DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This communication is a Final Office Action, in response to the communication received on 11/13/2025.The amendments of claims 1 and 11 are acknowledged. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims 1 and 11 are sufficient to overcome the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action for being directed toward non-statutory subject matter. The examiner withdraws the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Second Paragraph
4. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Second Paragraph set forth in the previous Office Action. The examiner withdraws the rejections.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection which has been necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the limitation, “disabling all functions of a charge controller except a timer function; waking-up functions of the charge controller after a time threshold from a last key off or last wake-up using the timer function; the state of charge of the low voltage battery is less than a state of charge threshold as determined in a comparison circuit of the charge controller,” does not have any support in the specification.
Appropriate clarification is required.
In claim 11, the limitation “a charge controller programmed to disable all functions of the charge controller except a timer function; wake-up the controller after a time threshold from a last key off or last wake-up using the timer function”; does not have any support in the specification.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 inherit the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 11 and are rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saucke et al. ( DE-102015224842) in view of Veselic et al. (CN-1751426) in view of Kulnick et al. ( CN-105083168).
As Per Claim 1, Saucke et al. (Saucke) teaches, a method for operating an electric vehicle ( via an electrical voltage network (1) for a motor vehicle, Fig.1)
having a low voltage battery ( low-volt battery 3) comprising: waking-up functions of the charge controller after a time threshold from a last key off or last wake-up using the timer function; (If the SOC value of the low-voltage battery reaches a third threshold X3 during vehicle standstill, the control unit can 7 the low-voltage battery 3 the control unit 8th wake up and) (Page 6 3rd para); determining a state of charge of the low voltage battery ( low-voltage battery 3) at the charge controller; and when the state of charge of the low voltage battery is less than a state of charge threshold as determined in a comparison circuit of the charge controller, charging the low voltage battery from a solar panel. ( via solar module 4. “The solar module is integrated, for example, in a roof of the motor vehicle.”)… “electrical energy generated by the solar module is temporarily stored in the low-voltage battery”. Page 3, last paragraph –Page 4, 1st para); See : Abstract, Page 3,last paragraph –Page 4, 3rd paragraph; Page 5 5th paragraph –Page 6 4th paragraph, Fig.1).
However, Saucke does not explicitly teach, disabling all functions of a charge controller except a timer function, and waking-up a controller after a time threshold;
In a related field of art, Veselic et al. (Veselic) teaches, a battery charging circuit comprising a battery charging controller, wherein, disabling all functions of a charge controller except a timer function (via Battery connector short circuit protection is NAND (U906) with charger function, thus automatically disabling the battery charge controller U909” , Page 12, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saucke and Veselic before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Saucke , to include the teachings (Battery connector short circuit protection NAND (U906)) of Veselic and configure with the system of Saucke in order to automatically disabling the battery charge controller U909 when there is short circuit. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, battery charge controller U909 automatically starts charging, and automatically enters the sleep mode.
However, Saucke in view of Veselic does not explicitly teach, waking-up a controller after a time threshold;
In a related field of Art, Kulnick et al. ( Kulnick) teaches, an electronic module for controlling and diagnosing method for a vehicle, wherein, waking-up a controller after a time threshold; ( via “ the controller converts the wake-up time is the inactive state when or after the controller closes, comparing the selected wake-up requests are associated with a threshold time”, Page 15, last paragraph ), See Page 3 5th para –Page 4 2nd para; Page 8, 5th para –Page 9 1st para; Page 9, 4th para; Page 10, last para; Page 15 , last para –Page 16, 1st para , Figs 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saucke , Veselic and Kulnick before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Saucke , to include the teachings (ECU 200 etc.) of Kulnick and configure with the system of Saucke in order to initiate a waking up event of the controller as a function of time threshold. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, analyzing the wake history array during an active state of operation of the vehicle, to obtain a wakeup diagnostic.
As per Claim 2, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein prior to charging the low voltage battery, charging a high voltage battery with the solar panel. ( Saucke : via solar module 4. “The solar module is integrated, for example, in a roof of the motor vehicle.”) … “electrical energy generated by the solar module is temporarily stored in the low-voltage battery”. Page 3, last paragraph –Page 4, 1st para).
As per Claim 3, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein determining the state of charge of the low voltage battery comprises determining the state of charge of the low voltage battery being equal to or less than 48 volts, ( Saucke : “a low-voltage battery is a battery having a rated voltage of less than 60 V, for example 12 V, 24 V or 48 V”) said a high voltage battery being equal to or greater than 300 volts. ( Saucke : Under a high-voltage battery is understood to be a battery with a rated voltage greater than 60 volts.) (Saucke : Page 3, last paragraph)).
However, Saucke in view of Kulnick does not explicitly teach, said a high voltage battery being equal to or greater than 300 volts.
However, choosing a high voltage battery being equal to or greater than 300 volts, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As per Claim 4, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, further comprising determining a light condition for the vehicle, when the light condition is below a light threshold, charging the low voltage battery with a high voltage battery. (Saucke : “the control unit is designed such that when the SOC value of the low-voltage battery drops below a further threshold value of the DC / DC converter between high-voltage battery and low-voltage battery is controlled such that the high-voltage battery charges the low-voltage battery”, Page 4, 2nd para).
As per Claim 5, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, further comprising determining a charging rate for the low voltage battery and wherein charging the low voltage battery comprises charging the low voltage battery at the charging rate. ( Saucke : “the battery charging device has a measuring device for measuring one or more parameters of the plurality of high-voltage memory cell blocks, and control means for selectively switching the charging voltage supplied from the solar module to one or more of the cell blocks based on the one or more measured parameters load”, Page 3, 2nd paragraph).
As per Claim 6, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 5. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein determining the charging rate comprises determining the charging rate based on a state of health of the low voltage battery. (Saucke : via “the control unit is designed such that when the SOC value of the low-voltage battery drops below a further threshold value of the DC / DC converter between high-voltage battery and low-voltage battery is controlled such that the high-voltage battery charges the low-voltage battery”, Page 4, 2nd paragraph).
As per Claim 7, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 5. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein determining the charging rate comprises determining the charging rate based on a temperature of the low voltage battery ( Saucke : “the battery charging device has a measuring device for measuring one or more parameters of the plurality of high-voltage memory cell blocks, and control means for selectively switching the charging voltage supplied from the solar module to one or more of the cell blocks based on the one or more measured parameters load”, Page 3, 2nd paragraph).…And ( “The batteries are preferably Li-ion batteries. It should also be noted that at least one of the threshold values can be adjusted as a function of parameters such as detected solar irradiation, battery temperature and / or quiescent current consumption of the vehicle electrical system consumers”.(Page 5, 2nd para ).. and
“By selecting the threshold values X1-X3 or the size of the rated capacity, it is possible to set how often reloading takes place between the two batteries. In this case, the threshold values X1-X3 can be parameterizable, i. These are for example dependent on battery temperature, quiescent current consumption and / or solar radiation.”(Page 7, 1st para).
As per Claim 8, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 5. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein determining the charging rate comprises determining the charging rate based on a state of charge of the low voltage battery (Saucke : “the control unit is designed such that when the SOC value of the low-voltage battery drops below a further threshold value of the DC / DC converter between high-voltage battery and low-voltage battery is controlled such that the high-voltage battery charges the low-voltage battery”, Page 4, 2nd para).
As per Claim 9, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 5. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein determining the charging rate comprises determining the charging rate based on at least two of the state of charge of the battery, a temperature of the battery and a state of health of the battery of the low voltage battery ( Saucke : “the battery charging device has a measuring device for measuring one or more parameters of the plurality of high-voltage memory cell blocks, and control means for selectively switching the charging voltage supplied from the solar module to one or more of the cell blocks based on the one or more measured parameters load”, Page 3, 2nd paragraph).…And ( “The batteries are preferably Li-ion batteries. It should also be noted that at least one of the threshold values can be adjusted as a function of parameters such as detected solar irradiation, battery temperature and / or quiescent current consumption of the vehicle electrical system consumers”.(Page 5, 2nd para ).. and “By selecting the threshold values X1-X3 or the size of the rated capacity, it is possible to set how often reloading takes place between the two batteries. In this case, the threshold values X1-X3 can be parameterizable, i. These are for example dependent on battery temperature, quiescent current consumption and / or solar radiation.”(Page 7, 1st para), Ref. Claim 9).
As Per Claim 11, Saucke et al. (Saucke) teaches, a system for operating an electric vehicle ( via an electrical voltage network (1) for a motor vehicle, Fig.1) having a low voltage battery ( low-volt battery 3) comprising: wake-up the controller after a time threshold from a last key off or last wake-up using the timer function; (If the SOC value of the low-voltage battery reaches a third threshold X3 during vehicle standstill, the control unit can 7 the low-voltage battery 3 the control unit 8th wake up and) (Page 6 3rd para); determine a state of charge of the low voltage battery ( low-voltage battery 3); and when the state of charge of the low voltage battery is less than a state of charge threshold, control the charging of the low voltage battery from a solar panel. ( via solar module 4. “The solar module is integrated, for example, in a roof of the motor vehicle.”)… “electrical energy generated by the solar module is temporarily stored in the low-voltage battery”. Page 3, last paragraph –Page 4, 1st para); See : Abstract, Page 3,last paragraph –Page 4, 3rd paragraph; Page 5 5th paragraph –Page 6 4th paragraph, Fig.1).
However, Saucke does not explicitly teach , a charge controller programmed to disable all functions of the charge controller except a timer function; and waking-up a controller after a time threshold;
In a related field of art, Veselic et al. ( Veselic) teaches, a battery charging circuit comprising a battery charging controller, wherein, a charge controller programmed to disable all functions of the charge controller except a timer function; (via Battery connector short circuit protection is NAND (U906) with charger function, thus automatically disabling the battery charge controller U909” , Page 12, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saucke and Veselic before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Saucke , to include the teachings (Battery connector short circuit protection NAND (U906)) of Veselic and configure with the system of Saucke in order to automatically disabling the battery charge controller U909 when there is short circuit. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, battery charge controller U909 automatically starts charging, and automatically enters the sleep mode.
However, Saucke in view of Veselic does not explicitly teach, waking-up a controller after a time threshold;
In a related field of Art, Kulnick et al. ( Kulnick) teaches, an electronic module for controlling and diagnosing method for a vehicle, wherein, waking-up a controller after a time threshold; ( via “ the controller converts the wake-up time is the inactive state when or after the controller closes, comparing the selected wake-up requests are associated with a threshold time”, Page 15, last paragraph ), See Page 3 5th para –Page 4 2nd para; Page 8, 5th para –Page 9 1st para; Page 9, 4th para; Page 10, last para; Page 15 , last para –Page 16, 1st para , Figs 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saucke , Veselic and Kulnick before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Saucke , to include the teachings (ECU 200 etc.) of Kulnick and configure with the system of Saucke in order to initiate a waking up event of the controller as a function of time threshold. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, analyzing the wake history array during an active state of operation of the vehicle, to obtain a wakeup diagnostic.
As per Claim 12, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein the controller is programmed to charge a high voltage battery with the solar panel prior to charging the low voltage battery ( Saucke : via solar module 4. “The solar module is integrated, for example, in a roof of the motor vehicle.”)… “electrical energy generated by the solar module is temporarily stored in the low-voltage battery”. Page 3, last paragraph –Page 4, 1st para).
As per Claim 13, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 12. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein the controller is programmed to determining the state of charge of the low voltage battery comprises determining the state of charge of the low voltage battery being equal to or less than 48 volts,( Saucke : “a low-voltage battery is a battery having a rated voltage of less than 60 V, for example 12 V, 24 V or 48 V”) said a high voltage battery being equal to or greater than 300 volts. ( Saucke : Under a high-voltage battery is understood to be a battery with a rated voltage greater than 60 volts.) (Saucke : Page 3, last paragraph)).
However, Saucke in view of Kulnick does not explicitly teach, said a high voltage battery being equal to or greater than 300 volts.
However, choosing a high voltage battery being equal to or greater than 300 volts, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As per Claim 14, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches,
further comprising a light condition sensor generating a light condition signal corresponding to a light condition at the vehicle, said controller programmed to charge the low voltage battery with a high voltage battery to when the light condition is below a light threshold (Saucke : “the control unit is designed such that when the SOC value of the low-voltage battery drops below a further threshold value of the DC / DC converter between high-voltage battery and low-voltage battery is controlled such that the high-voltage battery charges the low-voltage battery”, Page 4, 2nd para).
As per Claim 15, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein the controller is programmed to determine a charging rate for the low voltage battery and control charging of the low voltage battery at the charging rate ( Saucke : “the battery charging device has a measuring device for measuring one or more parameters of the plurality of high-voltage memory cell blocks, and control means for selectively switching the charging voltage supplied from the solar module to one or more of the cell blocks based on the one or more measured parameters load”, Page 3, 2nd paragraph).
As per Claim 16, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein the controller is programmed to determine the charging rate based on a state of health of the low voltage battery (Saucke : via “the control unit is designed such that when the SOC value of the low-voltage battery drops below a further threshold value of the DC / DC converter between high-voltage battery and low-voltage battery is controlled such that the high-voltage battery charges the low-voltage battery”, Page 4, 2nd paragraph).
As per Claim 17, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches,
wherein the controller is programmed to determine the charging rate based on a temperature of the low voltage battery ( Saucke : “the battery charging device has a measuring device for measuring one or more parameters of the plurality of high-voltage memory cell blocks, and control means for selectively switching the charging voltage supplied from the solar module to one or more of the cell blocks based on the one or more measured parameters load”, Page 3, 2nd paragraph).…And ( “The batteries are preferably Li-ion batteries. It should also be noted that at least one of the threshold values can be adjusted as a function of parameters such as detected solar irradiation, battery temperature and / or quiescent current consumption of the vehicle electrical system consumers”.(Page 5, 2nd para ).. and “By selecting the threshold values X1-X3 or the size of the rated capacity, it is possible to set how often reloading takes place between the two batteries. In this case, the threshold values X1-X3 can be parameterizable, i. These are for example dependent on battery temperature, quiescent current consumption and / or solar radiation.”(Page 7, 1st para).
As per Claim 18, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches,
wherein the controller is programmed to determine the charging rate comprises based on a state of charge of the low voltage battery (Saucke : “the control unit is designed such that when the SOC value of the low-voltage battery drops below a further threshold value of the DC / DC converter between high-voltage battery and low-voltage battery is controlled such that the high-voltage battery charges the low-voltage battery”, Page 4, 2nd para).
As per Claim 19, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick teaches, wherein determining the charging rate comprises determining the charging rate based on at least two of the state of charge of the battery, a temperature of the battery and a state of health of the battery of the low voltage battery (Saucke : “the battery charging device has a measuring device for measuring one or more parameters of the plurality of high-voltage memory cell blocks, and control means for selectively switching the charging voltage supplied from the solar module to one or more of the cell blocks based on the one or more measured parameters load”, Page 3, 2nd paragraph).…And ( “The batteries are preferably Li-ion batteries. It should also be noted that at least one of the threshold values can be adjusted as a function of parameters such as detected solar irradiation, battery temperature and / or quiescent current consumption of the vehicle electrical system consumers”.(Page 5, 2nd para ).. and
“By selecting the threshold values X1-X3 or the size of the rated capacity, it is possible to set how often reloading takes place between the two batteries. In this case, the threshold values X1-X3 can be parameterizable, i. These are for example dependent on battery temperature, quiescent current consumption and / or solar radiation.”(Page 7, 1st para), Ref. Claim 9).
10. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saucke et al. (DE-102015224842) in view of Veselic et al. (CN-1751426) in view of Kulnick et al. ( CN-105083168) and in view of Hao et al. ( CN-111452670).
As per Claim 10, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick does not explicitly teach, determining a switching signal based on the state of charge at a remote controller.
In a related field of Art , Hao teaches, a remote controller for electric vehicle charger, wherein, determining a switching signal based on the state of charge at a remote controller (via “remote vehicle controller or controller or module, which is communicatively connected to the traction motor and the battery pack. The vehicle controller is programmed to receive a voltage switching signal to change the output voltage of the battery system from a low (or high) voltage to a high (or low) voltage. when receiving the request”, Page 6, second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saucke ,Veselic, Kulnick and Hao before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the systems of Saucke , to include the teachings (remote controller) of Hao and configure with the system of Saucke in order to remote controller receiving a voltage switching signal to change the output voltage of the battery system from a low (or high) voltage to a high (or low) voltage.
As per Claim 20, Saucke as modified by Veselic and Kulnick teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Saucke in view of Veselic and Kulnick does not explicitly teach, wherein a remote controller determines a switching signal based on the state of charge and communicates the switching signal to the switch through a network.
In a related field of Art , Hao teaches, a remote controller for electric vehicle charger, wherein, determining a switching signal based on the state of charge at a remote controller (via “ remote vehicle controller or controller or module, which is communicatively connected to the traction motor and the battery pack. The vehicle controller is programmed to receive a voltage switching signal to change the output voltage of the battery system from a low (or high) voltage to a high (or low) voltage. when receiving the request”, Page 6, second paragraph).
And (“in FIG. 3 and described in further detail below may represent algorithm corresponding to the processor-executable instructions, the processor-executable instructions may be stored in the main memory, or auxiliary memory or remote memory, and for example, a vehicle or remote controller, a processing unit, control logic circuit or other module, device and/or device network execution, to perform any one or all of the functions associated with the disclosed concept or described below”, Page 21, 3rd para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Saucke , Veselic, Kulnick and Hao before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the systems of Saucke , to include the teachings (remote controller / network ) of Hao and configure with the system of Saucke in order to, via network receiving a voltage switching signal to change the output voltage of the battery system from a low (or high) voltage to a high (or low) voltage.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C