Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
802
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ertain nominal distance)
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Bierhals is silent but Yates teaches the amendments of “….a detection unit configured designed to identify said at least one mark and transmit to (see LEDs that can be detected to provide 1. Location 2. Speed and 3. Position of the trailer via sensors on the trailer in paragraph 20-25)
PNG
media_image2.png
836
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
said computing system data regarding [[the]] distance of said at least one mark based on size and shape of said at least one mark, and a location of said at least one mark relative to the detection unit: and (see Fig. 4 where the trailer includes LEDS that include 1. Range 2. Direction and 3. Speed LEDS 50-52 and 54 and claims 1-8 where the LEDs can determine the distance from the trailer of the obstacles and the speed and distance from the LEDS)
PNG
media_image3.png
696
858
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a maneuvering system configured to transmit a direction of the trailer's wheels to said computing system, (See paragraph 11-14 where the trailer wheels speed can be provided to slow the trailer’s speed to avoid obstacles; see chart above where the wheels of the trailer can be monitored and position provided to the computing device in terms of forward backward and spin and position of the trailer wheels)
wherein said computing system is configured to determine[[s]], based on said data, [[the]]~
position of the trailer relative to the towing vehicle, and based thereon and on said direction of the trailer's wheels' instruct the trailer whether to move forward, backwards or completely stop, and whether to turn left or right” (See paragraph 4 where the trailer can be provided to stop and see paragraph 19-20 where the caravan and trailer and the remote device can exchange data including the rotation of the trailer’s wheels and the spin of the wheels)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of YATES with the disclosure of BIERHALS with a reasonable expectation of success since YATES teaches the wheels of the trailer can be detected a position of the wheels can be recorded. A remote control and sensors on the trailer can also provide a position of the trailer and other objects for collision avoidance. The trailer can be controlled via a remote control to move when disconnected from the vehicle via a hitch and controlled to move via electric motors and to a stop position for collision avoidance. The trailer also can include LEDS on the trailer to determine the position and speed of the trailer with success. See paragraph 10-14 and 20-24 of YATES.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of German Patent Pub. No.: DE102018206569A1 to BIERHALS assigned to BMW™ and in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP1826107A2 to Yates that was filed in 2015.
PNG
media_image4.png
796
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Beirhals discloses “...1. A virtual trailer shaft/connection tongue system designed to connect a trailer to a towing vehicle without a physical connection therebetween, (see abstract where the vehicle has a tiler less trailer that has a motor and a steering unit and a braking unit and a sensor device that follows the towing vehicle within a distance D)
while enabling the trailer/cart to automatically follow the towing vehicle (the system comprising: (see abstract where the vehicle has a tiler less trailer that has a motor and a steering unit and a braking unit and a sensor device that follows the towing vehicle within a distance D)
a) a computing system comprising a memory and a processor; (See specification that recites 1 shows a system for the operation of an autonomous tiller trailer. The system has an autonomous tiller-less trailer 1 on, which has no mechanical connection to a towing vehicle in front of him 10 having. The trailer 1 has a drive motor 2 , preferably an electric motor, a steering device 3 , which has among other things a steering gear and tie rods, four (not shown) wheels, a braking system 4 and a sensor device 5 , which includes, inter alia, a radar sensor and a camera on. About the radar sensor and the camera, the sensor device 5 Data on the behavior of the towing vehicle 10 receive and from this the current distance d between the trailer 1 and the towing vehicle 10 determine.
The trailer 1 is via a control unit 6 so controlled that he is the towing vehicle 10 follows autonomously. The control unit 6 has a control unit, which in the trailer 1 is installed. The control unit 6 receives from the sensor device 5 continuously the current distance d of the trailer 1 to the towing vehicle 10 , Depending on the current distance d controls the control unit 6 the drive motor 2 , the steering device 3 and / or the braking system 4 so that a constant nominal distance between the trailer 1 and the towing vehicle 10 is complied with. In addition, the control unit 6 have a telemetry unit, which receives additional data via a radio interface. Optionally, the controller 6 this additional data into the control of the drive motor 2 , the steering device 3 and / or the braking system 4 depending on the current distance d include.)
b) at least one mark configured to be placed on a rear section of the towing vehicle, and a trailer located in front of another trailer; and (see specification that recites that the rear section of the first vehicle has a mark to provide a distance measurement; According to embodiments that may be combined with other embodiments described herein, the sensor system is configured to evaluate a vehicle mounted, preferably magnetically adhered, orientation symbol for detecting the distance. The orientation symbol may be an RFID system. The RFID system has a transponder which is located on a towing vehicle and comprises a characterizing code. Furthermore, the RFID system has a reading device for reading the code. The reader is attached to the trailer. )
c) a detection unit configured to identify said at least one mark and transmit to said computing system data regarding the distance …… a location of said at least one mark relative to the detection unit, wherein said computing system determines, (see specification that recites that the rear section of the first vehicle has a mark to provide a distance measurement; According to embodiments that may be combined with other embodiments described herein, the sensor system is configured to evaluate a vehicle mounted, preferably magnetically adhered, orientation symbol for detecting the distance. The orientation symbol may be an RFID system. The RFID system has a transponder which is located on a towing vehicle and comprises a characterizing code. Furthermore, the RFID system has a reading device for reading the code. The reader is attached to the trailer. )
based on said data, the position of the trailer relative to the towing vehicle, and based thereon……. instruct the trailer whether to move forward, backwards or to completely stop, and whether to turn left or right. (see claims 1-5 where the trailer vehicle follows the vehicle in all directions based on the sensor data; System for operating an autonomous tiller (1), comprising: - An autonomous tiller (1) with a drive motor (2) for driving the trailer, a steering unit (3) for steering the trailer, a brake unit (4) for braking the trailer and a sensor system (5) which is adapted to detect a distance (d) between the trailer (1) and a towing vehicle (10) ahead of the trailer (1); and - A with the drive motor (2), the steering unit (3), the brake unit (4) and the sensor system (5) coupled to the control unit (6) which is adapted to receive the sensor system (5) detected distance (d) and depending on the detected distance (d) the drive motor (2), the steering unit (3) and / or the brake unit (4) to control so that the trailer (1) autonomously follows the towing vehicle (10) with a certain desired distance , System after Claim 1 wherein the sensor system (5) comprises at least one of the following means for detecting the distance (d): ultrasonic sensor, radar sensor, lidar sensor, camera sensor video system and / or image sensor. System after Claim 1 or 2 . wherein the sensor system (5) is designed to evaluate a, preferably magnetically adhering, orientation symbol on the towing vehicle (10) for detecting the distance (d). A system according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the sensor system (5) is further adapted to detect signal and warning lights of the towing vehicle (10), and wherein the control unit (6) is further adapted in response to the detected signal and warning lights the drive motor (2), the steering unit (3) and / or the brake unit (4) to be controlled so that the trailer (1) autonomously follows the towing vehicle (10) with a c
PNG
media_image1.png
802
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ertain nominal distance)
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Bierhals is silent but Yates teaches the amendments of “….a detection unit configured designed to identify said at least one mark and transmit to (see LEDs that can be detected to provide 1. Location 2. Speed and 3. Position of the trailer via sensors on the trailer in paragraph 20-25)
PNG
media_image2.png
836
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
said computing system data regarding [[the]] distance of said at least one mark based on size and shape of said at least one mark, and a location of said at least one mark relative to the detection unit: and (see Fig. 4 where the trailer includes LEDS that include 1. Range 2. Direction and 3. Speed LEDS 50-52 and 54 and claims 1-8 where the LEDs can determine the distance from the trailer of the obstacles and the speed and distance from the LEDS)
PNG
media_image3.png
696
858
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a maneuvering system configured to transmit a direction of the trailer's wheels to said computing system, (See paragraph 11-14 where the trailer wheels speed can be provided to slow the trailer’s speed to avoid obstacles; see chart above where the wheels of the trailer can be monitored and position provided to the computing device in terms of forward backward and spin and position of the trailer wheels)
wherein said computing system is configured to determine[[s]], based on said data, [[the]]~
position of the trailer relative to the towing vehicle, and based thereon and on said direction of the trailer's wheels' instruct the trailer whether to move forward, backwards or completely stop, and whether to turn left or right” (See paragraph 4 where the trailer can be provided to stop and see paragraph 19-20 where the caravan and trailer and the remote device can exchange data including the rotation of the trailer’s wheels and the spin of the wheels)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of YATES with the disclosure of BIERHALS with a reasonable expectation of success since YATES teaches the wheels of the trailer can be detected a position of the wheels can be recorded. A remote control and sensors on the trailer can also provide a position of the trailer and other objects for collision avoidance. The trailer can be controlled via a remote control to move when disconnected from the vehicle via a hitch and controlled to move via electric motors and to a stop position for collision avoidance. The trailer also can include LEDS on the trailer to determine the position and speed of the trailer with success. See paragraph 10-14 and 20-24 of YATES.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of German Patent Pub. No.: DE102018206569A1 to BIERHALS assigned to BMW™ and Yates.
Beirhals discloses “...3. The system of claim 1, wherein said at least one mark is 1, 2, 3 or more marks positioned (see specification that recites that the rear section of the first vehicle has a mark to provide a distance measurement; According to embodiments that may be combined with other embodiments described herein, the sensor system is configured to evaluate a vehicle mounted, preferably magnetically adhered, orientation symbol for detecting the distance. The orientation symbol may be an RFID system. The RFID system has a transponder which is located on a towing vehicle and comprises a characterizing code. Furthermore, the RFID system has a reading device for reading the code. The reader is attached to the trailer. )”.
PNG
media_image1.png
802
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ertain nominal distance)
Claim 3 is amended to recite and Bierhals is silent but Yates teaches the amendments of “….the marks are on the towing vehicle’s rear section(see LEDs that can be detected to provide 1. Location 2. Speed and 3. Position of the trailer via sensors on the trailer in paragraph 20-25)
PNG
media_image2.png
836
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see Fig. 4 where the trailer includes LEDS that include 1. Range 2. Direction and 3. Speed LEDS 50-52 and 54 and claims 1-8 where the LEDs can determine the distance from the trailer of the obstacles and the speed and distance from the LEDS)
PNG
media_image3.png
696
858
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(See paragraph 11-14 where the trailer wheels speed can be provided to slow the trailer’s speed to avoid obstacles; see chart above where the wheels of the trailer can be monitored and position provided to the computing device in terms of forward backward and spin and position of the trailer wheels) (See paragraph 4 where the trailer can be provided to stop and see paragraph 19-20 where the caravan and trailer and the remote device can exchange data including the rotation of the trailer’s wheels and the spin of the wheels)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of YATES with the disclosure of BIERHALS with a reasonable expectation of success since YATES teaches the wheels of the trailer can be detected a position of the wheels can be recorded. A remote control and sensors on the trailer can also provide a position of the trailer and other objects for collision avoidance. The trailer can be controlled via a remote control to move when disconnected from the vehicle via a hitch and controlled to move via electric motors and to a stop position for collision avoidance. The trailer also can include LEDS on the trailer to determine the position and speed of the trailer with success. See paragraph 10-14 and 20-24 of YATES.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of German Patent Pub. No.: DE102018206569A1 to BIERHALS assigned to BMW™ and Yates.
Beirhals discloses “..4. The system of claim 1, wherein said at least one mark is selected from the group consisting of: visual sticker; light source visible light, IR and laser; barcode; RFID; NFC; 2D barcode; radio transmitter or combinations thereof; and said detection unit is configured to identify at least one mark and receive data therefrom. (see specification that recites that the rear section of the first vehicle has a mark to provide a distance measurement; According to embodiments that may be combined with other embodiments described herein, the sensor system is configured to evaluate a vehicle mounted, preferably magnetically adhered, orientation symbol for detecting the distance. The orientation symbol may be an RFID system. The RFID system has a transponder which is located on a towing vehicle and comprises a characterizing code. Furthermore, the RFID system has a reading device for reading the code. The reader is attached to the trailer. )”.
Beirhals discloses “...5. The system of claim 4, wherein the mark comprises a single mark and wherein said detection unit comprises a 3D- camera configured for measuring the direction and distance from said single mark. (see specification that recites A sensor system in the context of the present document is a system which comprises at least one sensor which detects a physically measurable measured variable, namely the distance between the towing vehicle and the trailer. Examples of a pickup are: ultrasonic sensor, radar sensor (e.g., near-field radar sensor, far-field radar sensor), lidar sensor, video system, and image sensor (e.g., camera). The sensor system may include other elements of the measurement chain, such as amplifiers, analog-to-digital converters, encoders, and the like. A receiving device for receiving wirelessly transmitted signals from transmission devices in the vicinity of the trailer, in particular from other vehicles (such as a motor vehicle) and / or the infrastructure and / or satellites, are sensor systems within the scope of the present document.
According to embodiments which may be combined with other embodiments described herein, the sensor system comprises at least one of the following means for detecting the distance: ultrasonic sensor, radar sensor, Lidar sensor, camera sensor video system and / or image sensor.)
Beirhals discloses “...6. The system of claim 4, wherein said at least one mark and wherein said detection unit compries a 2D-camera that is configured for measuring the direction and distance from said two or more marks”. (see paragraph 106-111 where the cart vehicle can include a 2d camera that can capture a photo of a 2d code using the vision sensor/camera).
Bierhals discloses A system comprising a towing vehicle/personal and a trailer
equipped with the virtual trailer shaft/connection tongue system of claim 1, wherein said trailer
comprises an autonomous engine and a steering stirring mechanism, and wherein said
computing system is configured to control[[s]] both the autonomous engine and the steering
mechanism. (A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for the operation of an autonomous tiller trailer. The system has an autonomous tiller-less trailer. The trailer has a drive motor for driving the trailer, a steering unit for steering the trailer, a brake unit for braking the trailer and a sensor system. The sensor system is configured to detect a distance between the trailer and a towing vehicle ahead of the trailer. Furthermore, the system has a control unit coupled to the drive motor, the steering unit, the brake unit and the sensor system, which is designed to receive the distance detected by the sensor system and, depending on the detected distance, the drive motor, the steering unit and / or the To control the braking unit so that the trailer autonomously follows the towing vehicle with a certain nominal distance.) (see specification that recites 1 shows a system for the operation of an autonomous tiller trailer. The system has an autonomous tiller-less trailer 1 on, which has no mechanical connection to a towing vehicle in front of him 10 having. The trailer 1 has a drive motor 2 , preferably an electric motor, a steering device 3 , which has among other things a steering gear and tie rods, four (not shown) wheels, a braking system 4 and a sensor device 5 , which includes, inter alia, a radar sensor and a camera on. About the radar sensor and the camera, the sensor device 5 Data on the behavior of the towing vehicle 10 receive and from this the current distance d between the trailer 1 and the towing vehicle 10 determine.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by German Patent Pub. No.: DE102018206569A1 to BIERHALS assigned to BMW™ and in view of United States Patent No.: US11587030B1to Wilkins that is assigned to AMAZON™ and in view of Yates.
PNG
media_image5.png
454
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The primary reference is silent but Wilkins teaches The trailer of claim 7_,_ wherein said trailer comprises which is a harvesting cart configured to carry[[ing]] at least one of: a robotic harvesting arm [[or]] and an unmanned aircraft harvesting vehicles (UA Vs). (see FIG. 6 where the autonomous robot can include an arm for collecting fruit 606-608 and a drone for collecting fruit 100)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of WILKINS of AMAZON™ with the disclosure of BIERHALS with a reasonable expectation of success since WILKINS teaches that first robotic vehicle can include a robotic arm and a drone to scan a fruit to see if it is ripe and if so collect the fruit using the arm and drone or leave it be as it is spoiled or has fungus and pests or is unripe. See Fig. 1-6 and the abstract and claims 1-10.
The primary reference discloses a towing vehicle and a trailer and is silent but Wilkins teaches A harvesting system for autonomous harvesting comprising at
least one towing vehicle and at least one trailer equipped with the virtual trailer
shaft/connection tongue system of claim 1, wherein said at least one trailer is configured to
equipped or carry [[ies ]] at least one of: a robotic harvesting arm and an [[or]] unmanned
aircraft harvesting vehicle[[s]] (UAV[[s]]). (see FIG. 1-6 where the autonomous robot can include an arm for collecting fruit 606-608 and a drone for collecting fruit 100)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of WILKINS of AMAZON™ with the disclosure of BIERHALS with a reasonable expectation of success since WILKINS teaches that first robotic vehicle can include a robotic arm and a drone to scan a fruit to see if it is ripe and if so collect the fruit using the arm and drone or leave it be as it is spoiled or has fungus and pests or is unripe. See Fig. 1-6 and the abstract and claims 1-10.
Wilkins teaches “...The harvesting system of claim 9, comprising two or more trailers,
wherein at least one of said trailers is configured to equipped or carry [[ies]] at least one of: a
robotic harvesting arm and an [[or]] UAVs, and wherein,ler at least one of said trailers
comprises [[is]] a fruit collection bin.. (see FIG. 1-6 where the autonomous robot can include an arm for collecting fruit 606-608 and a drone for collecting fruit 100 where the vehicle are determined to be ripe and if so it takes the ripe fruit to a collection area in the warehouse)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of WILKINS of AMAZON™ with the disclosure of BIERHALS with a reasonable expectation of success since WILKINS teaches that first robotic vehicle can include a robotic arm and a drone to scan a fruit to see if it is ripe and if so collect the fruit using the arm and drone or leave it be as it is spoiled or has fungus and pests or is unripe. See Fig. 1-6 and the abstract and claims 1-10.
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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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 A. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 /JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights