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 action is in response to the amendments filed on 05/19/2026, in which claims 1-17 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims to remove generic placeholders. Accordingly, the claims are no longer subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “move to a locate” should read “move to a location.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nett et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0410898 A1 (hereinafter Nett), in view of Nguyenquang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0380128 A1 (hereinafter Nguyenquang), and further in view of Morris, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0273133 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Nett teaches a conveyance system (Nett Fig. 5)
for connecting a conveyance vehicle to a trailer parked in a site of a delivery center and for moving by the conveyance vehicle the trailer either to a warehouse provided in the delivery center or to a parking lot of the delivery center, the conveyance system comprising (see at least Nett [0023]: “FIG. 1 is an aerial view showing one example autonomous yard 100 (e.g., a goods handling facility, shipping facility, etc.) that uses an autonomous tractor 104 to move trailers 106 between a staging area 130 and loading docks of a warehouse 110.”):
a memory storing one or more instructions; a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to (see at least Nett [0028]: “Memory 210 stores a plurality of software modules including machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor 208, cause the at least one processor 208 to implement functionality of tractor 104 as described herein to operate autonomously within autonomous yard 100 under direction from mission controller 102.”):
generate a travel plan of the target conveyance vehicle (see at least Nett [0033]: “Once this request is validated, mission controller 102 invokes a mission planner 103 (e.g., a software package) that computes a ‘mission plan’ (e.g., see mission plan 520, FIG. 5) for each tractor 104. For example, the mission plan is an ordered sequence of high level primitives to be followed by tractor 104, in order to move trailer 106 from location X to location Y. The mission plan may include primitives such as drive along a first route, couple with trailer 106 in parking location X, drive along a second route, back trailer 106 into a loading dock, and decouple from trailer 106.”),
the travel plan being used to execute conveyance of the trailer by the conveyance vehicle either from the parking lot to the warehouse or from the warehouse to the parking lot (see at least Nett [0033]: “For example, mission controller 102 may receive a request (e.g., via an API, and/or via a GUI used by a dispatch operator) to move trailer 106 from a first location (e.g., slot X in staging area 130) to a second location (e.g., loading dock Y in unloading area 140).”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a parking lot includes a staging area and a warehouse includes a loading dock);
and determine whether or not an extraneous vehicle is present in the site (see at least Nett [0049]: “In block 708, method 700 drives straight forward past the pick-up spot while scanning the pick-up spot to detect an obstacle and a 2-dimensional pose of the obstacle. In one example of block 708, controller 206 controls tractor 104 to drive straight past pick-up spot 660 while capturing point cloud 221, using LIDAR 220, corresponding to pick-up spot 660. Point cloud 221 is then processed to detect an object (assumed to be trailer 106) within pick-up spot 660, and to determine an angle, relative to pick-up spot 660, of trailer 106 based upon a front end of trailer 106 detected within point cloud 221. In certain embodiments, controller 206 also performs object classification to automatically determine that the detected object is trailer 106 and not another vehicle parked in the pick-up spot.”),
wherein the extraneous vehicle is subject to operation by a driver independently of the conveyance system, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to (see at least Nett [0049]: “In certain embodiments, controller 206 also performs object classification to automatically determine that the detected object is trailer 106 and not another vehicle parked in the pick-up spot.”; [0056]: “In block 732, method 700 requests help from a remote operator or remote device to evaluate the object. In one example of block 734, controller 206 sends a message, including the captured data (e.g., one or more of images and/or point cloud 221) defining the detected obstacle, to the remote operator or remote device and requesting clarification of the detected object…method 700 may cause tractor 104 to await manual assistance to remove the object and/or aborts the mission”):
and a driving controller to control movement of the conveyance vehicle based on the travel plan (see at least Nett [0033]: “Controller 206 may implement a function state machine 226 that controls operation of tractor 104 based upon commands (requests) received from mission controller 102.”)
Nett fails to expressly disclose generating the travel plan to avoid obstructing the traveling of the extraneous vehicle when the extraneous vehicle is present. However, Nguyenquang teaches
based on a determination that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generate the travel plan that requests the conveyance vehicle to move to a locate where the conveyance vehicle does not obstruct traveling of the extraneous vehicle (see at least Nguyenquang [0105]: “In addition, if the overlap determiner 118 determines that the portion within the determined length from the end point (point G) of the section travel route R11 in the entire travel route R10 of the AGV1 overlaps the reserved travel route of the AGV2, the entire travel-route setter 112 re-sets the entire travel route.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Nett with Nguyenquang with reasonable expectation of success. Nguyenquang is directed towards the related field of a conveyance system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nett with Nguyenquang to improve efficiency by reducing a loss of conveyance time (see at least Nguyenquang [0010]: “The purpose of the present disclosure is to provide a conveyance system and a conveying method that can reduce a loss of conveyance time in the entire course on which the automatic conveying device travels.”).
Nett in view of Nguyenquang fail to expressly discloses selecting a conveyance vehicle as a target conveyance vehicle from a plurality of conveyance vehicles recorded in a database of the conveyance system, based on operational state information of each of the plurality of conveyance vehicles. However, Morris teaches
select, the conveyance vehicle as a target conveyance vehicle from a plurality of conveyance vehicles recorded in a database of the conveyance system, based on operational state information of each of the plurality of conveyance vehicles, wherein the operational state information indicating whether a corresponding conveyance vehicle is under currently engaged in conveyance or an expected time when the conveyance will be completed (see at least Morris [0041]: “As shown in FIG. 2, the trailer assignment and prioritization system 200 includes, but is not limited to, a control unit 210 that exchanges data signals, for example, via network 16 of FIG. 1, with one or more of the geofence system 15, vehicle computer 50 and/or other electronic devices of the trailers 20, vehicles 22, autonomous towing vehicles 30, inventory system 60, scheduling system 65, requirements database 70, events database 80, trailer ID database 85, and one or more sensors 12, 14, 44 in order to manage the selection of trailers 20 and/or loading docks 112 for loading or unloading operations.”; [0052]: “Referring again to FIG. 1, the trailer assignment and prioritization system 200 may recognize from trailer information in the requirements database 70 that trailer 20A is on schedule and in compliance with a predetermined delivery date and therefore receives a ranking that permits the trailer 20 to be moved to a next available loading dock 112.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Nett in view of Nguyenquang with Morris with reasonable expectation of success. Morris is directed towards the related field of prioritizing the loading and unloading of trailers at a receiving facility. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nett in view of Nguyenquang with Morris to improve loading and unloading efficiency (see at least Morris [0003]: “Although scheduling systems are available for anticipating the arrival of delivery vehicles, events may arise that prevent the unloading of goods from trucks at the receiving location, for example, the lack of availability of a loading dock, inventory problems, unexpected problems at the distribution center. Other events may expedite the need to unload goods from a particular trailer, for example, an inaccurate replenishment forecast, an emergency, or time sensitivity with regard to freshness of perishable goods in a particular trailer. Such events may result in an insufficient number of loading docks to accommodate the delivery vehicles currently waiting to unload their contents. Delivery vehicles and their trailers typically attend any available loading dock on a static first-in/first-out (FIFO) basis without any consideration to factors, unexpected events, or the like. Therefore, bottlenecks may occur at a loading dock. Further, delivery vehicles and their trailers typically attend any available loading dock on a static first-in/first-out (FIFO) basis, without any consideration to factors, unexpected events, or demurrage charges.”).
Regarding claim 2, Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nguyenquang further teaches
based on the determination that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generate the travel plan instructing the conveyance vehicle to move to a standby place provided in the site and wait at the standby place (see at least Nguyenquang [0116]-[0117]: “The third avoiding method is a method of causing the control information set by the control information setter 116 to stop the automatic conveying device 3 at a predetermined position of the travel route. For example, as shown in FIG. 17, the avoidance information creator 120 sets the control information to stop the AGV1 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. Note that the avoidance information creator 120 may set the control information to stop the AGV2 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. As described above, the avoidance information creator 120 creates a plurality of different avoiding methods (avoidance information candidates). By having the automatic conveying device 3 perform traveling in the avoiding method, intersection of the AGV1 and the AGV2 at the intersection H can be avoided.”).
Regarding claim 3, Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nguyenquang further teaches
wherein based on the determination that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generate the travel plan instructing the conveyance vehicle to wait at a place provided in the site, the place being outside of a travel path of the extraneous vehicle (see at least Nguyenquang [0116]-[0117]: “The third avoiding method is a method of causing the control information set by the control information setter 116 to stop the automatic conveying device 3 at a predetermined position of the travel route. For example, as shown in FIG. 17, the avoidance information creator 120 sets the control information to stop the AGV1 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. Note that the avoidance information creator 120 may set the control information to stop the AGV2 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. As described above, the avoidance information creator 120 creates a plurality of different avoiding methods (avoidance information candidates). By having the automatic conveying device 3 perform traveling in the avoiding method, intersection of the AGV1 and the AGV2 at the intersection H can be avoided.”; Nguyenquang Fig. 17 shows the standby location for AGV1 is outside of travel route R20 for AGV2).
Regarding claim 4, Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nett teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
estimate an orbital path for the extraneous vehicle to trace by referring to either a position where the extraneous vehicle parks the trailer or a parking position of the trailer to be towed by the extraneous vehicle (see at least Nett [0026]: “At some later time, (e.g., when warehouse is ready to process the loaded trailer) mission controller 102 directs (e.g., commands or otherwise controls) tractor 104 to automatically couple (e.g., hitch) with trailer 106 at a pick-up spot in staging area 130 and move trailer 106 to a drop-off spot at an assigned unloading dock in unloading area 140 for example. Accordingly, tractor 104 couples with trailer 106 at the pick-up spot, moves trailer 106 to unloading area 140, and then backs trailer 106 into the assigned loading dock at the drop-off spot such that the rear of trailer 106 is positioned in close proximity with the portal and cargo doors of warehouse 110. The pick-up spot and drop-off spot may be any designated trailer parking location in staging area 130, any loading dock in unloading area 140, and any loading dock within loading area 150.”; [0033]: “The mission plan may include primitives such as drive along a first route, couple with trailer 106 in parking location X, drive along a second route, back trailer 106 into a loading dock, and decouple from trailer 106.”; an orbital path is a track for the vehicle to move along, as evidenced by instant application [0121]).
Regarding claim 5, Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 4 as explained above. Nguyenquang teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
based on the determination that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generate the travel plan instructing the conveyance vehicle to avoid entering the estimated path of the extraneous vehicle (see at least Nguyenquang [0116]-[0117]: “The third avoiding method is a method of causing the control information set by the control information setter 116 to stop the automatic conveying device 3 at a predetermined position of the travel route. For example, as shown in FIG. 17, the avoidance information creator 120 sets the control information to stop the AGV1 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. Note that the avoidance information creator 120 may set the control information to stop the AGV2 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. As described above, the avoidance information creator 120 creates a plurality of different avoiding methods (avoidance information candidates). By having the automatic conveying device 3 perform traveling in the avoiding method, intersection of the AGV1 and the AGV2 at the intersection H can be avoided.”).
Regarding claim 6, Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 4 as explained above. Nguyenquang teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
based on the determination that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generate the travel plan instructing the conveyance vehicle not to cross the estimated path of the extraneous vehicle to trace (see at least Nguyenquang [0116]-[0117]: “The third avoiding method is a method of causing the control information set by the control information setter 116 to stop the automatic conveying device 3 at a predetermined position of the travel route. For example, as shown in FIG. 17, the avoidance information creator 120 sets the control information to stop the AGV1 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. Note that the avoidance information creator 120 may set the control information to stop the AGV2 for a predetermined period of time (1 second, for example) before the intersection H. As described above, the avoidance information creator 120 creates a plurality of different avoiding methods (avoidance information candidates). By having the automatic conveying device 3 perform traveling in the avoiding method, intersection of the AGV1 and the AGV2 at the intersection H can be avoided.”).
Regarding claim 8, Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nett further teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to detect an obstacle around the conveyance vehicle by referring to sensor information acquired from at least one of an external sensor provided in the conveyance vehicle and a roadside sensor provided in the delivery center (see at least Nett [0030]: “Tractor 104 also includes a location unit 216 (e.g., a GPS receiver) that determines an absolute location and orientation of tractor 104, a plurality of cameras 218 for capturing images of objects around tractor 104, and at least one Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) device 220 (hereinafter LIDAR 220) for determining a point cloud about tractor 104.”; Nett teaches at least an external sensor provided in the conveyance vehicle),
wherein the driving controller is further configured to control the movement of the conveyance vehicle by referring to both the travel plan and a detection result based on the sensor information (see at least Nett [0033]: “Once this request is validated, mission controller 102 invokes a mission planner 103 (e.g., a software package) that computes a ‘mission plan’ (e.g., see mission plan 520, FIG. 5) for each tractor 104. For example, the mission plan is an ordered sequence of high level primitives to be followed by tractor 104, in order to move trailer 106 from location X to location Y. The mission plan may include primitives such as drive along a first route, couple with trailer 106 in parking location X, drive along a second route, back trailer 106 into a loading dock, and decouple from trailer 106.”; [0047]: “In one example of block 704, controller 206 performs, for pick-up spot 660, a freespace analysis that determines freespace 620 (e.g., maneuvering room) around pick-up spot 660 based upon known information (e.g., layout of autonomous yard 100 defining buildings, boundaries 621, and obstacles).”),
Nguyenquang further teaches
and wherein the driving controller, when the conveyance vehicle continues traveling by referring to the travel plan and when there is a risk of contact with the obstacle, executes control to avoid contact with the obstacle in preference to the travel plan (see at least Nguyenquang [0152]: “According to the above configuration, the entire travel route from the travel start position to the destination position is first assigned to a plurality of the automatic conveying devices 3 and causes each of the automatic conveying devices 3 to start traveling. Then, in the middle of the traveling of the automatic conveying device 3, occurrence of intersection in the near future is predicted at any time. Note that the conveyance system 10 may use real-time position information, travel status and the like of all the AGVs to predict presence/absence of occurrence of intersection between the AGVs. When occurrence of intersection is predicted, a plurality of avoidance information candidates are created, and an operation simulation is performed for all the automatic conveying devices 3 for each of the plurality of avoidance information candidates, and the reserved travel route with the shortest conveyance time is re-set.”).
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Nett further teaches
the conveyance vehicle comprising a driving controller to execute driving control by referring to a travel plan generated by a travel plan generator included in the conveyance system (see at least Nett [0041]: “Maneuvering module 240 includes a mission executor 504 and a motion planner 506. Mission executor 504 may receive, from mission planner 103 running in mission controller 102, a mission plan 520 that defines an ordered list of mission segments, where each mission segment is a high-level primitive defining at least one activity to be performed by tractor 104. Mission executor 504 executes mission plan 520 by coordinating operation of one or more components of tractor 104.”).
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a method performed by the conveyance system of claim 1. The combination of Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris also teaches a method performed by the system of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris, and further in view of Taira et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0381661 A1 (hereinafter Taira).
Regarding claim 7, Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 4 as explained above. Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris fail to expressly disclose generating a travel plan for the conveyance vehicle to follow or precede the extraneous vehicle on the estimated path for the extraneous vehicle. However, Taira teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
based on the determination that the extraneous vehicle is present in the site, generate the travel plan instructing the conveyance vehicle to follow or precede the extraneous vehicle on the estimated path of the extraneous vehicle to trace (see at least Taira [0050]-[0052]: “The overtaking determination unit 201 determines, when the control unit 200 recognizes that preceding moving robot 101 is moving in the same direction as that of the own moving robot (the moving robot 102) at a speed lower than that of the own moving robot on the movement path where the own moving robot plans to move, whether to overtake the moving robot 101…When the overtaking is abandoned, the control unit 200 controls the carriage drive unit 210 so that the own moving robot reduces the speed thereof and follows the moving robot 101 along the original movement path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris with the generated travel plan taught by Taira with reasonable expectation of success. Taira is directed towards the related field of a control program for autonomous moving bodies. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris with Taira to improve operation efficiency (see at least Taira [0005]: “The present disclosure has been made to solve such a problem and provides an autonomous moving body and a control program therefor capable of properly overtaking a preceding autonomous moving body and efficiently executing a given task, without these autonomous moving bodies being controlled under a single system, or without these autonomous moving bodies communicating with each other.”).
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a system similar to the system of claim 8, with a dependence on claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris, and further in view of Kawase et al., U.S. Patent No. 12296842 B2 (hereinafter Kawase).
Regarding claim 17, Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris teach all elements of the conveyance system according to claim 1 as explained above. Morris teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
determine whether or not the extraneous vehicle is present in the site based on at least one of a first determination result based on data provided from roadside sensors and an external sensor of the conveyance vehicle, or a second determination result based on a pre-specified time period during which the extraneous vehicle are identified as frequently entering or exiting the site (see at least Morris [0068]: “For example, the sensor interface 220 may receive data from a sensor 14 in the yard 17 regarding the presence of a trailer 20 allocated to a loading dock 112.”; [0038]: “In addition to the abovementioned sensors 12 at the loading docks 112, in some embodiments, an array of sensors 14 are arranged in the yard 17, trailers 20, vehicles 22, autonomous towing vehicles 30, and distribution center 110 for collecting data that is received and processed by the trailer assignment and prioritization system 200 to perform operations related to an assignment of one of a trailer 20 and a loading dock 112 to the other of the trailer 20 and loading dock 112.”; Morris teaches at least a first determination result based on data provided from roadside sensors and an external sensor of the conveyance vehicle)
Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris fail to expressly disclose prioritizing the first determination result over the second determination result when both the first determination result and the second determination result are available. However, Kawase teaches
and prioritize the first determination result over the second determination result when both the first determination result and the second determination result are available (see at least Kawase claim 1: “wherein the processor is further configured to prioritize the biological information of the driver of the adjustment-target vehicle acquired by the sensor over the degree of crowdedness information of the two or more rest facilities in the adjustment process”; under broadest reasonable interpretation Kawase teaches prioritizing the first determination result over the second determination result when both the first determination result and the second determination result are available because the sensor data is prioritized over crowdedness information (i.e., pre-specified time period during which vehicles are identified as frequently entering or exiting the site)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris with the prioritization taught by Kawase with reasonable expectation of success. Kawase is directed towards the related field of an operation management system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nett in view of Nguyenquang and Morris with Kawase to improve accuracy and reliability in determining vehicle presence (see at least Kawase Col. 1, lines 58-63: “In one aspect of the present disclosure, the two or more rest facilities may be rest facilities provided along an expressway. Such a configuration makes it possible to present a more reliable rest point because, for example, more accurate degree of congestion in the rest facilities can be obtained from the company managing the expressway.”).
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 ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights