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 .
Detailed Action
The following non-final action is in response to application 18686202 filed on 02/23/2024. The communication is the first action on the merits.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/23/2024 are accepted.
Foreign Priority
Applicant’s claim to foreign priority has been acknowledged and the corresponding documents have been received.
Domestic Benefit/National Stage
Applicant’s claim to domestic benefit/national stage has been acknowledged and the corresponding documents have been received.
IDS
The IDS has been received, and the documents within it have been considered.
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(s) is/are:
An information acquisition unit
A test control unit
Detachable mechanism
Automatic driving device
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.
Examiner has identified the corresponding structure (As the detachable mechanism M, it is conceivable to have a configuration including a gripping portion that grips the connector C and a driving portion that moves the gripping portion to insert and remove the connector C into and from the charging port. In addition, the detachable mechanism M may be a portable mechanism or a stationary mechanism [0032]);
(An automatic driving robot 4 which is an automatic driving device that automatically drives the specimen W [0023] where the automatic driving robot 4 includes at least one of an accelerator pedal actuator for operating an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal actuator for operating a brake pedal, and a switch actuator for operating a vehicle activation switch [0027]);
(The information acquisition unit 6 in Fig. 1 and the test control unit 7 in Fig. 1 are constituted by a computer COM having an input means such as a CPU, a memory, an input/output interface, an AD converter, and a keyboard, a communication means, and an output means such as a display. The CPU and the peripheral device cooperate with each other based on the specimen testing program stored in the memory, whereby the functions of the information acquisition unit 6 and the test control unit 7 are exerted [0024]).
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 § 112(b)
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “a difference between a reference vehicle speed and an actual vehicle speed being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold; or a deviation in a relationship between an accelerator amount and a vehicle speed or acceleration being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold.”
The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the options are and what the claim requires, specifically in the bolded language.
The specification states that the difference between the reference vehicle speed and the actual vehicle speed is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold, or the deviation of the relationship between the accelerator amount and the vehicle speed or the acceleration is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold [0029].
For the purposes of compact prosecution in light of the specification, examiner is interpreting the limitation as “a deviation in a relationship between an accelerator amount and a vehicle speed or a deviation in a relationship between an accelerator amount and an acceleration wherein the deviation is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to ineligible signals per se. The claim recites “a computer readable medium” and the original disclosure does not provide a clear, deliberate and sufficient definition to exclude signals per se. The disclosure does not describe the computer readable medium and therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a computer readable medium" as recited in the claim covers transitory signals (see MPEP 2106.03(I): “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave”).
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 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 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 106226698 B) in view of Etienne (DE 2911840 C2).
Regarding claim 1, Cao teaches a specimen testing system that tests a specimen by charging the specimen that is a motorized vehicle or a part thereof with a power supply device (a system for testing continuous driving mileage of pure electric vehicle. wherein the method comprises: charging the vehicle to be tested until the vehicle is full [Abstract]), the specimen testing system comprising:
a dynamometer that applies a load to the specimen (the tested vehicle is installed on the automobile chassis dynamometer machine, and through the automobile chassis dynamometer machine, according to the target test condition, controlling the tested vehicle to perform N times cycle test [Abstract]);
an information acquisition unit that acquires information of the specimen (the vehicle chassis dynamometer machine, according to the target test condition control tested vehicle for N times cycle test, the automobile chassis dynamometer records the N cycles of continuous travel mileage Sn, and can collect the first parameter value of the power battery of N cycles test through the data acquisition system [p.6]);
and a test control unit that controls a test of the specimen on a basis of the information of the specimen, (the vehicle chassis dynamometer machine controls the tested vehicle to test according to the highest vehicle speed [p.6]),
wherein the test control unit stops an operation of the specimen…when the information of the specimen satisfies a first condition (the vehicle chassis dynamometer is further used for testing the vehicle to be tested according to the highest vehicle speed of the vehicle to be tested, until reaching the preset condition, stopping testing [p.4]) and wherein the test control unit…charges the specimen with the power supply device when the information of the specimen satisfies a first condition (S101, charging the detected vehicle, until the power battery in the detected vehicle is full. It should be noted that, when testing the driving mileage of the pure electric vehicle, firstly preparing the vehicle to be tested. That is to say, it can be understood that the measured vehicle needs to pass a certain mileage grinding, wherein the mileage can refer to the definition of the vehicle enterprise or 3000 kilometers. after preparing the vehicle to be tested, charging the vehicle to be tested until full, so as to test the subsequent mileage of the vehicle to be tested [p. 5-6]), and the operation of the specimen when the information of the specimen satisfies a second condition (controlling the tested vehicle to test according to the highest vehicle speed, until reaching the preset condition, stopping testing…the above reaches the preset condition may include: when the accelerator pedal of the detected vehicle is detected, the actual vehicle speed error is greater than or equal to the highest vehicle speed…Specifically, the tested vehicle for N times cycle test, and collecting the first parameter value of the power battery, which may include a first voltage value and a first current value, and/or the electric quantity value. wherein the electric quantity value comprises a first discharge electric quantity value and a first charging electric quantity value, of the power battery after N times of cycle test, the vehicle chassis dynamometer machine controls the tested vehicle to test according to the highest vehicle speed, until the actual vehicle speed V error exceeds the highest vehicle speed Vmax +/- 2km/h when the accelerator pedal of the vehicle to be measured is stepped to the bottom, the test is stopped [p.6]).
Cao does not explicitly teach wherein the test control unit stops an operation of the specimen and charges the specimen with the power supply device when the information of the specimen satisfies a first condition, and stops the charging of the specimen with the power supply device and restarts the operation of the specimen when the information of the specimen satisfies a second condition.
Etienne teaches stopping the charging of the specimen with the power supply device and restarting the operation of the specimen (The simulator shown in FIG. 1 also has a certain number of actuating or control devices for the circuits 2, 3 and 4 mentioned, in order to be able to carry out a sequence of cycles of simulated city traffic until the battery 1 is discharged, and then before the execution of operating cycles under predetermined conditions [p.3] where when the battery is being charged, the command embodied by the signal T1 is constantly present. The output voltage U .sub.BM of the amplifier 98 follows the battery voltage and is then compared by the comparator 101 with a voltage corresponding to a charge of 100% of the battery, which is output by the divider with the potentiometer 103 . As soon as the recharging of the battery has ended, the value of 100% is reached and the comparator 101 outputs at its output a signal in accordance with a command to stop charging the battery and to restart a new simulation cycle [p.9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cao with the teachings of Etienne to use a test control unit to stop an operation of the specimen and charge the specimen with the power supply device when the information of the specimen satisfies a first condition, and stop the charging of the specimen with the power supply device and restart the operation of the specimen when the information of the specimen satisfies a second condition to ensure that safety hazards are mitigated and test accuracy is maintained under precise, repeatable conditions.
Regarding claim 2, Cao teaches wherein the first condition includes: an acceleration being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold (the vehicle chassis dynamometer is further used for testing the vehicle to be tested according to the highest vehicle speed of the vehicle to be tested, until reaching the preset condition, stopping testing [p.4])
Regarding claim 3, Cao teaches the specimen testing system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second condition includes: a power supply amount by the power supply device being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold
Etienne teaches wherein the second condition includes: a power supply amount by the power supply device being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold (when the battery is being charged, the command embodied by the signal T1 is constantly present. The output voltage U .sub.BM of the amplifier 98 follows the battery voltage and is then compared by the comparator 101 with a voltage corresponding to a charge of 100% of the battery, which is output by the divider with the potentiometer 103 . As soon as the recharging of the battery has ended, the value of 100% is reached and the comparator 101 outputs at its output a signal in accordance with a command to stop charging the battery and to restart a new simulation cycle [p.9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cao with the teachings of Etienne to use a second threshold including a power supply amount by the power supply device being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold to ensure that the specimen testing system can operate at high power levels without failing, thus validating maximum power delivery.
Regarding claim 8, Cao in view of Etienne would teach a computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon for a specimen testing program used in a specimen testing system that charges a specimen that is a motorized vehicle or a part thereof by a power supply device and applies a load to the specimen by a dynamometer to perform a test, the specimen testing program, when executed by a computer, causes the causing a computer to exhibit functions as (One of ordinary skill in the art can understand that all or part of the steps carried by the method described above can be completed by a program instructing related hardware; the program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium; when the program is executed, one of the steps of the method embodiment or a combination thereof is provided [p.13]) an information acquisition unit that acquires information of the specimen; and a test control unit that controls a test of the specimen on a basis of the information of the specimen, wherein the test control unit stops an operation of the specimen and charges the specimen with the power supply device when the information of the specimen satisfies a first condition, and stops the charging of the specimen with the power supply device and restarts the operation of the specimen when the information of the specimen satisfies a second condition based on the explanation provided for the claim 1 analysis.
Regarding claim 9, Cao in view of Etienne would teach a specimen testing method for charging a specimen that is a motorized vehicle or a part thereof by a power supply device and performing a test by applying a load to the specimen by a dynamometer, the specimen testing method comprising acquiring information of the specimen, stopping an operation of the specimen and charging the specimen with the power supply device when the information of the specimen satisfies a first condition, and stopping the charging of the specimen with the power supply device and restarting the operation of the specimen when the information of the specimen satisfies a second condition based on the explanation provided for the claim 1 analysis.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 106226698 B) in view of Etienne (DE 2911840 C2) further in view of Ono (US 20150258906 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Cao teaches the specimen testing system according to claim 1, as well as a charging device connected to the vehicle [Fig. 1, element 100, p.9], a power supply device to the specimen (power battery [p.2]) and the test control unit (a vehicle chassis dynamometer machine [p.5]), but does not explicitly teach a connector that detachably connects a power cable from the power supply device to the specimen; and a detachable mechanism that attaches and detaches the connector to and from the specimen, wherein the test control unit controls the detachable mechanism to connect the connector to the specimen when charging the specimen, and controls the detachable mechanism to remove the connector from the specimen when stopping charging the specimen.
Ono teaches a connector that detachably connects a power cable from the power supply device to the specimen and a detachable mechanism that attaches and detaches the connector to and from the specimen, wherein the test control unit controls the detachable mechanism to connect the connector to the specimen, and controls the detachable mechanism to remove the connector from the specimen (An external power supply connector attached to a vehicle-side connecting portion and control unit controlling the supply power to the vehicle-side connecting portion, supplying power from the vehicle to outside. The external power supply connector includes a body including an external connecting portion to an electric plug supplying power to a connected external device; a restricting member enables switching between restricting state wherein the electric plug is restricted from being attached and detached to and from the external connecting portion, and allowing state enabling the electric plug to attach and detach to and from the external connecting portion. A signal outputting portion outputs a signal to the control unit and detecting portion. The detecting portion detects the restricting state and allowing state of the restricting member. In allowing state, the signal outputting portion outputs a prohibiting signal from being supplied to the external power supply connector to the control unit [Abstract]).
Ono does not explicitly teach charging the specimen and stopping charging the specimen.
Etienne teaches charging the specimen and stopping charging the specimen (The simulator shown in FIG. 1 also has a certain number of actuating or control devices for the circuits 2, 3 and 4 mentioned, in order to be able to carry out a sequence of cycles of simulated city traffic until the battery 1 is discharged, and then before the execution of operating cycles under predetermined conditions [p.3] where when the battery is being charged, the command embodied by the signal T1 is constantly present. The output voltage U .sub.BM of the amplifier 98 follows the battery voltage and is then compared by the comparator 101 with a voltage corresponding to a charge of 100% of the battery, which is output by the divider with the potentiometer 103 . As soon as the recharging of the battery has ended, the value of 100% is reached and the comparator 101 outputs at its output a signal in accordance with a command to stop charging the battery and to restart a new simulation cycle [p.9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cao with the teachings of Etienne and Ono to use a connector that detachably connects a power cable from the power supply device to the specimen and a detachable mechanism that attaches and detaches the connector to and from the specimen, wherein the test control unit controls the detachable mechanism to connect the connector to the specimen when charging the specimen, and controls the detachable mechanism to remove the connector from the specimen when stopping charging the specimen to safely and seamlessly switch between active driving simulations and automated stationary charging without human intervention, thus mitigating safety hazards and enhancing the efficiency of the test.
Regarding claim 5, Cao teaches the specimen testing system according to claim 1, as well as a charging device connected to the vehicle [Fig. 1, element 100, p.9], a power supply device to the specimen (power battery [p.2]) and the test control unit (a vehicle chassis dynamometer machine [p.5]), but does not explicitly teach a connector that connects a power cable from the power supply device to the specimen, wherein the test control unit transmits a simulation signal indicating that the connector is attached to or detached from the specimen to the specimen, and switches charging and stopping of charging of the specimen in a state where the connector is connected to the specimen.
Ono teaches a connector that connects a power cable from the power supply device to the specimen, wherein the test control unit transmits a simulation signal indicating that the connector is attached to or detached from the specimen to the specimen, and switches charging and stopping of charging in a state where the connector is connected to the specimen (An external power supply connector attached to a vehicle-side connecting portion and control unit controlling the supply power to the vehicle-side connecting portion, supplying power from the vehicle to outside. The external power supply connector includes a body including an external connecting portion to an electric plug supplying power to a connected external device; a restricting member enables switching between restricting state wherein the electric plug is restricted from being attached and detached to and from the external connecting portion, and allowing state enabling the electric plug to attach and detach to and from the external connecting portion. A signal outputting portion outputs a signal to the control unit and detecting portion. The detecting portion detects the restricting state and allowing state of the restricting member. In allowing state, the signal outputting portion outputs a prohibiting signal from being supplied to the external power supply connector to the control unit [Abstract]).
Ono does not explicitly teach charging the specimen and stopping charging the specimen.
Etienne teaches charging the specimen and stopping charging the specimen (The simulator shown in FIG. 1 also has a certain number of actuating or control devices for the circuits 2, 3 and 4 mentioned, in order to be able to carry out a sequence of cycles of simulated city traffic until the battery 1 is discharged, and then before the execution of operating cycles under predetermined conditions [p.3] where when the battery is being charged, the command embodied by the signal T1 is constantly present. The output voltage U .sub.BM of the amplifier 98 follows the battery voltage and is then compared by the comparator 101 with a voltage corresponding to a charge of 100% of the battery, which is output by the divider with the potentiometer 103 . As soon as the recharging of the battery has ended, the value of 100% is reached and the comparator 101 outputs at its output a signal in accordance with a command to stop charging the battery and to restart a new simulation cycle [p.9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cao with the teachings of Etienne and Ono to use a connector that connects a power cable from the power supply device to the specimen, wherein the test control unit transmits a simulation signal indicating that the connector is attached to or detached from the specimen to the specimen, and switches charging and stopping of charging of the specimen in a state where the connector is connected to the specimen to safely and seamlessly switch between active driving simulations and automated stationary charging without human intervention, thus mitigating safety hazards and enhancing the efficiency of the test.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 106226698 B) in view of Etienne (DE 2911840 C2) further in view of Furukawa (JP 2019046635 W).
Regarding claim 6, Cao teaches the specimen testing system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach an automatic driving device that automatically drives the specimen, wherein the test control unit stops or restarts the operation of the specimen by the automatic driving device.
Furukawa teaches an automatic driving device that automatically drives the specimen, wherein the test control unit stops the operation of the specimen by the automatic driving device (when the recognition unit 7 recognizes the abnormality of the vehicle, the test control unit 44 controls the automatic driving device 2, the chassis dynamometer 1 and the like to stop the running of the specimen and The vehicle test for the prototype can be stopped [p.5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cao with the teachings of Etienne and Furukawa to use an automatic driving device that automatically drives the specimen, wherein the test control unit stops the operation of the specimen by the automatic driving device to mitigate safety hazards and improve automation and efficiency in vehicle testing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 106226698 B) in view of Etienne (DE 2911840 C2) further in view of Kang (KR 20090098756 A).
Regarding claim 7, Cao teaches the specimen testing system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a blower fan that blows air in conjunction with the operation of the specimen.
Kang teaches a blower fan that blows air in conjunction with the operation of the specimen (The chassis dynamometer includes a cooling blower [p.2] where a cooling blower 40 may be provided to cool the vehicle while driving the on-line electric vehicle 10 on the chassis dynamometer 20 [p.5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cao with the teachings of Etienne and Kang to use a blower fan that blows air in conjunction with the operation of the specimen to more effectively manage heat and mitigate safety hazards when testing the vehicle.
Pertinent Prior Art
US 6457351 B1: Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing Method And System
A hybrid electric vehicle is placed in a running condition on a chassis dynamometer, a vehicle-end data is acquired by access to sensors in the vehicle, a dynanometer-end data is acquired by measurements at the chassis dynamometer, and the vehicle-end data and the dynamometer-end data are analyzed for inspections of drive and control systems of the vehicle.
Conclusion
An inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN D COONS whose telephone number is
(571) 272-2698. (via email: logan.coons@uspto.gov “without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via internet e-mail to an internet correspondence” MPEP 502.02 II). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am – 6pm ET.
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, SPE Shelby Turner, can be reached at (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOGAN D COONS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights