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 .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 01 July 2026. Claims 1-7 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 July 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Amendments to claims 1, 5, 6 and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive so objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claims 1, 5, 6 and 7 have been withdrawn. Amendments to claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have been fully considered and 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation has been withdrawn. Amendments to claims 2 and 6 regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation of “driving control unit” has been withdrawn but replaced with another 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation in place for “driving controller”. Arguments and amendments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, and 3-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore rejection has been withdrawn. Amendments and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-7 have been fully considered, are not persuasive and rejection is sustained. Examiner’s Response- Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. In particular, applicant’s argument the instant application does not aim to transport the vehicle itself but rather bring the vehicle’s state (such as milage and remaining battery charge) closer to target state (preset state) but the claims does not reflect the limitations in parenthesis. Further, examiner interprets the physical location of the vehicle as part of a vehicle’s state. Further, applicant argues that the applied art does not teach the vehicles internal state such as milage or remaining battery charge, but the claims do not require those limitations therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation, the applied art teaches “a vehicle state”. Applicant also argues that the control is performed with the aim of minimizing the difference between a vehicle’s actual state and target state which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is taught by the cited art since “state” is being interpreted broadly and has not been narrowed by the claim language. Further, the argument that that the disclosure differs from the cited and is aimed at improving transport efficiency or process operational efficiency is not convincing since that language is not supported in the claims and Watkins teaches “facilitate efficient transport and delivery of the vehicle” (¶61, Watkins). Lastly, the argument that the disclosure is a “means” to achieve the goal of bringing the vehicle state closer to the target state” and the citied art is the transport of the vehicle itself is unclear and not persuasive.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Driving controller in claims 2 and 6
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a Driving controller:
[0026] The CPU executes a program stored in the memory in advance to function as a driving control unit 161 that executes driving control of the vehicle 100. The “driving control” means, for example, adjustment of acceleration, speed, and steering angle of the vehicle 100.
Fig. 1 Driving control unit 161 is pictured inside the CPU of the ECU 160.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS; Adam Keith et al. (US 20200156722 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Watkins teaches, a control system for controlling transport of a vehicle in at least one step of a vehicle manufacturing process prior to shipment (system for manufacturing a vehicle from fabrication to delivery, see at least, ¶3-5, Watkins), the system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions: and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to identify a vehicle state of the vehicle indicated by an output value of sensors; and determine a control content of the vehicle by using the identified vehicle state and notify the vehicle of the control content (Fig. 3 depicts a central processor 302 where signals output by sensors are input in to the central processor and processed by algorithms in the form of code (that must be stored in a memory inside the central processor) executed by the central processor to determine a state and provide output signals to the steering, braking and accelerator systems of the vehicle, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins), wherein the determining the control content and the notifying the vehicle of the control content comprises: calculating a difference between the vehicle state and a preset state; generating, based on a result of the calculating, a control signal indicating the control content: and transmitting the control signal to the vehicle, wherein the generating the control signal comprises determining to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of the difference is suppressed, wherein the control signal causes the vehicle to physically move in accordance with the control content (Fig. 9 depicts a flowchart for steering autonomously through a manufacturing plant and at step 902, the vehicle advances forward such as along a y-axis, if the vehicle veers from the y-axis or deviates from the predetermined path which is interpreted as calculating a difference (deviation) between the vehicle state (current vehicle position) and a preset state (the y-axis) generate a control signal that will cause the vehicle to steer right or left to move in an assigned direction, see at least, ¶69, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach a memory storing instructions however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation the processing unit must include a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute the instructions.
Watkins does not explicitly teach such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed, however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation consider the visual management guide sensor that provides guidance signals to correct a difference between the vehicle state and the pre-defined course as suppressing a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and preset target state.
Regarding Claim 5, Watkins teaches, a server used in a control system for controlling transport of a vehicle in at least one step of a vehicle manufacturing process prior to shipment (system for manufacturing a vehicle from fabrication to delivery, see at least, ¶3-5, Watkins), the server comprising: one or more memories storing instructions: and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to identify a vehicle state of the vehicle indicated by an output value of sensors (Fig. 3 depicts a central processor 302 where signals output by sensors are input in to the central processor and processed by algorithms in the form of code (that must be stored in a memory inside the central processor) executed by the central processor to determine a state and provide output signals to the steering, braking and accelerator systems of the vehicle, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins); and determine a control content of the vehicle by using the identified vehicle state and notify the vehicle of the control content, wherein the determining the control content and the notifying the vehicle of the control content comprises: calculating a difference between the vehicle state and a preset state; generating, based on a result of the calculating, a control signal indicating the control content; and transmitting the control signal to the vehicle, wherein the generating the control signal comprises determining to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of the difference is suppressed, wherein the control signal causes the vehicle to physically move in accordance with the control content (Fig. 9 depicts a flowchart for steering autonomously through a manufacturing plant and at step 902, the vehicle advances forward such as along a y-axis, if the vehicle veers from the y-axis or deviates from the predetermined path which is interpreted as calculating a difference (deviation) between the vehicle state (current vehicle position) and a preset state (the y-axis) generate a control signal that will cause the vehicle to steer right or left to move in an assigned direction, see at least, ¶69, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach a server. However, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation would interpret that an electronic control unit is a server or computer that sends control signals to the vehicle.
Watkins does not explicitly teach a memory storing instructions however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation the processing unit must include a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute the instructions.
Watkins does not explicitly teach such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed, however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation consider the visual management guide sensor that provides guidance signals to correct a difference between the vehicle state and the pre-defined course as suppressing a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and preset target state.
Regarding Claim 6, Watkins teaches, a vehicle transported in at least one step of a vehicle manufacturing process prior to shipment, the vehicle comprising: a driving controller to execute driving control during transport of the vehicle (Fig. 2 block diagram for Vehicle control system 100 has Electronic control unit 204 which receives input from sensors 202 and produces signals that guide and control a vehicle through an assembly line which must include driving control, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins); one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to identify a vehicle state of the vehicle indicated by an output value of sensors; and determine a control content of the driving control by using the identified vehicle state and notifying the driving controller of the control content (Fig. 3 depicts a central processor 302 where signals output by sensors are input in to the central processor and processed by algorithms in the form of code (that must be stored in a memory inside the central processor) executed by the central processor to determine a state and provide output signals to the steering, braking and accelerator systems of the vehicle, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins), wherein the determining the control content and the notifying the driving controller of the control content comprises: calculating a difference between the vehicle state and a preset state; generating, based on a result of the calculating, a control signal indicating the control content; and transmitting the control signal to the driving controller, wherein the generating the control signal comprises determining to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of the difference is suppressed (Fig. 9 depicts a flowchart for steering autonomously through a manufacturing plant and at step 902, the vehicle advances forward such as along a y-axis, if the vehicle veers from the y-axis or deviates from the predetermined path which is interpreted as calculating a difference (deviation) between the vehicle state (current vehicle position) and a preset state (the y-axis) generate a control signal that will cause the vehicle to steer right or left to move in an assigned direction, see at least, ¶69, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach one or more memories storing instructions however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation the processing unit must include a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute the instructions.
Watkins does not explicitly teach such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed, however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation would consider the visual management guide sensor that provides guidance signals to correct a difference between the vehicle state and the pre-defined course as suppressing a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and preset target state.
Regarding Claim 7, Watkins teaches, a vehicle transported in at least one step of a vehicle manufacturing process prior to shipment (Fig .3 depicts a block diagram of a vehicle control system which must include a vehicle, see at least, ¶9, Watkins), the vehicle being configured to receive from a server a control signal indicating a control content of driving control during transport of the vehicle and execute the driving control by using the received control signal, the server comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to identify a vehicle state of the vehicle indicated by an output value of sensors; and determine the control content by using the identified vehicle state and notify the vehicle of the control content (Fig. 3 depicts a central processor 302 where signals output by sensors are input in to the central processor and processed by algorithms in the form of code (that must be stored in a memory inside the central processor) executed by the central processor to determine a state and provide output signals to the steering, braking and accelerator systems of the vehicle, see at least, ¶47-49, Watkins), wherein the determining the control content and the notifying the vehicle of the control content comprises: calculating a difference between the vehicle state and a preset state; generating, based on a result of the calculating, a control signal indicating the control content: and transmitting the control signal to the vehicle, wherein the generating the control signal comprises determining to control at least either one of a transport route of the vehicle and a timing of starting the transport as the control content such that a magnitude of the difference is suppressed (Fig. 9 depicts a flowchart for steering autonomously through a manufacturing plant and at step 902, the vehicle advances forward such as along a y-axis, if the vehicle veers from the y-axis or deviates from the predetermined path which is interpreted as calculating a difference (deviation) between the vehicle state (current vehicle position) and a preset state (the y-axis) generate a control signal that will cause the vehicle to steer right or left to move in an assigned direction, see at least, ¶69, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach that a server or such that a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and a preset target state is suppressed, however, one of ordinary skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation would consider that an electronic control unit is a server or computer that sends control signals to the vehicle; and the visual management guide sensor that provides guidance signals to correct a difference between the vehicle state and the pre-defined course as suppressing a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state and preset target state.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS; Adam Keith et al. (US 20200156722 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5-7 above and further in view of Nordbruch; Stefan (US 20170320529 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Watkins teaches, the control system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is configured as a vehicle with a Remote Control auto Driving system (Examples of technology include: remote guidance, see at least, ¶22-29, Watkins) including a driving controller configured to execute driving control of the vehicle in accordance with the control content notified by the control signal (the control system 100 provides a signal to the vehicle to cause it to speed up or slow down from the , see at least, ¶42-45, Watkins).
Watkins does not explicitly teach Remote Control auto Driving system.
Nordbruch, directed to a vehicle driving autonomously or remotely controlled within a manufacturing system for manufacturing vehicles teaches, Remote Control auto Driving system (remote-control instructions for remotely controlled driving are received by the vehicle, see at least, ¶42, Nordbruch).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Watkins to incorporate the teachings of Nordbruch which teaches Remote Control auto Driving system since they are both related to manufacturing vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Nordbruch would improve navigation of the vehicle within the manufacturing system (¶45, Nordbruch).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS; Adam Keith et al. (US 20200156722 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5-7 above and further in view of Wells; James W. et al. (US 20200140028 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Watkins teaches, the control system according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to control the transport of a plurality of the vehicles (A control system is disclosed with the ability to access the steering system of a plurality of vehicles that has a central brain that knows where all the vehicles are at all times, see at least, ¶5, Watkins)
Watkins does not explicitly teach the identifying the vehicle state comprises identifying the vehicle state of each of the vehicles, and the determining the control content and the notifying the vehicle of the control content comprises determining a transport order of each of the vehicles by using the vehicle state of each of the vehicles such that a magnitude of the difference for at least some of the plurality of vehicles is suppressed, and notifying each of the vehicles of running in accordance with the transport order as the control content.
Wells, directed to vehicle assembly and service teaches, the identifying the vehicle state comprises identifying the vehicle state of each of the vehicles vehicles (Fig. 5A and 5B depict a flowchart for operating the sensor skid where block 104, the skid controller 34 detects the vehicle controller 24, the propulsion system 20, the steering assembly 18, and/or the vehicle battery 22 and performs self-checks to determine that the vehicle controller 24 and the skid controller34 are operating according to predetermined operational conditions, see at least, ¶26, Wells), and the determining the control content and the notifying the vehicle of the control content comprises determining a transport order of each of the vehicles (Fig. 5A, block 112 the server is the control notification unit determines a transport order of each of the vehicles in the form of a list of next stations that the vehicle is to navigate, see at least, ¶26, Wells) by using the vehicle state of each of the vehicles such that a magnitude of the difference for at least some of the plurality of vehicles is suppressed, and notifying each of the vehicles of running in accordance with the transport order as the control content (Fig. 5A, block 118 the vehicle controller 24, coordination server 50 or skid controller34 performs quality check (vehicle state). If quality checks do not pass, the operating method proceeds to block 122 where the vehicle receives directions to a repair area from the coordination server. Once the vehicle is repaired, the station order is updated in block 120. This is interpreted as a suppressing a magnitude of a difference between the vehicle state (which is that status of the quality checks) and the target state (which is passing status of quality checks) is by updating a transport order, see at least, ¶26-31, Wells).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Watkins to incorporate the teachings of Wells which teaches the identifying the vehicle state comprises identifying the vehicle state of each of the vehicles, and the determining the control content and the notifying the vehicle of the control content comprises determining a transport order of each of the vehicles by using the vehicle state of each of the vehicles such that a magnitude of the difference for at least some of the plurality of vehicles is suppressed, and notifying each of the vehicles of running in accordance with the transport order as the control content since they are both related to transporting during the manufacturing of vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Wells would develop a vehicle assembly process that is not dependent on a conveyor system to maximize the flexibility of the assembly process.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS; Adam Keith et al. (US 20200156722 A1) in view of Wells; James W. et al. (US 20200140028 A1) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of ICHIKAWA ATARU (JP 2021047510 A) (Machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 4, Watkins, in view of Wells teaches, the control system according to claim 3, the identifying the vehicle states comprises acquiring sensor data of the vehicle (signals generated by sensors are input to the central processor 302, see at least, ¶51, Wells) and determining the control content and the notifying the vehicle of the control content comprises determining a vehicle path along an assembly line (vehicle follows a path along an assembly line through multiple install stations, see at least, ¶68-69, Wells).
Wells, directed to vehicle assembly and service further teaches wherein each of the vehicles includes a battery that stores electric power used for running of the vehicle, the identifying the vehicle state comprises acquiring a remaining amount of the battery as the vehicle state (the skid controller 34 is programmed to monitor the state of the charge of the vehicle battery 22 to schedule opportunity charging with the coordination server 50, see at least, ¶20, Wells).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Further modified Watkins in view of Wells to incorporate the teachings of Wells which teaches wherein each of the vehicles includes a battery that stores electric power used for running of the vehicle, the identifying the vehicle state comprises acquiring a remaining amount of the battery as the vehicle state since they are both related to transporting during the manufacturing of vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Wells would develop a vehicle assembly process that is not dependent on a conveyor system to maximize the flexibility of the assembly process.
Ichikawa directed to an unmanned conveyance system, teaches the determining the control content and the notifying the vehicle of the control content comprises determining the transport order such that, among the plurality of vehicles, a second vehicle having a smaller remaining amount of the battery than a first vehicle is transported earlier than the first vehicle (Fig. 5 and 6 depicts vehicle state arranged in descending order based on remaining charge and selecting transport vehicle 1e which has the lowest remaining charge compared to all the transport vehicles 1a to 1e as the transport vehicle 1 to be charged first, see at least, ¶26-30, Ichikawa)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Further modified Watkins in view of Wells to incorporate the teachings of Ichikawa which teaches determining the control content and the notifying the vehicle of the control content comprises determining the transport order such that, among the plurality of vehicles, a second vehicle having a smaller remaining amount of the battery than a first vehicle is transported earlier than the first vehicle since they are both related to unmanned vehicle conveyance systems and incorporation of the teachings of Ichikawa would reduce vehicle charging wait time and increase transport vehicle efficiency.
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 IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights