaches a locking mechanism as disclosed in para. 0031of Patrick and one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the instruction as disclosed in para. 0069 of Patrick (equivalent to the recited limitation of “in response to the at least one signal via sensor 9 [0074]” and further para. 0074 expressly teaches that the trailer is automatically uncoupled when towing a car (equivalent to “automatically initiate unlocking the locking mechanism” as required by the claim limitation. Applicant further argues regarding claim 16 that Patrick explicitly does not appear to teach “initiate an automated release of landing gear of a trailer to be towed; after initiating the automated release of the landing gear, automatically initiate unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer”. In view of further consideration, Patrick in view of Grossman expressly teaches the limitation as required by claim 16 that when the trailer 104 is to be disengaged from the tractor unit 102, the landing gear 120 are extended (equivalent to ;release’) to contact the ground and support the trailer structure, as shown in fig. lE, automatically (fig. 12) initiate unlocking the locking mechanism (see fig. 1E where unlocking occurred the locking mechanism) to disconnect the trailer (104). See para 0039 of Grossman for more details. Also, see a new ground of rejections under 35 USC § 103, details below.
Accordingly, based on the teachings of Grossman and/or that which is known in art, this limitations “landing gear release and unlocking the locking mechanism” as cited in claims 1, 9 and 16 do not distinguish the claims from the current art of record as discussed above.
All the dependent claims are consistent and proceed in the same manner as the subject matter set forth in the independent claims.
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 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 no obviousness.
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 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-12, 16 and 18-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacher Patrick (DE 102021208369 A1; hereinafter, “Patrick”), in view of Grossman (US Pub. 20230234650 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Patrick discloses: a vehicle (“Vehicle”, figs. 1-3; ‘Abstract’), comprising:
a locking mechanism (“a locking mechanism”; [0031]) configured to removably (“automatic uncoupling process”; 0031, line 4) secure to a trailer configured to be towed [ para. 0031 discloses: “an (automatic) uncoupling process of the trailer from the vehicle is initiated”];
a memory storing instructions (via processor; [0027]);
one or more processors (“processor device”; [0069]) configured to access the memory and execute the instructions to [para. 0069 teaches: “the present invention further relates to a computer program or computer program product, comprising program means, in particular a program code, which represents or encodes at least individual process steps of the method according to the invention, in particular the process steps carried out by means of the emergency device, and preferably one of the described preferred embodiments, and is designed for execution by a processor device”; thus, one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the instructions]:
receive at least one signal (via sensor 9; [0074]) used to determine that a potential fire condition is present on at least one of the trailer or the vehicle [para. 0076 teaches: “a sensor system 9 fire detection or a sensor device for detecting a hazard and in particular a fire in the vehicle 1”];
in response to the at least one signal (“signal from sensor device 9”; [0074]), automatically initiate unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer [ para. 0075 teaches: “control unit 8 with a (vehicle function) signal which initiates or triggers the decoupling process”]; and
initiate driving a distance away from the trailer [para. 0074 teaches: “the trailer is automatically uncoupled when towing a car”; thus, initiate driving a distance away from the trailer.]
Patrick expressly teaches to receive at least one signal used to determine that a potential fire condition is present on at least one of the trailer or the vehicle and initiate driving a distance away from the trailer as required by limitation of claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach that in response to at least one signal, initiate an automated release of landing gear; after initiating the automated release of the landing gear; however,
Grossman in another “system and methods for automatic air and electrical connections on autonomous cargo vehicles” similar to Patrick teaches that in response to at least one signal (via sensor assemblies 232, fig. 2A; [0053]), initiate an automated release of landing gear (120, fig. 1E; [0039]) of the trailer (104);
after initiating the automated release (when “the landing gear 120 are extended to contact the ground,” fig. 1E; [0039]) of the landing gear (120; [ para. 0039 teaches: “when the trailer 104 is to be disengaged from the tractor unit 102, the landing gear 120 are extended to contact the ground and support the trailer structure, as shown in fig. lE ]), automatically (fig. 12) initiate unlocking the locking mechanism (fig. 1E) to disconnect the trailer (104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Grossman and provide controller, sensor that outputs a signal, configured to initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer in response to the at least one signal which initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer; after initiating the automated release of the landing gear in order to advantageously initiate unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer, and initiate driving a distance away from the trailer in order to achieve safe unlocking process. This avoids requiring a person to make physical pneumatic and electrical connections between the fifth wheel and kingpin using external hoses and cables [“Abstract” of Grossman].
Accordingly, cited reference in view of Grossman teaches the known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice that a person of ordinary skill in art would readily appreciate.
Regarding claim 3, Patrick as modified above further teaches that the one or more processors (processor device”; [0069]) are further configured to wirelessly communicate real-time data [para. 0023 teaches: “the vehicle's environment (especially wirelessly, for example via car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication (real-time data) to the vehicle and especially to the hazard detection device for determining at least one hazard parameter”] pertaining to the potential fire condition to a remotely located mission control center [see para. 0023 for “vehicle environment and or stationary infrastructure;” infrastructure communication and wirelessly is understood to be equivalent to remotely located mission control center and its communication].
Regarding claim 4, Patrick as modified above further teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to receive the at least one signal from the mission control center [ para 0026 teaches: “the vehicle function signal is determined based on a comparison of at least one prediction parameter (equivalent to one signal) and at least one hazard parameter”; again para. 0023 teaches: “the environment detection device can be a sensor device of a vehicle different from the vehicle (which is preferably located in the vehicle's environment) and/or a (stationary) infrastructure in the vehicle's environment”; thus, one or more processors are further configured to receive the at least one signal from the mission control center.]
Regarding claim 5, Patrick as modified above further teaches that the vehicle is at least one of an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle [para. 0067 teaches: “semi-autonomous, autonomous (for example, of autonomy level 3 or 4 or 5 (of the SAE J3016 standard) or self-driving motor vehicle”.]
Regarding claim 8, Patrick as modified above further teaches that the at least one signal is generated by at least one of: an infrared sensor, a camera, a smoke detector (“preferably a plurality of sensors for detecting smoke particles”; [0017]), an acoustic detector, an accelerometer, and a vibration sensor, a scale, a spectral sensor, a chemical nose sensor, and a sensor (“a sensor device for detecting vehicle fire”; [0017]) on the trailer (“trailer”; [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Patrick discloses that a method of responding to a potential trailer fire condition (“in the event of an occurring, potentially worsening and/or spreading hazard”; ‘Abstract’), the method comprising: removably securing a trailer using a locking mechanism (“a locking mechanism”; [0031]); determining that a potential fire condition is present based on received sensor data (via sensor device; [0053]); in response to the determination, automatically initiating unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer; and initiating driving a distance away from the trailer [ para. 0074 teaches: “in this process, a control unit 8 of the vehicle or the control unit with the algorithm for the decoupling process 8 receives a signal from a sensor device 9 to determine a hazard of the vehicle 1 or from the fire detection sensor 9. In the next step, a locking mechanism 4 and 5 is activated and opens it”; thus, in response to the determination, automatically initiating unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer; and initiating driving a distance away from the trailer.]
Patrick expressly teaches that in response to the determination, automatically initiating unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer; and initiating driving a distance away from the trailer, but fails to explicitly teach that in response to the determination, initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer; however,
Grossman teaches that in response to the determination (via sensor assemblies 232, fig. 2A; [0053] and ECUs [0077]), initiate an automated release of landing gear (120, fig. 1E; [0039]) of the trailer (104, fig. 1E) ;after initiating the automated release (when “the landing gear 120 are extended to contact the ground,” fig. 1E; [0039]) of the trailer (120; [ para. 0039 teaches: “when the trailer 104 is to be disengaged from the tractor unit 102, the landing gear 120 are extended to contact the ground and support the trailer structure, as shown in fig. lE ]) of the landing gear (120), automatically initiating unlocking the locking mechanism (fig. 1E) to disconnect the trailer (104) and initiating driving a distance away from the trailer (see fig. 1E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Grossman and provide controller, sensor that outputs a signal where the determination, such as via control interface like ECU determines the preset value by the included processor, configured to initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer and after initiating the automated release of the landing gear, advantageously initiate unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer, and initiate driving a distance away from the trailer in order to achieve safe unlocking process. This avoids requiring a person to make physical pneumatic and electrical connections between the fifth wheel and kingpin using external hoses and cables [“Abstract” of Grossman].
Accordingly, cited reference in view of Grossman teaches the known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice that a person of ordinary skill in art would readily appreciate.
Regarding claim 11, Patrick as modified above further teaches that the method of claim 9 comprising wirelessly communicating real-time data [para. 0023 teaches: “the vehicle's environment (especially wirelessly, for example via car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication (real-time data) to the vehicle and especially to the hazard detection device for determining at least one hazard parameter”] pertaining to the potential fire condition to a remotely located mission control center [see para. 0023 for “vehicle environment and or stationary infrastructure”; infrastructure communication and wirelessly is understood to be equivalent to remotely located mission control center and its communication].
Regarding claim 12, Patrick as modified above further teaches that the method of claim 11, further comprising receiving instructions (“determining at least one hazard parameter”; [0023]) to unlock the locking mechanism from the mission control center (“car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication”; [0023]; [note that: infrastructure communication is understood to be a control center]).
Regarding claim 16, Patrick discloses that at least non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon [para. 0069 teaches: “the present invention further relates to a computer program or computer program product, comprising program means, in particular a program code, which represents or encodes at least individual process steps of the method according to the invention”] that, in response to execution by at least one processor [ para. 0069 teaches: “preferred embodiments and is designed for execution by a processor device”], cause the at least one processor to (“processor”): determine that a potential fire condition is present based on received sensor data [ para. 0068 teaches: “the present invention, in particular an algorithm for assessing fire risk”] and; in response to the determination, automatically initiate unlocking a locking mechanism [para. 0074 teaches: “in this process, a control unit 8 of the vehicle or the control unit with the algorithm for the decoupling process 8 receives a signal from a sensor device 9 to determine a hazard of the vehicle 1 (equivalent to a potential fire condition) or from the fire detection sensor 9”; thus, in response to the determination, automatically initiate unlocking a locking mechanism] connecting the trailer; and initiate driving a distance away from the trailer [ para. 0074 teaches: “the trailer is automatically uncoupled when towing a car”; thus, a trailer to be towed; and initiate driving a distance away from the trailer.]
Patrick expressly teaches automatically to initiate unlocking a locking mechanism connecting the trailer; and initiates driving a distance away from the trailer, but fails to explicitly teach that in response to the determination, initiates an automated release of landing gear of a trailer to be towed; after initiating the automated release of the landing gear; however,
Grossman teaches that in response to the determination (via sensor assemblies 232, fig. 2A; [0053] and ECUs [0077]), initiate an automated release of landing gear (120, fig. 1E; [0039]) of a trailer (104; fig. 1E) to be towed ; after initiating the automated release (when “the landing gear 120 are extended to contact the ground,” fig. 1E; [0039]) of the landing gear (120), automatically initiate unlocking a locking mechanism connecting (fig. 1E) the trailer (104) to be towed; and initiate driving a distance away from the trailer (fig. 1E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Grossman and provide controller, sensor that outputs a signal where the determination, such as via control interface like ECU determines the preset value by the included processor, configured to initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer to be towed and after initiating the automated release of the landing gear, advantageously initiate unlocking the locking mechanism; and initiate driving a distance away from the trailer in order to achieve safe unlocking process. This avoids requiring a person to make physical pneumatic and electrical connections between the fifth wheel and kingpin using external hoses and cables [“Abstract” of Grossman].
Accordingly, cited reference in view of Grossman teaches the known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice that a person of ordinary skill in art would readily appreciate.
Regarding claim 18, Patrick as modified above further teaches that the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (“computer”, [0069]) of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor (“processor-based emergency response devise; [0012]) is further configured to wirelessly communicate real-time data [para. 0023 teaches: “the vehicle's environment (especially wirelessly, for example via car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication (equivalent to ‘real-time data’) to the vehicle and especially to the hazard detection device for determining at least one hazard parameter”; thus real-time-date] pertaining to the potential fire condition [ para. 0076 teaches: “a sensor system 9 fire detection or a sensor device for detecting a hazard and in particular a fire in the vehicle 1”; thus, pertaining to the potential fire condition] to a remotely located real-time data [ para. 0023 teaches: “especially wirelessly, for example via car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication”; note that: infrastructure communication is understood to be “a remotely located real-time data” as recited in claim 18.]
Regarding claim 19, Patrick further discloses that the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18 (“computer”, [0069]), wherein the at least one processor (“processor-based emergency response devise”; [0012]) is further configured to receive instructions (“signal” from sensor 9; [0074]) to unlock the locking mechanism (“locking mechanism”; [0074]) from the mission control center (“infrastructure communication”;[0023]).
Claims 2, 7, 10, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Grossman and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20210053407 A1; hereinafter, “Smith”).
Regarding claim 2, Patrick as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the locking mechanism comprises lock jaw to hold a kingpin; however,
Smith in another ‘system and methods for automated operation and handling of autonomous trucks and trailers’ similar to the modified Patrick above teaches that the locking mechanism (“locking mechanism”; [0180]) comprises lock jaw to hold a kingpin (“kingpin jaws on the fifth wheel”; [0235]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coupling mechanism, such as kingpin jaws on the fifth wheel which can be locked and unlocked as taught by Smith to the invention of the modified Patrick with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously fasten the trailer coupling mechanism to the autonomous vehicle of the modified Patrick to detect proper mechanical coupling with the fifth wheel [para. 0235 of Smith]. The fifth wheel jaw and kingpin configurations are well-known interchangeable fastening solutions that predictably secure two bodies together. A skilled artisan would have recognized that adding or substituting such a known fastening interface for the docker of the modified Patrick and Smith constitute a simple design choice that renders claim limitation obvious, yielding only predictable positive results.
Regarding claim 7, Patrick as modified above further teaches that wherein the one or more processors (“processor of Patrick”; [0027]) but fails to expressly teach that processors are further configured to initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center in response to the automated release of the landing gear; however.
Smith teaches that the one or more processors (“processor”; [0010]) are further configured to initiate unlocking the locking mechanism (“raising of the fifth wheel”; [0009]) without permission from a remotely located mission control center (via lever arm assembly 442 and wheel-lifting mechanism; [0175], but not the control-center) in response to the automated release of the landing gear [para. 0175 teaches that in fig. 4, the fifth wheel 440 is shown raised by a lever arm assembly 442, which, as described below, allows the landing gear of the trailer (when attached) to clear the ground during hauling by the truck 400; thus, initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and provide one or more processors, further configured to initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center in response to the automated release of the landing gear in order to clear the landing gear off the ground, and the trailer is then hauled away and in this raised orientation, the hitch between the truck and trailer is secured [para. 0175 of Smith].
Regarding claim 10, Patrick as modified above discloses the unlocking the locking mechanism (4 and 5; [0074]), but fails to teach that the unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises moving a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly; however,
Smith teaches that the unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises moving a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly [para. 0235 teaches that the fifth-wheel has been raised sufficiently (unlocking) so that the trailer's landing gear is clear of the ground (in order to avoid landing gear damage during test). Further, the autonomous truck tug-test procedure 3000 is adapted to detect proper mechanical coupling with a fifth wheel in the absence of any feedback from the fifth wheel unlatch control valve, thereby indicating if the kingpin jaws on the fifth wheel are in the open position; thus, the unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises moving a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly; also see para. 0242 for the transmission to put in park, c) the service brakes are released, d) the trailer is raised to driving height, and e) the tractor pulls slightly forward to move the trailer away from the dock.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and execute the unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises moving a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly, and the trailer is then hauled away and thereby indicating if the kingpin jaws on the fifth wheel are in the open position. [paragraphs 0239 and 0242 of Smith].
Regarding claim 14, Patrick as modified above includes all the limitations of claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach that initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center; however,
Smith teaches that limitation of claim 9 initiate unlocking the locking mechanism (via lever arm assembly 442, fig. 4 and [0175]) without permission from a remotely located mission control center [see 0175 teaches that in fig. 4, the fifth wheel 440 is shown raised by a lever arm assembly 442, which, as described below, allows the landing gear of the trailer (when attached) to clear the ground during hauling by the truck 400; thus, initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center in order to clear the landing gear off the ground, and the trailer is then hauled away and in this raised orientation, the hitch between the truck and trailer is secured [para. 0175 of Smith].
Regarding claim 17, Patrick as modified above further teaches that at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (“computer”, [0069]) of claim 16, but silent on wherein unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises initiating movement of a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly; however,
Smith teaches wherein unlocking the locking mechanism (figs. 9 and 48 J) further comprises initiating movement of a lock jaw (fig. 9) of a fifth wheel assembly (fifth wheel and ‘Abstract’ teaches that a plurality of sensors is interconnected with the processor that sense terrain/objects and assist in automatically connecting/disconnecting trailers; thus, unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises initiating movement of a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and provide unlocking the locking mechanism which further comprises initiating movement of a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly in order to clear the landing gear off the ground, and the trailer is then hauled away and in this raised orientation, the hitch between the truck and trailer is secured [para. 0175 of Smith].
Accordingly, cited reference in view of Grossman teaches the known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice that a person of ordinary skill in art would readily appreciate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2019165150 A1 to Andrew discloses: a system and method for operation of an autonomous vehicle (AV) yard truck is provided. A processor facilitates autonomous movement of the AV yard truck, and connection to and disconnection from trailers.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on 571-272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights