DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “continuously detecting the first temperature and determining……and turning on the encoder to run the first process,” but the “turn on” status of the encoder is not clear with respect to the claim 1. Further explaining, the exciter, first sensor in which the encoder is operating, second sensor and the controller are all part of the encoder, and all those machines were turned “on” and the encoder is already operating with the first processing being run. However, claim 3 recites not only turning on the encoder, but also running the first process, which means the encoder as recited in claim 1 had been turned off, which is not true.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two-step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “determine a first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, based on a determination that the first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, running the first process to correct the signal based on the first temperature, and based on the first process and the first temperature, calculate a first value to correct the signal received from the second sensor,” are abstract ideas, as they involve mental process, under the BRI. Additionally, the limitation “wherein the additional value is determined using at least one of a linear formula or a polynomial formula,” are abstract ideas, as they involve usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “an exciter, a first sensor configured to detect a first temperature of an environment in which the encoder is operating, a second sensor configured to detect a position associated with the exciter and generate a signal based on the position associated with the exciter, and a controller (or processor) configured to detect the first temperature of the environment using the first sensor,” are recited, but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any sensors or controller (processor), and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improved abstract idea of correcting the values of the sensor data. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract idea, and not eligible. Furthermore, the limitations in claim 3 to turn on the encoder to implement the first process is not reasonable, as the encoder in claim 1 is already operating and turned on and processing the first process. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “an exciter, a first sensor configured to detect a first temperature of an environment in which the encoder is operating, a second sensor configured to detect a position associated with the exciter and generate a signal based on the position associated with the exciter, and a controller (or processor) configured to detect the first temperature of the environment using the first sensor,” are recited, but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeken et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0285802 (hereinafter Loeken) in view of Wu et al., US-PGPUB 2014/0004800 (hereinafter Wu)
Regarding Claims 1, 13. Loeken discloses an encoder (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0011], rotary encoder), comprising:
an exciter (Fig. 1, exciter unit 11, Paragraph [0034]);
a first sensor configured to detect a first temperature of an environment in which the encoder is operating (Paragraph [0009], sensor temperature; Paragraph [0015], first sensor temperature corresponds to the room temperature in which the encoder is operating; Paragraph [0040]);
a second sensor configured to detect a position associated with the exciter and generate a signal based on the position associated with the exciter (Paragraph [0009], position of the machine shaft connected to the exciter; Paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, 18, Hall sensor; Paragraph [0008], [0016], [0018], measuring positions); and a controller configured to (Fig. 1, 19, microcontroller):
detect the first temperature of the environment using the first sensor (Paragraph [0016], first temperature), automatically running the first process to calibrate the signal in response to detection of the first temperature (Paragraphs [0005]-[0006], required calibration; Paragraph [0017], active calibration, and being performed after the first temperature or in response to the first temperature; Paragraph [0035], [0045], automatic calibration). Furthermore, one example of the first process is start of the required calibration, which involve changing the temperature by local heating or cooling. Although Loeken does not explicitly disclose said determination, it would have been obvious to do so, to confirm and to perform the require calibration (that has not been done previously), which begins with the process of changing the temperature. Another example of the first process is, prerequisite condition of once the first sensor temperature has been captured), and based on the first process and the first temperature, calculate a first value to correct the signal received from the second sensor, and generate a corrected signal indicating the position of the exciter by applying the first value to the signal received from the second sensor (Paragraphs [0018]-[0020], deviation value between the captured second position measured value at changed temperature and a predefined desired position (used for correction), where the predefined position is the captured first position measured value at the first temperature, Paragraph [0023]),
Loeken does not explicitly disclose determining a first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, based on a determination that the first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, automatically running the first process to calibrate the signal in response to detection of the first temperature.
Wu discloses determining a first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, based on a determination that the first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, automatically running the first process to calibrate the signal in response to detection of the first temperature (Fig. 1, temperature sensor; Abstract, previously not temperature calibrated; Paragraphs [0024]; [0026]-[0027], [0033] determining calibration has been previously performed; Fig. 2) Note: Wu is an analogous art, as it deals with temperature calibration of a device, and therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary kill in the art to use the teaching of Wu in Loeken and detect the first temperature of the environment using the first sensor, determine a first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, based on a determination that the first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, automatically running the first process to calibrate the signal in response to detection of the first temperature, automatically running the first process to calibrate the signal in response to detection of the first temperature, so as to accurately calibrate the encoder.
Regarding Claims 2, 14. Loeken discloses the first value to correct the signal of the encoder comprises at least one of a first correction value to correct an offset of the signal, a second correction value to correct a gain of the signal, or a third correction value to correct a phase of the signal (Paragraph [0020], output encoder signal corrected by determined deviation or correction value)
Regarding Claim 4. Loeken discloses the controller further configured to after calculating the first value, add the first value to a look-up table for the encoder and associate the first value with the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0025], storing the correction value in the correction table; Paragraph [0022] correction table with temperatures; [0037])
Regarding Claim 5. Loeken discloses using the look-up table to correct the signal received from the first sensor based on a detection of a second temperature of the environment, wherein using the look-up table comprises: looking up the second temperature of the environment in the look up table to determine a second value to correct the signal received from the second sensor; and using the second value from the look up table to correct the signal based on the second temperature (Paragraph [0022], any measured values for any temperature can be corrected based on the correction table)
Regarding Claim 6. Loeken discloses in response to a first determination that a second value to correct the signal is not stored in the look-up table for the second temperature and in response to a second determination that a second process to correct the signal cannot be run for the second temperature, the controller is further configured to calculate the second value associated with the second temperature, wherein the second value is calculated using a third value to correct the signal associated with a third temperature for which a corresponding process to correct the signal of the encoder has been run (Paragraph [0022], extrapolation or interpolation)
Regarding Claim 8. Loeken discloses determining whether the first process has been run for the first temperature detected, further comprises determining whether the first temperature detected is within a predetermined range of temperatures that have not been corrected and, based on a determination that the first process has not been run for the predetermined range of temperatures, running the first process based on the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0022], first process is extrapolation or interpolation, for those in positioned measured values between the temperature ranges)
Regarding Claim 9. Loeken discloses after calculating the first value, add the first value to a look-up table for the encoder and associate the first value with the first temperature detected; and determine an additional value for another temperature within the predetermined range based on the first value associated with the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0025], storing the correction value in the correction table; Paragraph [0022] correction table with temperatures; [0037])
Regarding Claim 11. Loeken discloses the look-up table is stored on a memory of the encoder (Paragraphs [0025], [0028], stored)
Regarding Claim 12. Loeken discloses determining whether the encoder is being used (Paragraph [0027], during operation), and based on a determination that the encoder is being used, delay or stop the first process to correct the signal of the encoder (Paragraph [0017], stopping the machine shaft)
Regarding Claim 15. Loeken discloses after calculating the first value, adding the first value to a look-up table for the encoder and associating the first value with the first temperature detected, and using the look-up table to correct the signal received from the second sensor based on a detection of a second temperature of the environment (Paragraph [0025], storing the correction value in the correction table; Paragraph [0022] correction table with temperatures; [0037])
Regarding Claim 16. Loeken discloses in response to a first determination that a second value is not stored in the look-up table for the second temperature and in response to a second determination that a second process to correct the signal cannot be run for the second temperature, calculating a second value associated with the second temperature, wherein the second value is calculated using a third value associated with a third temperature for which a corresponding process to correct the signal of the encoder has been run (Paragraph [0022], extrapolation or interpolation, for those expected values between the temperature ranges, including in the situations where such temperature value is not or cannot be obtained)
Regarding Claim 18. Loeken discloses determining whether the first process has been run for the first temperature detected, further comprises determining whether the first temperature detected is within a predetermined range of temperatures that have not been corrected and, based on a determination that the first process has not been run for the predetermined range of temperatures, running the first process based on the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0022], first process is extrapolation or interpolation, for those in positioned measured values between the temperature ranges)
Regarding Claim 19. Loeken discloses after calculating the first value, adding the first value to a look-up table for the encoder and associating the first value with the first temperature detected, and determining an additional value to correct the signal for another temperature within the predetermined range based on the first value associated with the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0025], storing the correction value in the correction table; Paragraph [0022] correction table with temperatures and extrapolation or interpolation to derive additional correction values; [0037])
Regarding Claim 20. Loeken discloses an encoder (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0011], rotary encoder), comprising:
an exciter (Paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, exciter unit 11);
a first sensor configured to detect a temperature of an environment (Paragraph [0009], sensor temperature; Paragraph [0015], first sensor temperature corresponds to the room temperature; Paragraph [0040]);
a second sensor configured to detect a position associated with the exciter and generate a signal based on the position associated with the exciter (Paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, 18, Hall sensor; Paragraph [0008], [0016], [0018], measuring positions; Paragraphs [0005]-[0006], required calibration); and a processor configured to: detect the temperature of the environment using the first sensor (Paragraph [0016], first temperature), determine the signal of the encoder has not been calibrated for the temperature detected, and based on a determination that signal has not been calibrated for the temperature detected (Paragraph [0005]-[0006], required calibration; Paragraph [0017], active calibration, and being performed after the first temperature or in response to the first temperature; Paragraph [0035], [0045], automatic calibration. begin temperature change by heating or cooling, for the purpose of calibration. Although Loeken does not explicitly disclose said determination, it would have been obvious to do so, to confirm and to perform the required calibration (which has not been done previously), correct the signal for the temperature detected, and generate a corrected signal indicating the position of the exciter by applying the first value to the signal received from the second sensor (Paragraphs [0018]-[0020], deviation value between the captured second position measured value at changed temperature and a predefined desired position (used for correction), where the predefined position is the captured first position measured value at the first temperature, Paragraph [0023])
Loeken does not explicitly disclose determining the signal of the encoder has not been calibrated for the temperature detected, and based on a determination that signal has not been calibrated for the temperature detected, automatically running the first process to calibrate the signal in response to detection of the first temperature.
Wu discloses determining a first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, based on a determination that the first process to calibrate the signal has not been run for the first temperature, automatically running the first process to calibrate the signal in response to detection of the first temperature (Fig. 1, temperature sensor; Abstract, previously not temperature calibrated; Paragraphs [0024]; [0026]-[0027], [0033] determining calibration has been previously performed; Fig. 2) Note: Wu is an analogous art, as it deals with temperature calibration of a device, and therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary kill in the art to use the teaching of Wu in Loeken and detect the first temperature of the environment using the first sensor, determine the signal of the encoder has not been calibrated for the temperature detected, and based on a determination that signal has not been calibrated for the temperature detected, automatically running the first process to calibrate the signal in response to detection of the first temperature, so as to accurately calibrate the encoder.
Claims 7, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeken, US-PGPUB 2021/0285802 in view of Wu, US-PGPUB 2014/0004800 and further in view of Jonas et al., US-PGPUB 2014/0157861 (hereinafter Jonas)
Regarding Claim 7, 10 and 17. Loeken discloses the second value (claim 10: additional value) is calculated using interpolation or extrapolation using the third value associated with the third temperature (Paragraph [0022]).
The modified Loeken does not disclose the second value (additional value) is calculated using linear formula using the third value associated with the third temperature.
Jonas discloses encoder (Fig. 1) to perform measurement, which includes using calculating the correction values may be determined by a linear interpolation or other polynomial functions for interpolation between the temperature values (Paragraphs [0089]-[0090])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Jonas in the modified Loeken and calculate the second value (additional value) using linear formula using the third value associated with the third temperature, with accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. For the 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Section 101 provides that anyone who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" may obtain a patent. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the focus of the claims is “correcting the signal of the encoder”, an abstract idea as indicated in the rejection.
Here, note that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even if the claims had recited specific abstract ideas for ““correcting the signal of the encoder” would not have made the claims eligible under 35 USC 101 by itself. In the instant application, the claims are generically recited, as the sensors are generically recited at high level of generality, and the claims do not even recite in any details as to what the “first process” is or how the first process is used to calibrate the signal.
Additionally, note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “correcting the signal of the encoder” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Furthermore, the claims recite functional limitations, including “determining a first process,” and “running the first process”, but there are no details as to how to perform said functional limitations, and such generic limitations pose significant pre-emption risk, which is the primary concern of the 101 eligibility (see Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC vs DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201, Id., at 1201, too broad, lacking details regarding manner in which invention accomplishes recited functions, Id., at 1204 “There is nothing in Claim 1 that is directed to “how” to implement out-of-region broadcasting on a cellular telephone. Rather, the claim is drawn to the idea itself.” also TLI Communications vs AV Auto, 823 F.3d 607, 118 USPQ2d 1744 (CAFC 2016), Id., at 1744 “but the specification limits these components to abstract functional descriptions devoid of technical explanation as to "how to implement invention," and Two-way Media vs Comcast 874 F.3d 1329, 124 USPQ2d 1521 (CAFC 2017) Id., at 1521, “representative claim recites method for routing information using result-based functional language, and requires functional results of “converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating records,” but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in non-abstract way.” McRo,837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091, Id., at 1101, “It is self-evident that genus claims create a greater risk of preemption, thus implicating the primary concern driving 101 jurisprudence.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims additionally recite
various limitations as identified above,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, and recitation of a general-purpose computer for processing the collected data that are all well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the original disclosure, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional components of the encoder and general-purpose computer for collecting data, analyzing and obtaining the desired information (unlike Thales 85- F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (2017), Id., at 1898 where the inertial sensors are used in non-conventional manner for measuring position and orientation).
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any machines. The claims in the instant application with the exciter and sensors and controller, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in said sensors and processing device, etc as tools (as in Enfish), or focused on a specific asserted improvement in “correcting the signal of the encoder”, in non-abstract way (or improvement in computer animation in non-abstract way, without animators able to do to same, as in McRo), but on certain independently abstract ideas that use those sensors and processing device, etc as tools.
Furthermore, the claims also do not improve any technology due to lack of details in regard the various functional limitations at least in the claimed invention (see Intellectual Ventures vs Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 120 USPQ2d 1353, (CAFC 2016), TLI Communications vs AV Auto, 823 F.3d 607, 118 USPQ2d 1744 (CAFC 2016), Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC vs DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201, and Two-way Media vs Comcast 874 F.3d 1329, 124 USPQ2d 1521 (CAFC 2017)). Furthermore, the limitations in claim 3 to turn on the encoder to implement the first process is not reasonable, as the encoder in claim 1 is already operating and turned on and processing the first process.
Finally, limiting the claims to the particular technological environment of encoder, without the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application or without the additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract ideas (Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable” Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (U.S. 2010).
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of “correcting the signal of the encoder”, without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights