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 Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/23/2025, for application number 18/600,291 filed on 03/09/2023, in which claims 1-12 were previously presented for examination.
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are amended.
It is noted that claim 11 is indicated as “previously presented.” However, the Office treated claim 11 as currently amended based on the Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/23/2025 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 09/26/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: The objections are withdrawn, as the claim amendments have properly addressed the informalities recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b): The rejection of claim 7 for being indefinite is withdrawn, as the amended claim 7 has properly addressed the rejection recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (CN 111994078 A, hereinafter “Cui”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20210093007 A, hereinafter “Lee”) further in view of Kondo et al. (JP 2009241870 A, hereinafter “Kondo”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Cui, Lee, and Kondo.
Regarding claim 1, Cui discloses an automatic traveling method comprising:
causing a work vehicle to automatically travel along a target route in a work field (Cui at pg. 1, ln. 13: “There is an automatic driving method that presets the driving route of a driving device”; pg. 3, ln. 23-25: “the automatic driving device refers to a device with an automatic driving function, and the automatic driving device includes a satellite antenna positioning device and an agricultural implement mounting device”); and
executing a correction operation of correcting a deviation using a shift amount of the work vehicle generated in a past (Cui at pg. 3, ln. 17-18: “In step S110, when the automatic driving device is traveling in the forward direction, the forward offset data of the automatic driving device is collected”; pg. 3, ln. 32-36: “In step S120, when the automatic driving device is driving in the reverse direction, the actual handover width is collected. In the embodiment of this application, when the driving direction is changed, the influence of the measurement error becomes the opposite when the driving direction is changed. Therefore, the actual driving route of the vehicle will deviate from the target route and will be enlarged by 4 times”; pg. 3, ln. 42-43: “In step S130, the driving deviation correction data is calculated based on the forward offset data, the actual transfer width and the target transfer width”; pg. 4, ln. 4-5: “In step S140, a correction operation is performed on the automatic driving device based on the driving correction data”; Any amount of deviation (e.g., greater than zero value) exceeds a threshold),
However, Cui does not explicitly state a past correction operation and wherein the threshold is greater than zero.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a past correction operation (Lee at para. [0053]: “In step 230, the server may determine first landing position correction data for correcting the first landing position error based on the first landing position error, and in step 240 transmit the first landing position correction data to the drone”; para. [0053]: “The drone may perform a second landing based on the first landing position correction data received from the server” “The server may calculate a second landing position error of the drone based on the received second position information, and may determine whether the calculated second landing position error satisfies the first condition”).
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 method of Cui by adding the past correction operation and the threshold greater than zero of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee is to improve position correction accuracy.
However, Cui in view of Lee does not explicitly state wherein the threshold is greater than zero.
In the same field of endeavor, Kondo teaches wherein the threshold is greater than zero (Kondo at para. [0024]: “it is determined whether or not the correction requirement is satisfied by the target route correction element 130 (S008 in FIG. 3). The correction requirement means that the degree of deviation is greater than or equal to a threshold value” “assuming that it is determined that the correction requirement is satisfied (FIG. 3 / S008... YES), the target route R is corrected by the target route correction element 130 (FIG. 3 / S010)” “when it is determined that the correction requirement is not satisfied (FIG. 3 / S008...NO), the target route R is not corrected”).
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 method of Cui in view of Lee by adding the threshold greater than zero of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo is to provide position correction when necessary.
Regarding claim 2, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 1.
Lee further teaches wherein, when the correction operation is performed multiple times successively at a location where the deviation exceeds the threshold, a current correction operation is executed using the shift amount corresponding to the previous correction operation (Lee at para. [0045]: “when the drone 130 tries to land in the second time, it may try to land at a point 8 cm away from the target landing point, and when the drone 130 tries to land in the third time, it is 10 cm from the target landing point. It may attempt to land at a remote point. The landing control system may determine to gradually increase the landing position correction data to promote safe and accurate landing of the drone 130”).
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 method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo by adding the correction operation of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee is to improve position correction accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 2.
Lee further teaches wherein, when a first shift amount during turning of the work vehicle and a second shift amount in forward movement or backward movement of the work vehicle in a previous correction operation are acquired (Lee at para. [0045]: “when the drone 130 first attempts to land, it may attempt to land at a point 6 cm away from the target landing point. In this case, a point 6 cm away from the target landing point may be in a direction opposite to the angle and direction of a point where the drone 130 landed previously” “when the drone 130 tries to land in the second time, it may try to land at a point 8 cm away from the target landing point, and when the drone 130 tries to land in the third time, it is 10 cm from the target landing point. It may attempt to land at a remote point. The landing control system may determine to gradually increase the landing position correction data to promote safe and accurate landing of the drone 130”),
a target position is determined based on the first shift amount and the second shift amount in the current correction operation, and the work vehicle is moved to the target position (Lee at para. [0046]: “the landing control system may have landing position correction data in many external environments through multiple landings attempted by the drone 130 . The landing control system may determine final landing position correction data for landing of the drone 130 based on the landing position correction data stored by the landing control system and transmit it to the drone 130”).
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 method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo by adding the first shift and the second shift of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee is to improve position correction accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 1.
Cui further discloses an automatic traveling program causing one or more processing units to execute the automatic traveling method according to claim 1 (Cui at pg. 6, ln. 38-39: “A person of ordinary skill in the art can understand that all or part of the processes in the above-mentioned embodiment methods can be implemented by instructing relevant hardware through a computer program”).
Regarding claim 11, Cui discloses an automatic traveling system comprising:
a travel processing unit configured to cause a work vehicle to automatically travel along a target route in a work field (Cui at pg. 1, ln. 13: “There is an automatic driving method that presets the driving route of a driving device”; pg. 3, ln. 23-25: “the automatic driving device refers to a device with an automatic driving function, and the automatic driving device includes a satellite antenna positioning device and an agricultural implement mounting device”); and
a correction processing unit configured to execute a correction operation of correcting a deviation using a shift amount of the work vehicle generated in (Cui at pg. 3, ln. 17-18: “In step S110, when the automatic driving device is traveling in the forward direction, the forward offset data of the automatic driving device is collected”; pg. 3, ln. 32-36: “In step S120, when the automatic driving device is driving in the reverse direction, the actual handover width is collected. In the embodiment of this application, when the driving direction is changed, the influence of the measurement error becomes the opposite when the driving direction is changed. Therefore, the actual driving route of the vehicle will deviate from the target route and will be enlarged by 4 times”; pg. 3, ln. 42-43: “In step S130, the driving deviation correction data is calculated based on the forward offset data, the actual transfer width and the target transfer width”; pg. 4, ln. 4-5: “In step S140, a correction operation is performed on the automatic driving device based on the driving correction data”; Any amount of deviation (e.g., greater than zero value) exceeds a threshold),
However, Cui does not explicitly state a past correction operation and wherein the threshold is greater than zero.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a past correction operation (Lee at para. [0053]: “In step 230, the server may determine first landing position correction data for correcting the first landing position error based on the first landing position error, and in step 240 transmit the first landing position correction data to the drone”; para. [0053]: “The drone may perform a second landing based on the first landing position correction data received from the server” “The server may calculate a second landing position error of the drone based on the received second position information, and may determine whether the calculated second landing position error satisfies the first condition”).
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 system of Cui by adding the past correction operation of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Cui in view of Lee is to improve position correction accuracy.
However, Cui in view of Lee does not explicitly state wherein the threshold is greater than zero.
In the same field of endeavor, Kondo teaches wherein the threshold is greater than zero (Kondo at para. [0024]: “it is determined whether or not the correction requirement is satisfied by the target route correction element 130 (S008 in FIG. 3). The correction requirement means that the degree of deviation is greater than or equal to a threshold value” “assuming that it is determined that the correction requirement is satisfied (FIG. 3 / S008... YES), the target route R is corrected by the target route correction element 130 (FIG. 3 / S010)” “when it is determined that the correction requirement is not satisfied (FIG. 3 / S008...NO), the target route R is not corrected”).
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 system of Cui in view of Lee by adding the threshold greater than zero of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo is to provide position correction when necessary.
Regarding claim 12, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling system according to claim 11.
Cui further discloses a work vehicle comprising:
the automatic traveling system according to claim 11; and
a traveling device controlled by the automatic traveling system (Cui at pg. 1, ln. 13: “There is an automatic driving method that presets the driving route of a driving device”; pg. 3, ln. 23-25: “the automatic driving device refers to a device with an automatic driving function, and the automatic driving device includes a satellite antenna positioning device and an agricultural implement mounting device”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Sakai (JP 2004351960 A). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Sakai.
Regarding claim 4, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 3.
However, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo does not explicitly state wherein a shift amount ratio which is a shift amount per turning angle is calculated based on the first shift amount, and in the current correction operation, the target position is determined by calculating a shift amount during turning based on the shift amount ratio.
In the same field of endeavor, Sakai teaches wherein a shift amount ratio which is a shift amount per turning angle is calculated based on the first shift amount, and in the current correction operation, the target position is determined by calculating a shift amount during turning based on the shift amount ratio (Sakai at para. [0039]: “as a result of comparing the current supplied to the actuator 7 with the reference value, if the supplied current exceeds the reference value, the steering torque generated by the actuator 7 loses the frictional force between the tire and the road surface and the actual steering is performed. It is determined that the angle θ cannot follow the reference turning angle θref, and the correction unit 22b of the electronic control unit U corrects the reference turning angle θref stored in the storage unit 23”; para. [0040]: “That is, as shown in FIG. 5B, in anticipation that the followability of the reference turning angle θref is reduced due to the shortage of the steering torque generated by the actuator 7, the original reference turning angle θref shown by the broken line is changed to a solid line. Correct as shown by. When the actuator 7 is controlled on the basis of the corrected reference steering angle θref, the movement trajectory of the vehicle V becomes as follows: (1) → (2) ′ → (3) ′, and the initial target movement trajectory (1). → Although slightly different from (2) → (3), the vehicle V can be finally guided to the correct target position (3) without any trouble”; FIG. 5(B) shows the ratio of the moving distance x (e.g., the shift amount) per the turning angle (i.e., the steering angle)).
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 method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo by adding the shift amount ratio Sakai with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Sakai is to improve position correction accuracy.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Kubota (JP 2000029520 A). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Kubota.
Regarding claim 5, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 1.
However, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo does not explicitly state wherein the correction operation is stopped and the work vehicle is stopped when the number of times of execution of the correction operation reaches a predetermined number of times or when a predetermined time has passed after the correction operation is started.
In the same field of endeavor, Kubota teaches wherein the correction operation is stopped and the work vehicle is stopped when the number of times of execution of the correction operation reaches a predetermined number of times or when a predetermined time has passed after the correction operation is started (Kubota at para. [0036]: “In step 504, if the generated positioning abnormality is not recovered, the process proceeds to step 506. In step 506, it is determined whether or not the elapsed time from the occurrence of the positioning abnormality has exceeded the time limit. If not, proceed to (Return) and execute this flow again. On the other hand, if the elapsed time exceeds the time limit in step 506, the flag STOP is changed from 0 (initial setting) to 1 in step 507. As a result, the abnormality processing mode for recovering the positioning abnormality is stopped, and as a final measure, the engine of the work vehicle is stopped”).
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 method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo by adding the predetermined time of Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Kubota is to improve work efficiency (see Kubota at para. [0006]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Hiramatsu (JP 2018055180 A). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Hiramatsu.
Regarding claim 6, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 1.
However, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo does not explicitly state wherein a permission condition that allows the start of automatic driving along the target route after the correction operation is executed in a non-work area is relaxed compared to a permission condition in a work area.
In the same field of endeavor, Hiramatsu teaches wherein a permission condition that allows the start of automatic driving along the target route after the correction operation is executed in a non-work area is relaxed compared to a permission condition in a work area (Hiramatsu at para. [0080]: “As shown in the example of FIG. 10, when the stop position of the tractor 1 is the non-work area (No in step S105), the restart position setting unit 52 sets the appropriate position on the non-work route P2 as the restart position (Step S106)” “the present invention is not limited to the above method, and the restart position may be determined by another method”; para. [0081]: “when the stop position of the tractor 1 is the working area (Yes in step S105), as shown in the example of FIG. 11, during the period from the stop control of the tractor 1 until the tractor 1 actually stops , It means that the tractor 1 has entered the work area across the boundary between the non-work area and the work area. In that case, in order to apply agricultural work evenly to the field (without leaving an uncultivated area), the restart position setting unit 52 sets the restart position P2 to the downstream end of the departed non-work path P2 (in other words, The upstream end of the work path P1 connected on the downstream side) is set as the restart position R1”; The restart position on the non-working area is not limited to a certain position but the restart position on the working area is limited).
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 method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo by adding the permission condition of Hiramatsu with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Hiramatsu is to provide an autonomous traveling system capable of easily resuming work after a work vehicle stops (see Hiramatsu at para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 1.
However, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo does not explicitly state wherein, when the correction operation is to be executed within a predetermined time after the automatic travel of the work vehicle is started, the work vehicle is stopped for a predetermined time to report predetermined warning information.
In the same field of endeavor, Hiramatsu teaches wherein, when the correction operation is to be executed within a predetermined time after the automatic travel of the work vehicle is started, the work vehicle is stopped for a predetermined time to report predetermined warning information (Hiramatsu at para. [0071]: “The automatic positioning start instructing unit 36 is an operation unit for the user to transmit a signal to that effect to the control unit 4 when it is desired to automatically align the position of the tractor 1 to the resume position R1. The automatic positioning start instructing unit 36 can be configured as, for example, a virtual button displayed on the display 37”; para. [0072]: “The autonomous traveling / autonomous work resuming instructing unit 30 according to the present embodiment is operable when the tractor 1 is stopped for a certain period of time at the resuming position or its vicinity (within the first range), and in the other cases it is inoperable”; The virtual button serves as warning information).
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 method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo by adding the predetermined time of Hiramatsu with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Hiramatsu is to provide an autonomous traveling system capable of easily resuming work after a work vehicle stops (see Hiramatsu at para. [0005]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Iwase et al. (US 2022/0264784 A1, hereinafter “Iwase”).
Regarding claim 8, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 1.
However, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo does not explicitly state further comprising:
executing detection of an object to be detected in the work field, wherein
a detection range for detecting the object to be detected is set according to a travel condition of the work vehicle,
the travel of the work vehicle is restricted when the object to be detected is detected in a non-work area, and
the travel of the work vehicle is unrestricted when the object to be detected is detected in a work area.
In the same field of endeavor, Iwase teaches further comprising:
executing detection of an object to be detected in the work field (Iwase at para. [0048]: “the tractor 1 includes an obstacle detection system 100 for detecting an obstacle in the surroundings of the tractor 1 (travel machine body 7) and avoiding collision with the obstacle”), wherein
a detection range for detecting the object to be detected is set according to a travel condition of the work vehicle (Iwase at para. [0080]: “The obstacle detection unit 110 sets measurement ranges of the LiDAR sensors 101, 102, the sonar units 103, 104 and the cameras 105, 106 to first predetermined ranges K1 (ranges illustrated in gray in FIG. 13) for the in-operation-region mode, and performs an obstacle detection process for detecting whether or not an obstacle exists within the first predetermined ranges K1”; para. [0082]: “The second predetermined ranges K2 for the outside-operation-region mode are set to wider ranges in the front-rear direction and the left-right direction than the first predetermined ranges K1 for the in-operation-region mode”),
the travel of the work vehicle is restricted when the object to be detected is detected in a non-work area (Iwase at para. [0080]: “the collision avoidance control unit 111 performs collision avoidance control, such as decelerating the tractor 1 or stopping the tractor 1 from traveling, when the obstacle is detected by the obstacle detection unit 110”; When the obstacle is detected in the range between K1 and K2, the tractor in the outside-operation-region mode decelerates or stops), and
the travel of the work vehicle is unrestricted when the object to be detected is detected in a work area (Iwase at para. [0080]: “the collision avoidance control unit 111 performs collision avoidance control, such as decelerating the tractor 1 or stopping the tractor 1 from traveling, when the obstacle is detected by the obstacle detection unit 110”; When the obstacle is detected in the range between K1 and K2, the tractor in the in-operation-region mode does not decelerate or stop).
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 method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo by adding the detection range of Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Iwase is to improve operation efficiency (see Iwase at para. [0005]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Suzuki et al. (JP 2021000021 A, hereinafter “Suzuki”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 9, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo teaches the automatic traveling method according to claim 1.
However, Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo does not explicitly state wherein:
when the work vehicle is made to travel automatically while performing a predetermined work on an object to be worked arranged in a plurality of rows in the work field,
in route information of a work route, of the target route, in which the object to be worked exists on one side of the work vehicle in left and right directions and no object to be worked exists on another side of the work vehicle in the left and right directions, a first threshold is set as a threshold of the shift amount corresponding to the one side of the work vehicle, and a second threshold greater than the first threshold is set as the threshold of the shift amount corresponding to the other side of the work vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches wherein:
when the work vehicle is made to travel automatically while performing a predetermined work on an object to be worked arranged in a plurality of rows in the work field (Suzuki at para. [0008]: “an automatic traveling system for spraying work, in which a target route generation unit that generates a target route for spraying work for spraying objects arranged in a plurality of rows and a work vehicle automatically travels according to the target route”),
in route information of a work route, of the target route, in which the object to be worked exists on one side of the work vehicle in left and right directions and no object to be worked exists on another side of the work vehicle in the left and right directions, a first threshold is set as a threshold of the shift amount corresponding to the one side of the work vehicle, and a second threshold greater than the first threshold is set as the threshold of the shift amount corresponding to the other side of the work vehicle (Suzuki at FIG. 9 and para. [0051]: “A plurality of movement paths Pm connecting Pw in the traveling order of the work vehicle V are included. Each movement route Pm is a route on which the work vehicle V travels without performing work. Each movement path Pm includes a turning path Pmt that changes the direction of the vehicle body 1”; The work vehicle turns in an angle with a shift amount greater on no crop side (e.g., outer radius) than the crop side (e.g., inner radius)).
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 method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo by adding the work route of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Cui in view of Lee further in view of Kondo and Suzuki is to improve work efficiency (see Suzuki at para. [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666