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 12, 2025. Claims 7 and 13-15 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-21 are now pending, wherein claims 1-6 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 7-19 and 21 have been examined. 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 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.
Claim 21 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 21, Applicant claims:
21. The method of Claim 15, wherein the effective mechanical relationship between the autonomous electric vehicle and the tractor is asymmetric between a braking regime and an acceleration regime.
There does not appear to be explicit support for the claimed connection between when the autonomous electric vehicle and the tractor is asymmetric between a braking regime and an acceleration regime being considered an effective mechanical relationship, as claimed in claim 21.
Applicant disclosure reads as follows, with pertinent passages underlined:
[0056] The admittance controller can include a command model which functions to establish an effective mechanical impedance relationship (e.g., controller imposed synthetic dynamics) at the front vehicle coupling of the vehicle model (e.g., an example is shown in FIG. 6B). The command model can be integrated into the vehicle model (e.g., integrated with a dynamic vehicle model), separate from the vehicle model, and/or otherwise implemented within the admittance controller. In variants, the command model can implement nonphysical (synthetic) nonlinearities within the effective mechanical impedance relationship to improve the behavioral response and/or sensitivity of the vehicle system in various operating regimes (e.g., braking, coasting, accelerating). More preferably, the command model can implement asymmetric impedance between the braking and accelerating regimes of operation (e.g., where braking is more responsive than acceleration, for example), such as by treating the vehicle mass asymmetrically between the two regimes (e.g., the command model can asymmetrically model the vehicle mass between braking and acceleration, such as by treating the vehicle mass as heavier within the braking regime).
While the two individual limitations are supported individually within Applicant disclosure as underlined above, there does not appear to be a positively recited connection between an “effective mechanical relationship” and an “asymmetric between a braking regime and an acceleration regimes”, as claimed. Claim 21 is therefore not fully supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, and is considered new matter. Corrective action is required.
In order to overcome the new matter rejections above, the Examiner requires applicant to cancel or remove the cited new matter, or to traverse this rejection with a detailed explanation of their position, including paragraph citations and/or drawing figures of how the cited limitations are fully supported by applicant‘s original disclosure.
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 7-19 and 21 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 7 and 21: Applicant claims
7. A method… wherein the autonomous controller is an admittance controller configured to, using the vehicle command, establish an effective mechanical relationship between the autonomous electric vehicle and the tractor;
And
21. (NEW) The method of Claim 15, wherein the effective mechanical relationship between the autonomous electric vehicle and the tractor is asymmetric between a braking regime and an acceleration regime.
However, the term effective mechanical relationship of claims 7 and 21 is subjective and indefinite in absence of Applicant disclosure as to what the metes and bounds of what is considered “effective”. As detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above, Applicant [0056] provides support for both: 1) establishing an effective mechanical impedance relationship and 2) implementing asymmetric impedance between the braking and accelerating regimes of operation. However:
There is no clear link that an asymmetric [relationship] is an effective mechanical relationship (per the in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above)
Even in arguendo, Applicant disclosure does not provide any meaningful metes and bounds as to how an asymmetric relationship is an effective mechanical relationship. Effective for what? Effective measured how? Effective for which operating regimes? One of ordinary skill would not be able to clearly establish the metes and bounds of what is claimed.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed 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 7-8, 12, 14 and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield et al. (US 20220041069 A1), herein Layfield, in view of de Lange et al. (US 20210138639 A1) herein de Lange.
In regards to Claim 7, Layfield discloses the following:
7. A method for a combination roadway vehicle, (see at least Fig. 1) the combination roadway vehicle comprising an autonomous electric vehicle coupled to a tractor at a fifth wheel coupling, (see at least Fig. 1 and Fig 2a and [0053] “a towing vehicle 13, such as a tractor, cab or truck that pulls a pair of trailers 12 (seen as a primary or first trailer 12a and a secondary or second trailer 12b) that are connected to each other via an active convertor dolly apparatus 14” and [0058] “coupling plate 15, commonly referred to as a fifth wheel coupling”) the method comprising:
based on integrated, multi-axis force measurements at the fifth wheel coupling, determining a vehicle state estimate for the autonomous electric vehicle, the vehicle state estimate comprising a longitudinal force estimate; (see at least [0083] “force sensors 80 such as strain gauges are incorporated into the pintle hook or hitch 26 forming the first trailer connector assembly 7. These force sensors 80 are configured to detect compression and tension in the hitch 26, corresponding generally to braking (deceleration) and acceleration of the tractor-trailer 10” and “some embodiments may use two additional force sensors 80 on left and right sides of the converter dolly's pintle hook or hitch 26 to measure the force vector acting on the electric converter dolly 14. The force vector will provide left or right direction vector information in addition to knowing whether the converter dolly is being “pulled” or “pushed”.”)
Layfield discloses strain gauges incorporated (i.e. integrated, claimed) into a fifth wheel coupling that provide a longitudinal force estimate. Layfield further discloses obtaining left or right direction information in addition to longitudinal force information, and therefore also includes multi-axis measurements, as claimed.
with a model of an autonomous controller, determining a vehicle command based on the vehicle state, (see at least [0020] “based on the driving session data, a trained machine learning algorithm for controlling a motor-generator of the hybrid vehicle to optimize fuel efficiency by a first driver traveling along a first route” and [0131] “the algorithm 2130 may instruct the motor-generators to apply large amounts of torque on the uphill portions, even if it means draining the SOC of the batteries, based on the prediction that regenerative braking will soon recharge the SOC of the batteries on the downhill portions following the uphill portions.”)
Applicant disclosure provides a plurality of examples of autonomous behavior to include automatic regenerative braking. (applicant disclosure, [0051]) Layfield discloses a controller performing regenerative braking automatically, and is therefore considered to disclose the limitation of an autonomous controller, as claimed.
Further, Applicant disclosure does not provide a special definition for the claimed model, and therefore the plain meaning is used: a simplified representation of something real or abstract, used for a specific purpose. Layfield discloses a trained machine learning algorithm that projects/predicts a future recharge downhill portion on a traveled route, and controls motor-generators accordingly. This is considered a simplified representation of the route, and is therefore considered to disclose the model, as claimed.
As best understood, Layfield does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the autonomous controller is an admittance controller configured to, using the vehicle command, establish an effective mechanical relationship between the autonomous electric vehicle and the tractor;
However, Layfield discloses an autonomous controller (see at least [0131]) configured to, using the vehicle command, establish an effective mechanical relationship between the autonomous electric vehicle and the tractor. (see at least [0076] “The motor-generators 36 are used to convert the electric energy stored in the energy-storing device 32 to mechanical energy by applying a motive rotational force to the wheels 22 thereby rotating the wheels 22 (drive mode), or to convert mechanical energy from the rotating wheels 22 into electric power (generator mode) by applying a regenerative braking force to the wheels 22 thereby braking or effecting deceleration of the wheels 22”, considered effective in view of [0124]-[0129] “optimizing fuel efficiency”)
Layfield does not disclose or suggest an admittance controller. However, admittance controllers are known in the art at least as taught by de Lange. (See at least abstract “first and the second admittance control and actuator assembly”, [0005] “coupling device (16, 116, 216, 316) configured optimally to communicate between a first and a second admittance controller and actuator assembly”, [0023] “robust coupling mechanism is proposed which is based on the Lagrange multiplier method from multi-body dynamics. This is then further extended by enhancing the Lagrange multipliers with additional terms, which allows for simulation of specialized coupling behavior where the coupling force might be force dependent, and/or further dependent on position and/or velocity.”)
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 de Lange with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of coupling two remote control systems to enable use of one of the systems to accurately drive the other system, by use of a model follower controller having a simulated mass representative of the sum of the masses manipulated by both the remote control systems. (de Lange, [0002])
Layfield discloses the following:
and controlling a set of actuators of the autonomous electric vehicle based on the vehicle command. (see at least [0131] “the algorithm 2130 may instruct the motor-generators to apply large amounts of torque on the uphill portions, even if it means draining the SOC of the batteries, based on the prediction that regenerative braking will soon recharge the SOC of the batteries on the downhill portions following the uphill portions.”)
In regards to Claim 8, Layfield discloses the following:
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the set of actuators comprises a traction motor, (see at least Fig. 2b and [0076], “one or more electric motor-generators 36”) wherein the vehicle command comprises a torque command for the traction motor. (see at least [0083] “regenerative braking mode”)
In regards to Claim 12, Layfield discloses the following:
12. The method of claim 7, wherein the autonomous controller is configured to dynamically estimate road grade, (see at least [0100] “The intelligent controller 502 is also connected to a database 510 including road grade information 512 which can be stored within a database or based on sensor information, or real time road information by connecting the dolly intelligent controller 502 to wireless network.”) wherein the vehicle command is determined based on the road grade. (see at least [0180] “the active dolly may operate to assist in fulfilling a power demand (acceleration, grade ability and maximum, or highest, cruising speed) of the tractor-trailer 10”)
In regards to Claim 14, Layfield discloses the following:
14. The method of claim 7, wherein the vehicle state estimate comprises a trajectory, wherein the trajectory comprises vehicle state parameters changing as a function of time. (see at least previous citations, most specifically [0083] “force vector will provide left or right direction vector information in addition to knowing whether the converter dolly is being “pulled” or “pushed”.” and [0100], [0107] “real-time information”)
In regards to Claim 16, Layfield discloses the following:
16. The method of claim 7, wherein the autonomous controller comprises a nonlinear control scheme. (see at least Fig. 7 “motive rotational force vs. throttle” that appears to be substantially non-linear in a plurality of situations, and Fig. 8 “regenerative and friction brake motive rotational force blending” that also appears to be substantially non-linear.)
In regards to Claim 17, Layfield discloses the following:
17. The method of claim 7, wherein the model is predetermined based on a target vehicle control behavior. (see at least [0128] “The server 2114 combines this driving session data 2120 with data on other driving sessions. It then uses this corpus of data from multiple driving sessions to generate one or more algorithms 2130 for optimizing fuel efficiency based on at least some of the known variables. In a relatively simple example embodiment, the variables taken into account are limited to the route and the driver. However, other embodiments may create custom algorithms that take into account other variables such as vehicle and cargo load information, road condition information, and so on.”, see also [0133] “Before the dolly 14 is deployed… the fuel efficiency optimization module 2102 downloads from the remote server 2114 the instructions, in the form of a generated algorithm 2130 corresponding to the driver, route, and/or other variables applicable to the new driving session.”)
In regards to Claim 18, Layfield discloses the following:
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the model comprises a deterministic function. (see at least [0128] “The server 2114 combines this driving session data 2120 with data on other driving sessions. It then uses this corpus of data from multiple driving sessions to generate one or more algorithms 2130 for optimizing fuel efficiency based on at least some of the known variables. In a relatively simple example embodiment, the variables taken into account are limited to the route and the driver. However, other embodiments may create custom algorithms that take into account other variables such as vehicle and cargo load information, road condition information, and so on.”, see also [0133] “Before the dolly 14 is deployed… the fuel efficiency optimization module 2102 downloads from the remote server 2114 the instructions, in the form of a generated algorithm 2130 corresponding to the driver, route, and/or other variables applicable to the new driving session.”)
In regards to Claim 19, Layfield discloses the following:
19. The method of claim 18, herein the deterministic function is predetermined based on the target vehicle control behavior under multivariate operational parameters. (see at least [0133] “Before the dolly 14 is deployed… the fuel efficiency optimization module 2102 downloads from the remote server 2114 the instructions, in the form of a generated algorithm 2130 corresponding to the driver, route, and/or other variables applicable to the new driving session.”)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield in view of de Lange, as applied, in further view of Schutt et al. (US 20190225286 A1) herein Schutt.
In regards to Claim 9, Layfield does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Schutt:
9. The method of claim 7, wherein the fifth wheel coupling comprises a kingpin integrated with a multi-axis instrument stage comprising a first sensor aligned with a longitudinal vehicle axis of the autonomous electric vehicle. (see at least [0002] “a kingpin assembly for use within a fifth wheel hitch assembly” and [0004] “a kingpin assembly that includes… a sensor arrangement configured to sense a first force exerted on the kingpin in a first direction that is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and a second force exerted on the kingpin in a second direction that extends in a substantially lateral direction, wherein the first direction extends in a substantially longitudinal direction.”)
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 Schutt with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of calculating loads exerted on the kingpin 50a, allowing for dynamic control of vehicle braking, vehicle roll, engine and transmission control, and aerodynamic measurements and minimization. (Schutt, [0039])
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield in view of de Lange and Schutt, as applied, and in further view of Bradford et al. (US 20170211999 A1) herein Bradford.
In regards to Claim 10, Layfield does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Bradford:
10. The method of claim 9, wherein determining the vehicle state estimate comprises fusing measurements from the first sensor with a set of orthogonal signals from the multi-axis instrument stage. (see at least Fig. 8, steps 104, 106)
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 Bradford with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of maintaining safety by being able to accurately measure and report applied loads at all times. (Bradford, [0006])
In regards to Claim 11, Layfield does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Bradford:
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising: filtering noise in the longitudinal force estimate based on the set of orthogonal signals. (see at least Fig. 8, step 114)
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 Bradford with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of maintaining safety by being able to accurately measure and report applied loads at all times. (Bradford, [0006])
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield in view of de Lange, as applied, and in further view of Chunodkar et al. (US 20160082964 A1) herein Chunodkar.
In regards to Claim 13, Layfield does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Chunodkar:
13. The method of claim 7, wherein the autonomous controller comprises an adaptive observer configured to estimate vehicle mass, (see at least [0031] “vehicle mass estimate uncertainty value 252 is based on a linear quadratic estimation, commonly referred to as a Kalman filter.”)
Layfield discloses the following, as best understood:
wherein the vehicle command is determined based on the estimated road grade. (see at least [0180] “the active dolly may operate to assist in fulfilling a power demand (acceleration, grade ability and maximum, or highest, cruising speed) of the tractor-trailer 10”)
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 Chunodkar with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving a number of aspects of vehicle operation, including fuel economy as well as perceived responsiveness to operator controls. (Chunodkar, [0001])
Claims 15 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield in view of de Lange, as applied, in further view of Wu et al. (US 20220026912 A1) herein Wu.
In regards to Claim 15, Layfield suggests the following:
15. The method of claim 7, wherein the admittance controller comprises a robust longitudinal control system which determines the vehicle command based on the trajectory. (see at least previous citations “controller 502”, [0083] “close-loop PID controller” and [0084] “The control enclosure 34 may be formed from a durable waterproof and corrosion resistant material such as a composite or aluminum, which may be lightweight for fuel economy reasons. By being both waterproof and corrosion resistant, the enclosure 34 in some embodiments provides a durable compartment for the converter apparatus 14.”)
While Layfield discloses a controller enclosure meant to provide protection for said controller, clearly suggesting robust designs, Layfield does not explicitly disclose robust architecture for the controller 502 itself, as understood to be the plain meaning of a “robust controller”. However, this is known in the art of autonomous vehicle control, as taught by Wu. (see at least [0004] “robust feedback controller”, [0047], [0048] “two robust controllers”)
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 Wu with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of minimizing one or more errors associated with one or more commands provided by the feedback controller to compensate for a driving related disturbance, (Wu, [0006]) and/or with the motivation of enabling a robust margin (how much uncertainty and disturbance can be handled) with minimum tuning of a controller. (Wu, [0055])
In regards to Claim 15, as best understood, Layfield discloses the following:
21. (NEW) The method of Claim 15, wherein the effective mechanical relationship between the autonomous electric vehicle and the tractor is asymmetric between a braking regime and an acceleration regime. (see at least [0076] “The motor-generators 36 are used to convert the electric energy stored in the energy-storing device 32 to mechanical energy by applying a motive rotational force to the wheels 22 thereby rotating the wheels 22 (drive mode), or to convert mechanical energy from the rotating wheels 22 into electric power (generator mode) by applying a regenerative braking force to the wheels 22 thereby braking or effecting deceleration of the wheels 22”, considered asymmetric in view of [0117] “This mode may activated during regenerative braking or when the truck-trailer drives downhill” and [0131] “the algorithm 2130 may instruct the motor-generators to apply large amounts of torque on the uphill portions”)
Layfield does not disclose or suggest an admittance controller. However, admittance controllers are known in the art at least as taught by de Lange. (See at least abstract “first and the second admittance control and actuator assembly”, [0005] “coupling device (16, 116, 216, 316) configured optimally to communicate between a first and a second admittance controller and actuator assembly”, [0023] “robust coupling mechanism is proposed which is based on the Lagrange multiplier method from multi-body dynamics. This is then further extended by enhancing the Lagrange multipliers with additional terms, which allows for simulation of specialized coupling behavior where the coupling force might be force dependent, and/or further dependent on position and/or velocity.”)
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 de Lange with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of coupling two remote control systems to enable use of one of the systems to accurately drive the other system, by use of a model follower controller having a simulated mass representative of the sum of the masses manipulated by both the remote control systems. (de Lange, [0002])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are accepted, and persuasive. The previously applied rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn. However Applicant should note that new 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been applied above, necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
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 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