DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on December 22, 2025. Claims 4, 8, 9, 10 and 13 have been amended. Claim 18 has been cancelled. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are now pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office 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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1: Applicant claims determining, by the processor device, a state of charge target (SOC target) below 100% for said batteries, however this limitation is incomplete as to what the controlling factor of this determination step is. A search of Applicant disclosure does not appear to provide any specific clarity as to what the target SOC is meant to accomplish.
Most specifically, this appears to be a typographical error, and as best understood, should read:
determining, by the processor device, a state of charge target (SOC target) that is below 100% for said batteries
or
determining, by the processor device, a state of charge target (SOC target) is below 100% for said batteries
Because these two interpretations have entirely different meanings (i.e. “determining a SOC target that is a SOC value below 100%” vs. “determining whether or not the SOC of the charge target is below 100%”) the metes and bounds of this determination step are unclear and indefinite. Corrective action is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gesang et al. (US 20220097676 A1) herein Gesang in view of Hoffmann (US 20200086875 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Gesang discloses the following:
1. A computer-implemented method of brake management in an electric or hybrid
electric heavy-duty vehicle (see [0007] “hybrid heavy duty trucks”) that has batteries which are configured to absorb energy from regenerative braking, (see [0007] “regenerative braking of a driving motor to charge the battery pack”) the method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor device of a computer system, topographic data containing information about the topography of an upcoming part of a road along which the heavy-duty vehicle is currently travelling, the topographic data including information about an upcoming downhill slope, (see [0110] “inferred from vehicle location and onboard 3D map that a large slope with the slope of the slope road section smaller than the predefined first longitudinal slope threshold (for example, the slope is smaller than 2.0°) and the length of the slope road section larger than the predefined first length threshold (for example, the length is larger than 10 km) will be encountered ahead”)
As best understood, Gesang discloses the following:
determining, by the processor device, a state of charge target (SOC target) below 100% for said batteries, (see Fig. 3 and [0114] “When the remaining electric energy of the battery pack is sufficient to drive the vehicle to the top of slope, the VCU commands the generator set to reduce to zero output in advance, uses up the electric energy in the battery pack basically where the vehicle runs downhill, and then quickly charges the battery pack through regenerative braking”)
Gesang discloses the following:
determining, by the processor device, based on the obtained topographic data, a total brake power required for maintaining the speed of the heavy-duty vehicle at or below a selected speed limit of the heavy-duty vehicle throughout the travel in the downhill slope, (see at least [0020] “maximum statutory speed limit is 90 km/h, major highways in China are often jammed, and the average speed of the heavy duty trucks in the road logistics industry is about 60 km/h”, and [0023] “deceleration power (also known as braking power) required for braking is directly proportional to the total mass, speed and deceleration of the vehicle. When the vehicle is running at the speed of 60 km/h”)
the determined total brake power being in the form of at least one of regenerative braking, auxiliary braking and service braking of the heavy-duty vehicle, (see at least [0023] “peak regenerative braking power of hybrid vehicles to recover energy by regenerative braking is basically below 500 kW. However, the part of energy with braking power higher than 500 kW cannot be converted into electric energy for recovery by regenerative braking, so this part of vehicle kinetic energy can only be converted into heat energy by mechanical braking”)
and controlling, by the processor device, the speed of the heavy-duty vehicle when travelling in said downhill slope, by applying said determined total brake power (see at least [0023] “deceleration power (also known as braking power) required for braking is directly proportional to the total mass, speed and deceleration of the vehicle. When the vehicle is running at the speed of 60 km/h”)
Gesang suggests, but Hoffmann more explicitly teaches the following:
such that the state of charge of the batteries remains below or equal to said SOC target throughout the travel in the downhill slope. (see Fig. 3 and [0038] “regenerative braking power 22a of the braking system 10 of FIG. 2 as a function of pedal displacement 21 for different states of charge (SOC) 5 of the traction battery 6” wherein zero regenerative braking results from 100% traction battery charge.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hoffmann with the invention of Gesang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions and/or to meet the regulations on greenhouse gases imposed in Europe, North America and China (Gesang, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of employing recuperative and/or regenerative braking techniques to utilize a maximum amount of kinetic energy of the vehicle to recharge a traction battery. (Hoffmann, [0002])
In regards to Claim 2, Gesang discloses the following:
2. The computer system comprising the processor device configured to perform the method of claim 1. (see Fig. 1, [0031] and [0081])
In regards to Claim 4, Gesang discloses the following:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the processor device, a brake power distribution of said total brake power to be applied, (see [023] “deceleration power”) said determined brake power distribution being a mixture of simultaneous: regenerative braking and auxiliary braking, regenerative braking and service braking, auxiliary braking and service braking, or -regenerative braking, auxiliary braking and service braking, (see at least [0034]-[0036] “regenerative braking power” and [0038] “The third port of the ePSD can be connected to at least one power type battery pack bidirectionally and electrically, the rated voltage of each battery pack V.sub.bat<V.sub.bus0, and the third port can also be connected with a 100 kW brake resistor R.sub.bk (may be equipped with a radiator) unidirectionally and electrically as the effective electric load when the ACE heavy duty truck runs on a long-downhill path”)
wherein said controlling of the speed by applying said determined total brake power,
comprises: applying said determined total brake power in the form of said determined brake power distribution. (see previous citations)
In regards to Claim 5, Gesang discloses the following:
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising: determining, by the processor device, based on the obtained topographic data, a maximum energy that is recoverable through regenerative braking throughout the travel in the downhill slope without exceeding said SOC target and without exceeding said speed limit, and determining, by the processor device, said brake power distribution based on said determined maximum energy. (see at least previous citations, see also [0023] “vehicle kinetic equation”)
In regards to Claim 8, Gesang discloses the following:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein said topographic data comprises information about the grade of the downhill slope, (see at least [0027] “longitudinal slope”) the method further comprising: determining, by the processor device, the total weight of the heavy-duty vehicle, including the weight of any trailing vehicle part, (see at least [0018]-[0019] “M is the gross vehicle mass (kg)”, [0023] “deceleration power (also known as braking power) required for braking is directly proportional to the total mass” and [0105] “the discrete variable of gross vehicle weight (tractor and trailer)”) wherein said act of determining the total brake power required for maintaining the speed of the heavy-duty vehicle at or below the selected speed limit, comprises determining the total brake power based on the determined total weight and the grade of the downhill slope. (see previous citations)
In regards to Claim 9, Gesang discloses the following:
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining, by the processor device, said maximum energy based on the determined total weight and grade of the downhill slope. (see at least previous citations, see also [0023] “vehicle kinetic equation”)
In regards to Claim 11, Gesang discloses the following:
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the processor device, a combined brake power deliverable from regenerative braking and auxiliary braking without exceeding said SoC target, (see at least previous citations, see also [0023] “vehicle kinetic equation”) and upon determination that said deliverable combined brake power is insufficient to maintain said selected speed limit throughout the travel in the downhill slope, controlling, by the processor device, service brakes of the heavy-duty vehicle to provide additional brake power so as to maintain the speed at or below said selected speed limit throughout the travel in the downhill slope. (see at least [0038] “the third port can also be connected with a 100 kW brake resistor R.sub.bk (may be equipped with a radiator) unidirectionally and electrically as the effective electric load when the ACE heavy duty truck runs on a long-downhill path, the driving motor realizes the retarder function through regenerative braking, and the battery pack is fully charged (SOC=100%).”)
In regards to Claim 13, Gesang discloses the following:
13. The method of claim 1, wherein said topographic data comprises information about the length of the downhill slope, the method further comprising: determining, by the processor device, said brake power distribution based on the length of the downhill slope. (see at least [0110] “length of the slope road section”)
In regards to Claim 14, Gesang discloses the following:
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising: determining, by the processor device, said maximum energy based on the length of the downhill slope. (see at least [0110] “length of the slope road section”)
In regards to Claim 15, Gesang discloses the following:
15. The method of claim 1, wherein said auxiliary braking is performed by the processor device activating a mechanical retarder and/or an electric brake resistor of the heavy-duty vehicle. (see at least [0127] “When the battery packs 130a and 130b are fully charged (SoC is 100%), the soft switch 133 is switched to the brake resistor 131”)
In regards to Claim 16, Gesang discloses the following:
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the topographic data is obtained from a Geographic Information System (GIS). (see at least [0011] “3D e-map”, [0117] “map unit 240” and [0132] “The VCU considers the situation in real time according to the three-dimensional map electronic horizon of the whole journey road”)
In regards to Claim 17, Gesang discloses the following:
17. A vehicle comprising the processor device to perform the method of claim 1. (see at least previous citations)
In regards to Claim 19, Gesang discloses the following:
19. A control system comprising one or more control units configured to perform the method according to claim 1. (see at least previous citations)
In regards to Claim 20, Gesang discloses the following:
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device, cause the processor device to perform the method of claim 1. (see at least previous citations)
Claims 3, 6-7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gesang in view of Hoffmann, and further in view of Marchal (US 20160082860 A1).
In regards to Claim 3, Gesang (see [0129] “water tank fan” and (claim 7 “brake resistor is configured for converting regenerative electric energy into heat energy to be dissipated”) suggests, but Marchal more explicitly teaches the following:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the heavy-duty vehicle comprises a cooling system for cooling said batteries and/or power electronics of the vehicle, (see at least [0006] “In order to manage the thermal properties of a battery, the current prior art solutions consist of using temperature thresholds… for the triggering and stopping of the cooling/heating”) the method further comprising:
determining, by the processor device, a threshold temperature of a coolant of the
cooling system, (see at least [0101] “trigger threshold temperature” and [0104] “T.sub.coolant designates the temperature of the cooling fluid”)
Gesang, as modified by Marchal, discloses the following:
and controlling, by the processor device, the speed of the heavy-duty vehicle when travelling in said downhill slope, by applying said determined total brake power such that the temperature of the coolant remains below or equal to said threshold temperature throughout the travel in the downhill slope. (see [0023] “deceleration power” and [0107] “predictive power control”, see also Marchal, [0013] “comparing the value of a real gradient ((dT/dSOC)_real) of the temperature of the battery to a reference gradient ((dT/dSOC)_target) of the temperature of the battery;”, [0014] “modifying, depending on the result of the step of comparison” and [0015] “the temperature value (Ts) at which the cooling or the heating of the battery is triggered”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Marchal with the invention of Gesang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions and/or to meet the regulations on greenhouse gases imposed in Europe, North America and China (Gesang, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of extending battery service life, which is reduced by overheating. (Marchal, [0006])
In regards to Claim 6, Gesang discloses the following:
6. The method of claim 4 , the further comprising: receiving, by the processor device, ambient temperature data containing information about the ambient temperature (see at least [0106] “ambient temperature T”)
Although suggested by Gesang (see above), Marchal more explicitly teaches the following:
and coolant temperature data containing information about the temperature of the coolant in the cooling system, (see at least [0101] “trigger threshold temperature” and [0104] “T.sub.coolant designates the temperature of the cooling fluid”) and
Gesang, as modified by Marchal, discloses the following:
determining, by the processor device, said brake power distribution based on said received ambient temperature data and coolant temperature data. (see at least [0048] “VCU of the vehicle modifies the default fuel saving scheme in real time according to the real-time road conditions” and [0106] “ambient temperature T”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Marchal with the invention of Gesang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions and/or to meet the regulations on greenhouse gases imposed in Europe, North America and China (Gesang, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of extending battery service life, which is reduced by overheating. (Marchal, [0006])
In regards to Claim 7, Gesang is silent but Marchal more explicitly teaches the following:
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: determining, by the processor device, the heat capacity of the coolant, and determining, by the processor device, said brake power distribution based on said determined heat capacity. (see at least [0038]-[0039] “term Kp”, understood to be the heat transfer coefficient of the coolant.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Marchal with the invention of Gesang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions and/or to meet the regulations on greenhouse gases imposed in Europe, North America and China (Gesang, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of extending battery service life, which is reduced by overheating. (Marchal, [0006])
In regards to Claim 12, Gesang is silent but Marchal more explicitly teaches the following:
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining, by the processor device, an aggregated brake power deliverable from regenerative braking and auxiliary braking without exceeding said threshold temperature of the coolant, and upon determination that said deliverable aggregated brake power is insufficient to maintain said selected speed limit throughout the travel in the downhill slope, controlling, by the processor device, service brakes of the heavy-duty vehicle to provide additional brake power so as to maintain the speed at or below said selected speed limit throughout the travel in the downhill slope. (see [0023] “deceleration power” and [0107] “predictive power control”, see also Marchal, [0013] “comparing the value of a real gradient ((dT/dSOC)_real) of the temperature of the battery to a reference gradient ((dT/dSOC)_target) of the temperature of the battery;”, [0014] “modifying, depending on the result of the step of comparison” and [0015] “the temperature value (Ts) at which the cooling or the heating of the battery is triggered”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Marchal with the invention of Gesang, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions and/or to meet the regulations on greenhouse gases imposed in Europe, North America and China (Gesang, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of extending battery service life, which is reduced by overheating. (Marchal, [0006])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The best art available does not teach or suggest the equation of claim 10 where k is a combined efficiency coefficient which is based on the efficiencies of components including a rear-axle, gearbox, electric machine, inverter and batteries. Therefore claim 10 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments made in accordance with objections made to claim 4 are accepted, and persuasive. The objections to claim 4 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 8-10 and 13 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 8-10 and 13 are withdrawn.
However, the arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claim 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive, and has therefore been maintained. There remains ambiguity with the metes and bounds of the cited claim language, as expounded upon in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection detailed above. See the above rejection for details.
Applicant’s cancelling of claim 18 also removes the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, and rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to arguments on page 11 of arguments that Gesang fails to explicitly teach the feature such that the state of charge of the batteries remains below or equal to said SOCtarget throughout travel in the downhill slope, the examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that this limitation was cited to Hoffmann, not Gesang. The Office respectfully reminds the applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to arguments on pages 11-12 of arguments that Gesang “teaches away” from the limitation such that the state of charge of the batteries remains below or equal to said SOCtarget throughout travel in the downhill slope, because “the goal in Gesang is for the battery to become fully charged (SOC = 100%)”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an important preliminary matter, it should be noted that the metes and bounds of the SOCtarget (of which Applicant argument relies) is considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 1, as outlined above. A plurality of interpretations exist, as outlined above.
Next, MPEP § 2141.02, VI. states a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, the cited reference Gesang does not “teach away” from the claimed invention, because Gesang does not explicitly criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution of raising SOCtarget to a value below 100%. This would, in fact, be counter to the realistic operation of a hybrid recharging system where a vehicle would regularly and routinely encounter downhill sections of road that do not fully charge the batteries to 100%. Applicant is essentially saying that the vehicle of Gesang would never charge their batteries in any downhill section unless the charging results in a 100% charge, which is neither realistic, nor present in Gesang.
Applicant further argues that Gesang does not provide any discussion regarding the negative effects of fully charging the battery pack to 100%, and therefore could not be modified to include a value below 100%. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to argue “teaching away” or “motivation to combine”. If Applicant intends for this to be further evidence of “teaching away”, the Examiner again respectfully disagrees because, again, Gesang does not explicitly criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution of raising SOCtarget to a value below 100% simply because the goal in Gesang is to use the full safe range of the battery charge level. If applicant’s argument is that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation can be found in both references, e.g. the motivation of reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions and/or to meet the regulations on greenhouse gases imposed in Europe, North America and China (Gesang, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of employing recuperative and/or regenerative braking techniques to utilize a maximum amount of kinetic energy of the vehicle to recharge a traction battery. (Hoffmann, [0002]) Both of these motivations apply if the battery is able to be charged to 100% or a value less than 100%, as alleged to be the metes and bounds of the SOCtarget. As Applicant has not provided any specific arguments against the provided motivation to combine, this argument is not persuasive.
In response to arguments on pages 11-12 of arguments that Hoffmann teaches that the idea is to prevent the use of regenerative braking when the battery is fully charged, but there is no limitation to stop regenerating when a SOC target below 100% has been reached, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the metes and bounds of the SOCtarget (of which Applicant argument relies) is considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 1, as outlined above.
Examiner Note
It is noted that Applicant has clearly interpreted (or at least intended for) a different interpretation of the metes and bounds of the SOCtarget that is different than the metes and bounds of the SOCtarget as interpreted by the Examiner. While the citations below neither eliminate the finality of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of the term outlined above nor eliminate the finality of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection made in view of the interpretation made by the Examiner, for the sake of compact prosecution and customer service, the Examiner has refreshed searches and provides the following new art in the alternative that may more explicitly teach the limitations of the SOCtarget, as interpreted by the Applicant. This art includes:
Gesang et al. (US 20230303052 A1), herein Gesang ‘052, from the same Inventor as previously cited, that teaches a long-haul freight vehicle with a mixed hybrid powertrain (Abstract) that generates a non-friction brake resistor retarder function when the battery pack is basically fully charged (SoC reaches URL) during a long-downhill path (see [0064], and further defines the upper red line (URL) of its state of charge (SoC) of the power-type cell is generally between 80% and 90%. (see [0175]) This is in order “to guarantee a standard performance and achieve an ultra-long cycle life of the power-type battery pack” (see [0175]).
Ling et al. (US 20200031357 A1), herein Ling, that teaches a hill descent system for a vehicle (abstract) comprising motors 3 used as generators to generate electricity to be stored in power battery 5 during a hill descent (see [0020]) only when the state of charge (SOC) of the power battery 5 is less than 95%. (see [0043]) This is noted to improve the energy recovery efficiency of the vehicle and the mileage of the vehicle (see [0020])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
March 14, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669