DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, updated rejections have been made in response to Applicant’s amendments
Regarding Claim(s) rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, updated rejections have been made in response to Applicant’s amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 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 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
However, the instant specification disclosure contains only reference to (See at least Instant PgPub ¶).
As claimed, the satisfaction of the misrecognition condition is not limited to the disclosed features of the misrecognition condition. The claims do not limit the determination to the disclosed criterion identified in paragraph [0053] of the instant PgPub. The claim does not require specific equipment types that encompass permitted road features or misrecognized features. Thus, the claims encompass implementations materially broader than the instant specification describes.
MPEP § 2161.01 states that "generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed…[f]or example, in LizardTech, the claim was directed to a method of compressing digital images using seamless discrete wavelet transformation ('DWT'). The court found that the claim covered all ways of performing DWT-based compression processes that lead to a seamless DWT because there were no limitations as to how the seamless DWT was to be accomplished. However, the specification provided only one method for creating a seamless DWT, and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic way of creating a seamless array of DWT coefficients. Therefore, the written description requirement was not satisfied in this case because the specification did not provide sufficient evidence that the inventor invented the generic claim. '[t]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor…to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.' LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733."
Similar to LizardTech, the amended claim limitations cover all types of equipment that may be indicative of a permitted road that a may be misrecognized as indicating a permitted road because they are present on a portion of the traveling road because there are no limitations as to how determination of a misrecognition condition can be accomplished based on presence of generic equipment recognized on a traveling road.
Specifically, Claim 1 is similar to LizardTech in that these claims cover all ways of determining a misrecognition condition based on presence of generic equipment recognized on a traveling road without providing sufficient evidence that the inventor invented such generic claims. Additionally, the claim does not specify the technique by which the misrecognition condition is determined on the basis of traveling road equipment features by matching them to the “type” of equipment existing on a permitted road. The instant specification fails to cure the claim breadth by disclosing a common misrecognition condition determination procedure. Instead, the instant specification identifies the following materially different approaches including: presence of an entrance tollgate of an expressway; the presence of a waiting place; the presence of a central separation zone; the presence of a plurality of lanes having the same traveling direction; and the presence of a signboard or a sign indicating that pedestrian traffic is prohibited lane confidence thresholds. Those approaches do not represent substitutions within one disclosed algorithm. Rather, they involve differing inputs, processing architectures, and decision rules.
The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1083-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682. 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. V. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010) in the context of determining possession of a claimed means of accessing disparate databases). Appellant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, the specification does not provide adequate written description of “.” Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
However, the instant specification disclosure contains only reference to (See at least Instant PgPub ¶).
As claimed, the satisfaction of the misrecognition condition is not limited to the disclosed features of the misrecognition condition. The claims do not limit the determination to the disclosed criterion identified in paragraph [0053] of the instant PgPub. The claim does not require specific equipment types that encompass permitted road features or misrecognized features. Thus, the claims encompass implementations materially broader than the instant specification describes.
MPEP § 2161.01 states that "generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed…[f]or example, in LizardTech, the claim was directed to a method of compressing digital images using seamless discrete wavelet transformation ('DWT'). The court found that the claim covered all ways of performing DWT-based compression processes that lead to a seamless DWT because there were no limitations as to how the seamless DWT was to be accomplished. However, the specification provided only one method for creating a seamless DWT, and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic way of creating a seamless array of DWT coefficients. Therefore, the written description requirement was not satisfied in this case because the specification did not provide sufficient evidence that the inventor invented the generic claim. '[t]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor…to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.' LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733."
Similar to LizardTech, the amended claim limitations cover all types of equipment that may be indicative of a permitted road that a may be misrecognized as indicating a permitted road because they are present on a portion of the traveling road because there are no limitations as to how determination of a misrecognition condition can be accomplished based on presence of generic equipment recognized on a traveling road.
Specifically, Claim 15 is similar to LizardTech in that these claims cover all ways of determining a misrecognition condition based on presence of generic equipment recognized on a traveling road without providing sufficient evidence that the inventor invented such generic claims. Additionally, the claim does not specify the technique by which the misrecognition condition is determined on the basis of traveling road equipment features by matching them to the “type” of equipment existing on a permitted road. The instant specification fails to cure the claim breadth by disclosing a common misrecognition condition determination procedure. Instead, the instant specification identifies the following materially different approaches including: presence of an entrance tollgate of an expressway; the presence of a waiting place; the presence of a central separation zone; the presence of a plurality of lanes having the same traveling direction; and the presence of a signboard or a sign indicating that pedestrian traffic is prohibited lane confidence thresholds. Those approaches do not represent substitutions within one disclosed algorithm. Rather, they involve differing inputs, processing architectures, and decision rules.
The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1083-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682. 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. V. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010) in the context of determining possession of a claimed means of accessing disparate databases). Appellant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, the specification does not provide adequate written description of “.” Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date.
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims are dependent from claims , such that claims also include the subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement recited by claims and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claims are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
The phrase ‘” fails to clearly define the scope of the claimed subject matter. It is unclear what the term “type” is intended to convey in the context of the instant specification. Additionally, the term “type” broadens the road feature equipment interpretation such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not know when a traveling road feature should be determined as encompassing the same “type” of equipment as the equipment existing on a permitted road. See at least Instant PgPub ¶0053; MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E)
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
The phrase ‘” fails to clearly define the scope of the claimed subject matter. It is unclear what the term “type” is intended to convey in the context of the instant specification. Additionally, the term “type” broadens the road feature equipment interpretation such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not know when a traveling road feature should be determined as encompassing the same “type” of equipment as the equipment existing on a permitted road. See at least Instant PgPub ¶0053; MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E)
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and are rejected for depending therefrom.
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by , hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A vehicle control device that executes a lane change assist control for assisting in lane change of a vehicle, the vehicle control device comprising an electronic control unit configured to:
execute the lane change assist control in response to
a request operation being performed, the request operation requesting to start the lane change assist control and being performed by an operator of the vehicle, See at least ¶¶; “”; and
a permission condition being satisfied, the permission condition being a condition that a road on in which a traveling road along which the vehicle is traveling is a permitted road where the lane change of the vehicle using the lane change assist control is permitted; See at least ¶¶; ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.”,
output a non execution notification via a notification device mounted on the vehicle in response to the permission condition not being satisfied, See at least ¶¶ “”; and
a misrecognition condition being satisfied, the misrecognition condition being a condition in which the request operation has been performed, and a portion of the traveling road has a road feature () including equipment of a same type as equipment () existing on the permitted road See at least ¶¶; “”A type of a road is information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … map information 171 may include road information, traffic regulation information … road information includes information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … positions of merging and branch points of lanes, and signs marked on roads. The reference speed is, for example, a legal speed limit or an average speed of a plurality of vehicles which traveled on the roads in the past.”; ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.”,
wherein the non-execution notification notifies the operator of information that the lane change assist control will not be executed See at least ¶¶ “”;
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the equipment included in the road feature is at least one of an entrance tollgate of an expressway, a waiting place, a central separation zone, and a signboard or a sign indicating that pedestrian traffic is prohibited. See at least ¶¶; “”A type of a road is information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … road information includes information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … positions of merging and branch points of lanes, and signs marked on roads.”; ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.”,
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the request operation is the same as a part of manual lane change operation by the operator. See at least ¶¶, 0064, 0066-0067 ; “”
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the request operation is an operation of a blinker lever. See at least ¶¶, 0064, 0066-0067 ; “”
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the request operation is a blinker lever operation that serves as a start operation for one of the lane change assist control and a manual lane change operation in which the operator steers to change a lane without the lane change assist control. See at least ¶¶, 0064, 0066-0067 ; “
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
the notification device is a display; the non-execution notification is output by displaying an image of the non-execution notification on the display. See at least ¶¶ “”;
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
the lane change assist control is a control in which the electronic control unit autonomously steers the vehicle and moves the vehicle to an adjacent lane without requiring a manual lane change operation in which the operator manually steers to change a lane without the lane change assist control; the request operation is a blinker lever operation; and the blinker lever operation serves as a start operation for one of the lane change assist control and the manual lane change operation. See at least ¶¶, 0064, 0066-0067 ; “
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A vehicle comprising:
a notification device; ¶¶ “”;and
an electronic control unit configured to:
execute a lane change assist control for assisting in lane change of the vehicle in response to
a request operation being performed, the request operation requesting to start the lane change assist control and being performed by an operator of the vehicle, See at least ¶¶; “”; and
a permission condition being satisfied, the permission condition being a condition in which a traveling road along which the vehicle is traveling is a permitted road where the lane change of the vehicle using the lane change assist control is permitted; See at least ¶¶; ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.” and
output a non-execution notification via the notification device in response to the permission condition not being satisfied, See at least ¶¶ “”; and
a misrecognition condition being satisfied, the misrecognition condition being a condition in which i) the request operation has been performed and ii) a portion of the traveling road has a road feature () including equipment of a same type as equipment () existing on the permitted road, See at least ¶¶; “”A type of a road is information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … map information 171 may include road information, traffic regulation information … road information includes information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … positions of merging and branch points of lanes, and signs marked on roads. The reference speed is, for example, a legal speed limit or an average speed of a plurality of vehicles which traveled on the roads in the past.”; ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.”,
wherein the non-execution notification notifies the operator of information that the lane change assist control will not be executed, See at least ¶¶ “”;
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the equipment included in the road feature is at least one of an entrance tollgate of an expressway, a waiting place, a central separation zone, and a signboard or a sign indicating that pedestrian traffic is prohibited. See at least ¶¶; “”A type of a road is information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … road information includes information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … positions of merging and branch points of lanes, and signs marked on roads.”; ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.”,
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the request operation is a blinker lever operation that serves as a start operation for one of the lane change assist control and a manual lane change operation in which the operator manually steers to change a lane without the lane change assist control. See at least ¶¶, 0064, 0066-0067 ; “”
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the lane change assist control is a control in which the electronic control unit autonomously steers the vehicle and moves the vehicle to an adjacent lane without requiring a driving operation by the operator. See at least ¶¶, 0064, 0066-0067 ; “
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to not output the non-execution notification in a case where: the permission condition is not satisfied; ,See at least ¶¶ “”; See at least ¶¶; the request operation has been performed; and the traveling road does not have the road feature. “information includes information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … positions of merging and branch points of lanes, and signs marked on roads ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.”
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to not output the non-execution notification in a case where: the permission condition is not satisfied; ,See at least ¶¶ “”; See at least ¶¶; the request operation has been performed; and the traveling road does not have the road feature. “information includes information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway … positions of merging and branch points of lanes, and signs marked on roads ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.”
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above, in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the permitted road is a road on which: walking of a person is prohibited; a plurality of lanes is provided in one traveling direction; and a central separation zone is provided.
However, discloses:
that a permitted road type is an expressway See at least ¶¶; ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.”
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of classifying a road as an expressway under conditions that in order to improve computational load necessary for autonomous driving. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of classifying a road as an expressway under conditions that in Nishiguch in order to improve computational load necessary for autonomous driving. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the permitted road is a road on which: walking of a person is prohibited; a plurality of lanes is provided in one traveling direction; and a central separation zone is provided.
However, discloses:
that a permitted road type is an expressway See at least ¶¶; ”lane change start determining unit 152 determines whether all of the following starting conditions (first conditions) of lane change support control are satisfied”; “Starting condition (c) has not been satisfied when it is determined that the host vehicle M is traveling on a road other than an expressway.”
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of classifying a road as an expressway under conditions that in order to improve computational load necessary for autonomous driving. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of classifying a road as an expressway under conditions that in Nishiguch in order to improve computational load necessary for autonomous driving. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights