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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on June 29, 2026. Claims 1, 6,-13, and 15-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “transmit … a command to one or more devices based on the weather characteristic” on in claims 1, 13 and 20 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language “transmit” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification, the claim limitation “one or more devices” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “user interfaces” as described in paragraph 0041.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz, JR. et al. (US 2015/0273255 A1) in view of Kim (US 11,369,817 B1).
With regard to claims 1 and 13, Lenz discloses a fire apparatus system (10) comprising: a fire apparatus including: an aerial ladder (50); and a sensor (“loading sensor”) positioned along the aerial ladder (Par. [0005]), the sensor configured to collect data; and one or more processing circuits configured to: acquire the data collected by the sensor; monitor the data; and transmit a command to the aerial ladder based on the data, the command configured to limit a payload capacity of the aerial ladder (“provide visual output to a user on or about to enter the ladder regarding the status of the load on the ladder. The user can then take action to address the loading situation on the ladder, and potentially prevent overloading thereof.” see Par. [0005, 0105,0114, 0115] and Claim 1).
Lenz does not disclose that the sensor is an environment sensor, and the environment sensor configured to collect data regarding a weather characteristic at a location of the fire apparatus; and one or more processing circuits configured to: acquire the data collected by the environment sensor; monitor the weather characteristic at the location based on the data.
However, Kim discloses a fire apparatus system (“watchtower vehicle 100”) in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention that comprising: a fire apparatus (Fig. 1) including: an aerial ladder (300); and an environment sensor (500/600) positioned along the aerial ladder (Fig. 1), the environment sensor (500) configured to collect data regarding a weather characteristic at a location (forest fire) of the fire apparatus (collection by weather sensor 520); and one or more processing circuits (transmitter and server, Col. 6 lines 24-29) configured to: acquire the data collected by the environment sensor; monitor the weather characteristic at the location based on the data (“The present disclosure relates to a watchtower vehicle; and more particularly, to the watchtower vehicle capable of monitoring a surrounding situation and measuring directions and strengths of wind from different heights.” Col. 1 lines 13-16); and transmit a command to one or more devices based on the weather characteristic (“In addition, the watchtower vehicle may further include a transmission device (not illustrated) for transmitting measured data to a server located outside, etc., and a signal amplifier (not illustrated) or a wireless communication repeater (not illustrated) for communicating smoothly with the server located outside.” Col. 6 lines 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the fire fighting apparatus of Lenz, by incorporating the environment sensor along with the processing circuits as taught by Kim in communication with the command configured to limit a payload capacity of the aerial ladder of Lenz, for the benefit of providing a weather sensor to maintain its level in order to accurately measure the directions and the strengths of wind (Col. 11 lines 10-12).
With regard to claim 2, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits (transmitter) include at least one of a first processing circuit positioned on the fire apparatus or a second processing circuit positioned remote from the fire apparatus (“In addition, the watchtower vehicle may further include a transmission device (not illustrated) for transmitting measured data to a server located outside, etc., and a signal amplifier (not illustrated) or a wireless communication repeater (not illustrated) for communicating smoothly with the server located outside.” Col. 6 lines 24-29).
With regard to claim 3, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits include the first processing circuit (transmitter).
With regard to claim 4, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits include the second processing circuit (“server located outside”, see Col. 6 line 29).
With regard to claim 5, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses that the weather characteristic includes a characteristic regarding at least one of wind speed, wind direction, temperature, humidity, precipitation, presence of lightning, or atmospheric or barometric pressure (see Col. 7 lines 31-32).
With regard to claim 7, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lenz further discloses that the command is configured to limit the payload capacity of the aerial ladder and a vertical reach of the aerial ladder (“provide visual output to a user on or about to enter the ladder regarding the status of the load on the ladder. The user can then take action to address the loading situation on the ladder, and potentially prevent overloading thereof.” See Par. [0105]).
With regard to claim 8, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Lenz further discloses that the command is configured to limit the payload capacity of the aerial ladder, the vertical reach of the aerial ladder, and a horizontal reach of the aerial ladder (“provide visual output to a user on or about to enter the ladder regarding the status of the load on the ladder. The user can then take action to address the loading situation on the ladder, and potentially prevent overloading thereof.” Action includes lowering and raising aerial ladder to prevent overloading, see Par. [0105]).
With regard to claim 11, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit a notification based on the weather characteristic to a device associated with a person or organization monitoring or containing a forest fire proximate the location of the fire apparatus (Col. 1 lines 36-42).
With regard to claim 12, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide a recommended course of action to mitigate further spread of the forest fire based on the weather characteristic to the device (“The present disclosure has still yet another effect of transmitting the acquired images and the acquired meteorological data to a control room, etc. to better inform what is happening on-site, to thereby support decision in wildfire extinguishment, etc., and apply the decision to a predictive program such as a wildfire spread predictive program.” Col. 11 lines 23-28).
With regard to claim 14, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits (transmitter) include at least one of a first processing circuit configured to be positioned on the fire apparatus or a second processing circuit configured to be positioned remote from the fire apparatus (“In addition, the watchtower vehicle may further include a transmission device (not illustrated) for transmitting measured data to a server located outside, etc., and a signal amplifier (not illustrated) or a wireless communication repeater (not illustrated) for communicating smoothly with the server located outside.” Col. 6 lines 24-29).
With regard to claim 16, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Lenz further discloses that the command is configured to limit the payload capacity of the aerial ladder, a vertical reach of the aerial ladder, and a horizontal reach of the aerial ladder (“provide visual output to a user on or about to enter the ladder regarding the status of the load on the ladder. The user can then take action to address the loading situation on the ladder, and potentially prevent overloading thereof.” Action includes lowering and raising aerial ladder to prevent overloading, see Par. [0105]).
With regard to claim 18, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit a notification based on the weather characteristic to a user device remote from the location of the fire apparatus, wherein the user device is associated with a person or organization monitoring or containing a forest fire proximate the location of the fire apparatus (Col. 11 lines 19-28).
With regard to claim 19, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 18 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide a recommended course of action to mitigate further spread of the forest fire based on the weather characteristic to the device (“The present disclosure has still yet another effect of transmitting the acquired images and the acquired meteorological data to a control room, etc. to better inform what is happening on-site, to thereby support decision in wildfire extinguishment, etc., and apply the decision to a predictive program such as a wildfire spread predictive program.” Col. 11 lines 23-28).
Claims 6, 9, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz in view of Kim as applied in claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Linsmeier et al. (US 2022/0024425 A1).
With regard to claim 6, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim does not disclose that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit a notification based on the weather characteristic to a display of the fire apparatus or a user device associated with an operator of the fire apparatus, and wherein the notification includes a warning to limit an operation of the aerial ladder based on the weather characteristic.
Linsmeier teaches a fire apparatus comprising one or more processing circuits (controller) are configured to transmit a notification based on the weather characteristic to a display of the fire apparatus (120) or a user device associated with an operator of the fire apparatus, and wherein the notification includes a warning to limit an operation of the aerial ladder based on characteristic (“The controller 110 may be configured to provide an indication (e.g., a notification, a warning, etc.) on the display of the user interface 120 that the stabilization system 50 of the fire apparatus 10 is capable of reconfiguring the fire apparatus 10 such that the fire apparatus 10 (e.g., the aerial ladder assembly 70, the implement 80, etc.) may be operated with at least partially restricted or limited operation. In one example, limiting the operation of the fire apparatus 10 may include indicating and/or actively preventing use of the aerial ladder assembly beyond various thresholds.” Col.16 lines 8-18).
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Linsmeier and the instant invention are directed to provide warnings indicating unsafe operation and instruction to limit or avoid operation. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Linsmeier is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire apparatus system of Lenz, by incorporating a display or a user device associated with an operator to provide a notification and a warning as taught by Linsmeier to monitor the weather characteristic, for the benefit of preventing use of the aerial ladder beyond safe thresholds (Col.16 line 18).
With regard to claim 9, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim does not disclose that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification based on the weather characteristic to a user device remote from the location of the fire apparatus, wherein the user device is associated with a person that will be affected by an incident proximate the location of the fire apparatus based on the weather characteristic, and wherein the notification includes a warning regarding the incident.
Linsmeier teaches a fire apparatus comprising he one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification based on the weather characteristic to a user device remote from the location of the fire apparatus, wherein the user device is associated with a person that will be affected by an incident proximate the location of the fire apparatus based on characteristic, and wherein the notification includes a warning regarding the incident (“The controller 110 may be configured to provide an indication (e.g., a notification, a warning, etc.) on the display of the user interface 120 that the stabilization system 50 of the fire apparatus 10 is capable of reconfiguring the fire apparatus 10 such that the fire apparatus 10 (e.g., the aerial ladder assembly 70, the implement 80, etc.) may be operated with at least partially restricted or limited operation. In one example, limiting the operation of the fire apparatus 10 may include indicating and/or actively preventing use of the aerial ladder assembly beyond various thresholds.” Col. 16 lines 8-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire apparatus system of Lenz, by incorporating a display or a user device associated with an operator to provide a notification and a warning as taught by Linsmeier to monitor the weather characteristic, for the benefit of preventing use of the aerial ladder beyond safe thresholds (Col.16 line 18).
With regard to claim 10, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim and Linsmeier discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Kim further discloses that the incident includes a fire or a chemical spill, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to determine that the person is in a path of the fire, smoke from the fire, or chemical from the chemical spill based on the weather characteristic (the fire apparatus of Kim is capable of monitoring the recited incident).
With regard to claim 15, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim and discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Kim does not disclose that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit a notification based on the weather characteristic to a display of the fire apparatus or a user device associated with an operator of the fire apparatus, and wherein the notification includes a warning to limit an operation of the aerial ladder based on the weather characteristic.
Linsmeier teaches a fire apparatus comprising one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit a notification a notification based on the weather characteristic to a display of the fire apparatus (120) or a user device associated with an operator of the fire apparatus, and wherein the notification includes a warning to limit an operation of the aerial ladder based on the characteristic (“The controller 110 may be configured to provide an indication (e.g., a notification, a warning, etc.) on the display of the user interface 120 that the stabilization system 50 of the fire apparatus 10 is capable of reconfiguring the fire apparatus 10 such that the fire apparatus 10 (e.g., the aerial ladder assembly 70, the implement 80, etc.) may be operated with at least partially restricted or limited operation. In one example, limiting the operation of the fire apparatus 10 may include indicating and/or actively preventing use of the aerial ladder assembly beyond various thresholds.” Col.16 lines 8-18).
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Linsmeier and the instant invention are directed to provide warnings indicating unsafe operation and instruction to limit or avoid operation. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Linsmeier is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire apparatus system of Lenz, by incorporating a display or a user device associated with an operator to provide a notification and a warning as taught by Linsmeier to monitor the weather characteristic, for the benefit of preventing use of the aerial ladder beyond safe thresholds (Col.16 line 18).
With regard to claim 17, the fire apparatus system of Lenz as modified by Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Lenz does not disclose that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification based on the weather characteristic to a user device remote from the location of the fire apparatus, wherein the user device is associated with a person that will be affected by an incident proximate the location of the fire apparatus based on the weather characteristic, and wherein the notification includes a warning regarding the incident.
Linsmeier teaches a fire apparatus comprising one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification based on the weather characteristic to a user device remote from the location of the fire apparatus, wherein the user device is associated with a person that will be affected by an incident proximate the location of the fire apparatus based on the characteristic, and wherein the notification includes a warning regarding the incident (“The controller 110 may be configured to provide an indication (e.g., a notification, a warning, etc.) on the display of the user interface 120 that the stabilization system 50 of the fire apparatus 10 is capable of reconfiguring the fire apparatus 10 such that the fire apparatus 10 (e.g., the aerial ladder assembly 70, the implement 80, etc.) may be operated with at least partially restricted or limited operation. In one example, limiting the operation of the fire apparatus 10 may include indicating and/or actively preventing use of the aerial ladder assembly beyond various thresholds.” Col.16 lines 8-18).
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Linsmeier and the instant invention are directed to provide warnings indicating unsafe operation and instruction to limit or avoid operation. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Linsmeier is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire apparatus system of Lenz, by incorporating a display or a user device associated with an operator to provide a notification and a warning as taught by Linsmeier to monitor the weather characteristic, for the benefit of preventing use of the aerial ladder beyond safe thresholds (Col.16 line 18).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 11,369,817 B1) in view of Raucher (US 2021/0283439 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Kim discloses a fire apparatus system (“watchtower vehicle 100”) comprising: one or more processing circuits (server and transmitter) configured to: acquire data collected by an environment sensor coupled to an aerial ladder of a fire apparatus, the data including a weather characteristic at a location of the fire apparatus; monitor the weather characteristic at the location based on the data (“The present disclosure relates to a watchtower vehicle; and more particularly, to the watchtower vehicle capable of monitoring a surrounding situation and measuring directions and strengths of wind from different heights.” Col. 1 lines 13-16); and transmit a command to one or more devices based on the weather characteristic (“In addition, the watchtower vehicle may further include a transmission device (not illustrated) for transmitting measured data to a server located outside, etc., and a signal amplifier (not illustrated) or a wireless communication repeater (not illustrated) for communicating smoothly with the server located outside.” Col. 6 lines 24-29).
Kim is silent to disclose that the circuits configured to determine an incident is proximate the location of the fire apparatus, the incident including at least one of a fire or a chemical spill; determine that a person remote from the location of the fire apparatus is in a path of at least one of the fire, smoke from the fire, or a chemical from the chemical spill based on the incident and the weather characteristic; and in response to determining that the person is in the path, transmit a notification to a user device associated with the person, the notification including a warning regarding the incident.
Raucher teaches a fire apparatus system (types of apparatuses to dispatch (e.g., engines, ladders, air tankers, helicopters, etc.) as seen in Par. [0073])comprising one or more processing circuits configured to determine an incident is proximate the location of the fire apparatus, the incident including at least one of a fire or a chemical spill; determine that a person remote from the location of the fire apparatus is in a path of at least one of the fire, smoke from the fire, or a chemical from the chemical spill based on the incident and the weather characteristic; and in response to determining that the person is in the path, transmit a notification to a user device associated with the person, the notification including a warning regarding the incident (Figs. 3 and 4 and Par. [0080-0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire apparatus system of Kim, by incorporating the method for detecting and responding to a wildfire as taught by Raucher, for the benefit of providing dispatching the fire apparatus system to fight wildfire timely (Par. [0085]).
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights