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 .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 05/12/2026.
Claims 2, 5, 27 and 29 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 34 is new.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-26, 28 and 30-34 are pending for examination.
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 34 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 34 disclose wherein the pitch-shifting and transposition performed by the signal processing unit, when performed, is downward. The claim is dependent of claim 1 which claims performing pitch-shifting or transposition (not both) are needed. In a review of the specification, it disclose that when performing transposition, it occurred in a downward transposition. However, it is silent in terms of downward pitch-shifting hence fail to convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 34 is 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 34 depend on claim 1 which claims that pitch-shifting or transposition is being perform. Then, in claim 34, the claim also recites “wherein the pitch-shifting and transposition performed by the signal processing unit”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For example, it is unclear if the claim is “performing pitch-shifting and transposition” or “performing pitch-shifting or transposition”, Hence, rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1--9, 14, 17-20 & 26, 28 & 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2020/0184946) in view of De Cesaris et al. (US 2021/0280163).
Regarding claim 1: Jung disclose a motor vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising:
a body defining a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle (Fig. 1, engine compartment 100);
an electric axle comprising an electric motor and at least one movable component distinct from or forming part of the electric motor (Fig. 1, motor 101);
transduction means configured to detect one or more quantities associated with an operation of the electric motor or the at least one movable component and to generate at least one first signal related to one or more of said quantities (Fig. 1: torque measurement sensor 107.¶0070. Claim 1: a torque measurement sensor of measuring a torque of a motor); and
sound emitting means configured to emit sound as a function of the first signal (Fig. 1, engine output 102, ¶0072, claim 1: sound output device of generating a driving sound of an EV vehicle).
Jung does not explicitly disclose a signal processing unit configured to condition the first signal, thereby producing a second conditioned signal, wherein the sound emitting means are configured to emit sound corresponding to the second signal, and wherein the signal processing unit is configured to condition the first signal by performing pitch-shifting on the first signal or by transposing one or more frequencies of at least one contribution of the first signal from a first frequency range to a second frequency range distinct from the first frequency range.
In analogous art regarding vehicle sound generation, De Cesaris disclose a signal processing unit configured to condition the first signal, thereby producing a second conditioned signal, wherein the sound emitting means are configured to emit sound corresponding to the second signal, and wherein the signal processing unit is configured to condition the first signal by performing pitch-shifting on the first signal or by transposing one or more frequencies of at least one contribution of the first signal from a first frequency range to a second frequency range distinct from the first frequency range.(Fig. 1-2, ¶0110-¶0111).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a signal processing unit configured to condition the first signal, thereby producing a second conditioned signal, wherein the sound emitting means are configured to emit sound corresponding to the second signal, and wherein the signal processing unit is configured to condition the first signal by performing pitch-shifting on the first signal or by transposing one or more frequencies of at least one contribution of the first signal from a first frequency range to a second frequency range distinct from the first frequency range, as disclose by De Cesaris, to the system of Jung. The motivation is t allow manipulation to the sound in order to have more flexibility for the wanted sound
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein conditioning comprises filtering, wherein the signal processing unit is configured to filter the first signal by one or more frequency-based filters, (De Cesaris: Fig. 1-2, ¶0110-¶0111).
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 3, further comprising additional transduction means configured to detect additional quantities associated with an operation of the motor vehicle, wherein the signal processing unit is configured to filter the first signal as a function of the additional quantities. (Jung: , ¶0186-0188; De Cesaris: Fig. 1-2, ¶0110-¶0111).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first frequency range and the second frequency range are respectively included within a third frequency range between 500 Hz and 10 kHz and a fourth frequency range between 20 Hz and 2 kHz. However it does disclose a frequency range of 0 to 1khz (Fig. 7A,7B). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of first frequency range and the second frequency range are respectively included within a third frequency range between 500 Hz and 10 kHz and a fourth frequency range between 20 Hz and 2 kHz, since it has been held that Prior Art ranges that overlap claimed ranges provide prima facie case of obviousness. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2nd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the sound emitting means comprises at least one loudspeaker connected to the signal processing unit to receive the second signal and configured to emit said sound in a manner corresponding to the second received signal. (Jung: ¶0186-0191).
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the sound emitting means are configured to emit sound inside the passenger compartment. (Jung: Claim 4, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the sound emitting means are configured to emit sound outside the passenger compartment. (Jung: Fig. 1: Audio exterior amp, engine tone output 102).
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the transduction means comprise a first transducer configured to detect a first quantity of said quantities, the first quantity being indicative of a magnetic field generated by the motor or the moving component (Jung: ¶0147).
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the transduction means (inputs 200-1) are configured to generate the first signal by applying a sensor fusion algorithm or technique to at least two or more of the detected quantities. (Jung: Fig. 5-6)).
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the transduction means comprise a sensor device configured to detect or generate and consequently detect a variation of a magnetic field associated with an operation of the electric motor and an emitting device configured to emit the first signal, the first signal being an electric current signal as a function of the variation of the magnetic field (Jung: ¶0147), wherein the sound emitting means comprises a loudspeaker device connected to the emitting device to receive the electric current signal emitted through the emitting device and configured to emit sound corresponding to the received electric current signal (Jung: ¶0144, ¶0149, ¶0191).
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor is configured to generate the variable magnetic field during operation, wherein the sensor device is configured to detect the variation of the magnetic field. (Jung: ¶0147)
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the variable magnetic field is a rotating magnetic field with a rotational speed dependent on a supply current supplied to the electric motor. (Jung: ¶0147: it is interpret that since the power is coming from the motor which produce a rotating magnetic field and rotational speed (as shown by the motor type on Fig. 1))
Regarding claim 26: Claim 26 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 1.
Regarding claim 28: Claim 28 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 3.
Regarding claim 30: Claim 30 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 6.
Regarding claim 31: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the signal processing unit is configured to filter the first signal by one or more frequency-based filters in a cascade, (De Cesaris: Fig. 1-2, ¶0110-¶0111: Notice Cascade configuration as a combination of filter 131,132, 133 connected to each other modifying the signal in a particular way, hence cascade filter).
Regarding claim 32: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the signal processing unit is further configured to amplify an amplitude of the filtered first signal by one or more gains.(De Cesaris: ¶0113).
Regarding claim 33: Claim 26 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 1.
Regarding claim 34: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pitch-shifting and transposition performed by the signal processing unit, when performed, is downward.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2020/0184946) in view of De Cesaris et al. (US 2021/0280163) and further in view of Draganic (US 2015/0199955).
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more vibration emitters coupled to a solid body or panel of the motor vehicle within the passenger compartment and configured to cause a vibration of the solid body or panel in a manner coordinated with the sound emitted by the sound emitting means.
In analogous art regarding engine sound simulator, Draganic disclose one or more vibration emitters coupled to a solid body or panel of the motor vehicle within the passenger compartment and configured to cause a vibration of the solid body or panel in a manner coordinated with the sound emitted by the sound emitting means. (Fig. 5: claim 2 and ¶0040: block 514)).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of one or more vibration emitters coupled to a solid body or panel of the motor vehicle within the passenger compartment and configured to cause a vibration of the solid body or panel in a manner coordinated with the sound emitted by the sound emitting means, as disclose by Draganic, to the combination of Jung and De Cesaris. The motivation is provide haptic feedback in case the audio feedback is not effective.
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Jung, De Cesaris and Draganic disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 10, further comprising a seat, wherein the seat comprises the solid body or panel such that the vibration of the solid body or panel can be transmitted to a user sitting on the seat (Draganic: Fig. 5: claim 2 and ¶0040: block 514)).
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Jung, De Cesaris and Draganic disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the solid body or panel is part of a pedal or a steering wheel of the motor vehicle. (Draganic: Fig. 5: claim 2 and ¶0040: block 514)).
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2020/0184946) in view of De Cesaris et al. (US 2021/0280163) and further in view of Orth (US 2013/0343570).
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the transduction means are configured to detect at least one electrical quantity related to electromagnetic phenomena.
In analogous art regarding engine sound simulator, Orth disclose wherein the transduction means are configured to detect at least one electrical quantity related to electromagnetic phenomena. (¶0045: claim 3).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the transduction means are configured to detect at least one electrical quantity related to electromagnetic phenomena, as disclose by Orth, to the combination of Jung and De Cesaris, since having a limited universe of potential options (transduction means), the selection of any particular option (detect at least one electrical quantity related to electromagnetic phenomena.) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (provide a quantity associated with an operation of the electric motor), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the transduction means comprise: a second transducer configured to detect a second quantity of said quantities, the second quantity being indicative of a supply current supplied to the motor, and a third transducer configured to detect a third quantity of said quantities, the third quantity being indicative of a voltage at the ends of the motor.
In analogous art regarding engine sound simulator, Orth disclose wherein the transduction means comprise: a second transducer configured to detect a second quantity of said quantities, the second quantity being indicative of a supply current supplied to the motor, and a third transducer configured to detect a third quantity of said quantities, the third quantity being indicative of a voltage at the ends of the motor. (¶0017).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the transduction means comprise: a second transducer configured to detect a second quantity of said quantities, the second quantity being indicative of a supply current supplied to the motor, and a third transducer configured to detect a third quantity of said quantities, the third quantity being indicative of a voltage at the ends of the motor, as disclose by Orth, to the combination of Jung and De Cesaris. The motivation is to add redundancy to the transduction means making the system more robust.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2020/0184946) in view of De Cesaris et al. (US 2021/0280163) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0379998) and further in view of Orth (US 2013/0343570).
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the transduction means comprise: a fourth transducer configured to detect a fourth quantity of said quantities, the fourth quantity being indicative of a vibration with respect to the body of one or more between a casing of the motor, the movable component, and the electric axle, and a fifth transducer configured to detect a fifth quantity of said quantities, the fifth quantity being indicative of a sound pressure wave generated by one or more between the motor, the movable component, and the electric axle.
In analogous art regarding EV vehicle sound system, Lee disclose a fourth transducer configured to detect a fourth quantity of said quantities, the fourth quantity being indicative of a vibration with respect to the body of one or more between a casing of the motor, the movable component, and the electric axle (¶0056).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a fourth transducer configured to detect a fourth quantity of said quantities, the fourth quantity being indicative of a vibration with respect to the body of one or more between a casing of the motor, the movable component, and the electric axle, as disclose by the combination of Jung and De Cesaris, to the system of Jung since having a limited universe of potential options (transducer quantity), the selection of any particular option (vibration) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (monitor vehicle parameter to detect sound), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
The combination of Jung, De Cesaris and Lee does not explicitly disclose a fifth transducer configured to detect a fifth quantity of said quantities, the fifth quantity being indicative of a sound pressure wave generated by one or more between the motor, the movable component, and the electric axle.
In analogous art regarding EV vehicle sound system, Orth disclose a fifth transducer configured to detect a fifth quantity of said quantities, the fifth quantity being indicative of a sound pressure wave generated by one or more between the motor, the movable component, and the electric axle.(¶0045, claim 2).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a fifth transducer configured to detect a fifth quantity of said quantities, the fifth quantity being indicative of a sound pressure wave generated by one or more between the motor, the movable component, and the electric axle, as disclose by Orth, to the system of Jung, De Cesaris and Lee since having a limited universe of potential options (transducer quantity), the selection of any particular option (sounds pressure wave) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (monitor vehicle parameter to detect sound), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2020/0184946) in view of De Cesaris et al. (US 2021/0280163) and further in view of Sharma (WO 2022/259227).
Regarding claim 21: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor device comprises a permanent magnet and wherein the electric motor comprises a portion, the portion being movable during operation in a manner corresponding to the operation itself, whereby the permanent magnet is arranged to magnetically interact with the movable portion so as to generate the variable magnetic field.
In analogous art regarding vehicle systems, Sharma disclose wherein the sensor device comprises a permanent magnet and wherein the electric motor comprises a portion, the portion being movable during operation in a manner corresponding to the operation itself, whereby the permanent magnet is arranged to magnetically interact with the movable portion so as to generate the variable magnetic field. (¶0039-0040)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a permanent magnet and wherein the electric motor comprises a portion, the portion being movable during operation in a manner corresponding to the operation itself, whereby the permanent magnet is arranged to magnetically interact with the movable portion so as to generate the variable magnetic field, as disclose by Sharma, to the system of the combination of Jung and De Cesaris. The motivation is to ensure a proper functioning of the motor and provide the necessary magnetic parameters.
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor device comprises an electric circuit or winding arranged with respect to the electric motor in a position so as to be crossed by the variable magnetic field, such that the variable magnetic field induces an electric current corresponding to the same variable magnetic field on the electric circuit, said electric current signal being a function of the induced electric current.
In analogous art regarding vehicle systems, Sharma disclose wherein the sensor device comprises an electric circuit or winding arranged with respect to the electric motor in a position so as to be crossed by the variable magnetic field, such that the variable magnetic field induces an electric current corresponding to the same variable magnetic field on the electric circuit, said electric current signal being a function of the induced electric current. (¶0039-0040)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the sensor device comprises an electric circuit or winding arranged with respect to the electric motor in a position so as to be crossed by the variable magnetic field, such that the variable magnetic field induces an electric current corresponding to the same variable magnetic field on the electric circuit, said electric current signal being a function of the induced electric current, as disclose by Sharma, to the system of the combination of Jung and De Cesaris. The motivation is to ensure a proper functioning of the motor and provide the necessary magnetic parameters.
Regarding claim 23: The combination of Jung. De Cesaris and Sharma disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 22, wherein the emitting device comprises an acoustic amplifier configured to process or amplify said electric current, thereby providing as an output said electric current signal. (Sharma: ¶0039-0040)
Regarding claim 24: The combination of Jung, De Cesaris and Sharma disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 22, wherein the electrical circuit comprises at least one coil wound around a first axis and preferably facing the electric motor. (Sharma: ¶0039-0040)
Regarding claim 25: The combination of Jung, De Cesaris and Sharma disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 24, wherein the electric motor comprises a stator or a rotor defining a seat for housing the coil, wherein the coil is arranged within the seat. (Sharma: ¶0039-0040)
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2020/0184946) in view of De Cesaris et al. (US 2021/0280163) and further in view of Lin et al. (US 10,068,620)
Regarding claim 34: The combination of Jung and De Cesaris disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pitch-shifting and transposition performed by the signal processing unit, when performed, is downward.
In analogous art regarding pitch shifting, Lin disclose wherein the pitch-shifting and transposition performed by the signal processing unit, when performed, is downward.(Col. 8, Lines 53-56).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the pitch-shifting and transposition performed by the signal processing unit, when performed, is downward, as disclose by Lin, to the system Jung and De Cesaris. The motivation is to provide a more muscular sound.(Col. 8, Lines 53-56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argue in essence, that The prior art does not teach a signal processing unit that conditions the measured signal by pitch-shifting or frequency transposition because De Cesaris fail to condition a transduced signal because the condition is arbitrary pre-recorded signal.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instant case, applicant is analyzing Jung and De Cesaris individually and not as a combination. Even if De Cesaris is condition an “arbitrary pre-recorded signal”, is still recording a signal, or a part of a signal, then, in combination with the transduced signal taught by Jung, would arrive at the limitation in question.
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 OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights