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 .
Priority
The present application is a 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/EP2022/086345, filed 16 December 2022, which claims priority to EP21216723.3, filed 22 December 2021.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, 17, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been newly added nor canceled. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application. The previous objections to claims 9, 12, and 17 have been withdrawn as a result of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to disclose newly amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach at least the limitation of "detecting a deadlock conflict based on the first state of the first robot, the first robot having restricted mobility in the direction of travel, and the second state of the second robot, the deadlock conflict comprising the first robot being unable to move further in the direction of travel due to a presence of the second robot." Applicant asserts that the Liu reference, which was previously used in the rejection of claim 9, fails to teach the above limitation, specifically asserting that "[t]he cited portion of Liu describes planning paths, which the Office Action equates to the claimed states. However, the states as claimed comprise restricted mobility. That is, not part of the planning paths of Liu. Furthermore, although Takase describes robots having restricted mobility in a direction of travel, there is no motivation to combine Liu with Takase in the manner claimed. That is, Takase provides a solution to address the conflicts described in its text; a solution which does not disclose or suggest the need for states from the first and second robots." The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the examiner notes that Applicant's arguments amount to a mere assertion that the previously cited references fail to teach the limitations above. The examiner notes that Applicant has provided no evidentiary support for their assertions beyond a summation of the previously cited portions of Liu. The examiner reminds Applicant that per MPEP 2145(I), "[a]n argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission…" and "[a]rguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence on the record." Further, the examiner notes that Applicant has merely alleged that "there is no motivation to combine Liu with Takase in the manner claimed" without supporting evidence to support that allegation.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that Applicant's arguments fail to address claim 1 as amended. Applicant's arguments are directed towards a portion of previously presented claim 9, which has, in the present reply, been amended to remove the portion which Applicant's arguments pertain. Additionally, the examiner notes that the canceled portion of claim 9 has not been fully incorporated into claim 1, and as such, the scope of the limitation which Applicant contends is not taught by the prior art has changed, which would render Applicant's argument moot anyway.
Lastly, the examiner notes that Applicant has, in their reply, provided an admission that Takase "describes robots having restricted mobility in a direction of travel." As such, the examiner further asserts that, in light of Applicant's admission, as well as further consideration of the previously applied references, Takase still discloses amended claim 1 (see the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of at least claim 1 below for further details). Hence, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, Applicant claims: “wherein the first robot has restricted mobility is based, at least in part, on the indication.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “wherein the first robot has restricted mobility.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takase (WO 0223297 A1), hereafter Takase.
Regarding claim 1, Takase discloses a method comprising:
Designating regions of an environment as resource zones, wherein autonomous mobile robots in a robot fleet are controllable to move towards one or more of the resource zones (0021, route setting means divides a space in which multiple mobile objects can travel simultaneously into multiple areas, 0073, plurality of mobile robots 202i are located within a predetermined space 201), the autonomous mobile robots comprising a first robot and a second robot (0110, first autonomous robot 202_1 and second autonomous robot 202_2, 0108, autonomous robots 115 and 113, see also Figs. 15 and 30), the first robot having a first state comprising a restricted mobility and the second robot having a second state comprising a restricted mobility (0108-0110, while autonomous robots 115 and 113 are moving in a situation where they are likely to pass each other, a moving obstacle 111, which was far away, approaches and moves away from the robot … this is a case where the situation becomes impossible for two vehicles to pass teach other. This kind of deadlock occurs when one of the autonomous robots is not able to plan the route … this can be detected by confirming that the … autonomous robot 115 (113) becomes movable when the other robot 113 (115) is deleted. Examiner's note: the examiner asserts that the mere ability for the first and second autonomous robots to mutually block each other's movement reads on the "first robot having a first state comprising a restricted mobility" and the "second robot having a second state comprising a restricted mobility" because so long as the robots can block each other, there exists a scenario in which the movement of both robots mutually restrict each other's movement);
Controlling the first robot to move within the physical environment in a direction of travel toward a first resource zone of the resource zones (0108-0109, while autonomous robots 115 and 113 are moving in a situation where they are likely to pass each other…, 0110-0112, assume there are two obstacles 341 and 342 placed within a space 201, forming a narrow passage 343 between them, in such a case, the first autonomous robot 202_1 plans a route through passage 343 towards goal cell 344, and the second autonomous robot 202_2 plans a route through passage 343 in the opposite direction towards goal cell 345, in this case, a potential deadlock is detected in the path planning of both autonomous robots);
Monitoring the robot fleet to determine that the first robot has restricted mobility due at least to a position of the second robot relative to the first resource zone (0110-0112, assume there are two obstacles 341 and 342 placed within a space 201, forming a narrow passage 343 between them, in such a case, the first autonomous robot 202_1 plans a route through passage 343 towards goal cell 344, and the second autonomous robot 202_2 plans a route through passage 343 in the opposite direction towards goal cell 345, in this case, a potential deadlock is detected in the path planning of both autonomous robots); and
Detecting a deadlock conflict based on the first state of the first robot, the first robot having restricted mobility in the direction of travel, and the second state of the second robot, the deadlock conflict comprising the first robot being unable to move further in the direction of travel due to a presence of the second robot (0108-0110, while autonomous robots 115 and 113 are moving in a situation where they are likely to pass each other, a moving obstacle 111, which was far away, approaches and moves away from the robot … this is a case where the situation becomes impossible for two vehicles to pass teach other. This kind of deadlock occurs when one of the autonomous robots is not able to plan the route … this can be detected by confirming that the … autonomous robot 115 (113) becomes movable when the other robot 113 (115) is deleted. 0110-0112, assume there are two obstacles 341 and 342 placed within a space 201, forming a narrow passage 343 between them, in such a case, the first autonomous robot 202_1 plans a route through passage 343 towards goal cell 344, and the second autonomous robot 202_2 plans a route through passage 343 in the opposite direction towards goal cell 345, in this case, a potential deadlock is detected in the path planning of both autonomous robots).
Claims 8 and 20 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 4, Takase discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein detecting the deadlock conflict is based on a duration that the first robot is in the first state (0137, to check whether a robot is in a deadlock state, it is sufficient to constantly monitor whether there are multiple robots that have been unable to move for a certain period of time).
Regarding claim 13, Takase discloses the system of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to determine that the first robot has restricted mobility due to the second robot blocking the first resource zone (0110-0112, assume there are two obstacles 341 and 342 placed within a space 201, forming a narrow passage 343 between them, in such a case, the first autonomous robot 202_1 plans a route through passage 343 towards goal cell 344, and the second autonomous robot 202_2 plans a route through passage 343 in the opposite direction towards goal cell 345, in this case, a potential deadlock is detected in the path planning of both autonomous robots).
Regarding claim 14, Takase discloses the system of claim 13, and further discloses wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to determine that the first robot has restricted mobility due to the second robot blocking the first resource zone by blocking a pathway of the first robot to the first resource zone (0110-0112, assume there are two obstacles 341 and 342 placed within a space 201, forming a narrow passage 343 between them, in such a case, the first autonomous robot 202_1 plans a route through passage 343 towards goal cell 344, and the second autonomous robot 202_2 plans a route through passage 343 in the opposite direction towards goal cell 345, in this case, a potential deadlock is detected in the path planning of both autonomous robots).
Regarding claim 18, Takase discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein monitoring comprises determining that the first robot has restricted mobility due to the second robot blocking a pathway of the first robot to the first resource zone (0110-0112, assume there are two obstacles 341 and 342 placed within a space 201, forming a narrow passage 343 between them, in such a case, the first autonomous robot 202_1 plans a route through passage 343 towards goal cell 344, and the second autonomous robot 202_2 plans a route through passage 343 in the opposite direction towards goal cell 345, in this case, a potential deadlock is detected in the path planning of both autonomous robots).
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.
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase in view of Li (US 20220163969 A1, having an effective filing date of 20 November 2020), hereafter Li.
Regarding claim 2, Takase discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a capacity of each resource zone is based on a maximum number of autonomous mobile robots that can occupy a region corresponding to the resource zone.
Li, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein a capacity of each resource zone is based on a maximum number of autonomous mobile robots that can occupy a region corresponding to the resource zone (0039, obstacle map is 201 is passed onto a map generator module 211, which receives the obstacle map 201 as an input and converts it into a discretized form, such as a graph, the graph includes multiple nodes representing a region of free space, 0041, nodes may be defined with an arbitrary amount of spaces, for example, 10 robots).
Takase and Li are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the capacity determination of Li in order to provide a means of determining if a robot can enter into an area. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the system is able to determine if a robot is able to enter a specific operational area.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Takase and Li teaches the method of claim 2, and Li teaches it further comprising:
Determining that the first resource zone is at maximum capacity (0041, node resolver 212 can assign multiple robots that may fit into these nodes, however, if there are twenty robots, then the node resolver may have to set those additional robots to different nodes due to space constraints); and
Providing an indication that the first zone is at maximum capacity (0041, node resolver 212 can assign multiple robots that may fit into these nodes, however, if there are twenty robots, then the node resolver may have to set those additional robots to different nodes due to space constraints);
Wherein the first robot has restricted mobility is based, at least in part, on the indication (0041, node resolver 212 can assign multiple robots that may fit into these nodes, however, if there are twenty robots, then the node resolver may have to set those additional robots to different nodes due to space constraints).
Takase and Li are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the capacity determination of Li in order to provide a means of determining if a robot can enter into an area. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the system is able to determine if a robot is able to enter a specific operational area.
Regarding claim 5, Takase discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose it further comprising:
Mapping at least the first and second robots to a digital directed graph comprising graph nodes and graph edges, the graph edges being indicative of dependencies between the graph nodes, wherein the graph nodes correspond to resource zones;
Wherein controlling the first robot is based on at least one of the graph edges.
Li, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Mapping at least the first and second robots to a digital directed graph comprising graph nodes and graph edges, the graph edges being indicative of dependencies between the graph nodes, wherein the graph nodes correspond to resource zones (0039, map generator module 211 receives the obstacle map 201 as an input and converts it into a discretized form, such as a graph, the graph includes multiple nodes representing a region of free space, and every edge connecting the nodes represents a pathway with a certain amount of space that robots can move through, 0071, the system plans route A which is represented by a line or an edge from root 301 to node A);
Wherein controlling the first robot is based on at least one of the graph edges (0071, the system plans route A which is represented by a line or an edge from root 301 to node A, Examiner's note, the robots are controlled based on the planned routes, that is, based on the edges, since the edges of the graph represent pathways for the robot to traverse).
Takase and Li are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the graph of Li in order to provide a means of simplifying the environmental representation. The motivation to combine is to allow the system to operate off of a simplified representation of the operating environment.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase in view of Li, and further in view of Liu et al. ("Resource Configuration for a Class of Petri Nets Based on Strongly Connected Characteristic Resource Subnets"), hereafter Liu et al.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Takase and Li teaches the method of claim 5, but fails to teach it further comprising:
Analyzing the digital directed graph based on a graph-theory algorithm, to identify one or more strongly connected components of the digital directed graph, wherein detecting the deadlock conflict is based on at least one of the one or more strongly connected components.
Liu et al., however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach analyzing the digital directed graph based on a graph-theory algorithm, to identify one or more strongly connected components of the digital directed graph, wherein detecting the deadlock conflict is based on at least one of the one or more strongly connected components (Page 26377, Paragraph 3, an optimal controller of a petri net for flexible manufacturing systems can be obtained by employing a reachability graph analysis, since it can be used to solve other problems such as deadlock control, Page 26379, Col. 2, Section IV, strongly connected characteristic resource sunnets are computed by applying Tarjan's depth first search approach).
Takase, Li, and Liu et al. are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., distributed system control. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the Tarjan’s depth first search of Liu et al. in order to provide further means of performing the graph analysis. The motivation to combine is to optimize the graph analysis.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Takase, Li, and Liu et al. teaches the method of claim 6, and Liu et al. further teaches wherein the graph-theory algorithm comprises Tarjan's strongly connected components algorithm (Page 26377, Paragraph 3, an optimal controller of a petri net for flexible manufacturing systems can be obtained by employing a reachability graph analysis, since it can be used to solve other problems such as deadlock control, Page 26379, Col. 2, Section IV, strongly connected characteristic resource sunnets are computed by applying Tarjan's depth first search approach).
Takase, Li, and Liu et al. are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., distributed system control. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the Tarjan’s depth first search of Liu et al. in order to provide further means of performing the graph analysis. The motivation to combine is to optimize the graph analysis.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase in view of Gupta (US 20180039282 A1), hereafter Gupta.
Regarding claim 7, Takase discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose it further comprising:
Outputting a notification in response to detecting the deadlock conflict.
Gupta, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach outputting a notification in response to detecting the deadlock conflict (0085, a deadlock manager can be notified when a first vehicle when a first vehicle 16 or an obstacle is blocking a second vehicle 16 in its navigation path).
Takase and Gupta are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the notification of Gupta in order to provide further means of determining deadlock. The motivation to combine is to allow the robotic control system to determine if a deadlock is present in the operating environment.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase in view of Liu (CN108279675A), hereafter Liu.
Regarding claim 9, Takase discloses the system of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein autonomous mobile robots in the fleet are each configured to provide a state of operation to the one or more processing devices.
Liu, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein autonomous mobile robots in the fleet are each configured to provide a state of operation to the one or more processing devices (0050, each mobile robot receives a dispatch command and calculates its own corresponding planning path according to its own target node area information, each mobile robot sends its calculated planned path to the server, 0054, when the second node region allocated to the second mobile robot overlaps with the node region allocated to the first mobile robot, the overlapping region is marked as a conflicting node region in a conflicting state, Examiner’s note: the examiner asserts that the path planning process of Liu reads on the “state of operation” as claimed, as the path transmitted to the server would include the current “state,” i.e., position, as the start position).
Takase and Liu are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the deadlock state determination of Liu in order to provide further means of determining if a potential deadlock state exists. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robotic system is better able to determine the presence of a deadlock state.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Takase and Liu teaches the system of claim 9, and Liu further teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to determine, based on at least one of the operational statuses, that at least one of the autonomous mobile robots is not in a deadlock conflict (0056, once it is detected that the first mobile robot A or the second mobile robot B has passed through the conflict node area, the server can convert the conflict node area from a conflict state to an allocable state).
Takase and Liu are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the passable state determination of Liu in order to provide a means of determining if a deadlock condition has cleared. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robotic system is better able to recover from a potential deadlock state.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase in view of Liu, and further in view of Gupta.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Takase and Liu teaches the system of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to determine, based on at least one state of operation of one autonomous mobile robot, that at least one of the autonomous mobile robots has restricted mobility that is not a result of being blocked by another autonomous mobile robot.
Gupta, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to determine, based on at least one state of operation of one autonomous mobile robot, that at least one of the autonomous mobile robots has restricted mobility that is not a result of being blocked by another autonomous mobile robot (0085, deadlock manager can be notified when a first vehicle 16 or an obstacle is blocking a second vehicle 16 in its navigation path).
Takase, Liu, and Gupta are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the obstacle blocking determination of Gupta in order to provide a means of determining deadlock causes in an environment. The motivation to combine is to allow the robotic control system to determine if a deadlock is being caused by something the control system can manipulate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase in view of Liu, and further in view of Takai (US 20220066454 A1, having an effective filing date of at least 03 August 2021), hereafter Takai.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Takase and Liu teaches the system of claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to determine, based on at least one state of operation, that at least one of the autonomous mobile robots is in a consideration state, the consideration state comprising the at least one of the autonomous mobile robots waiting in place for the duration, the one or more processing devices being configured to evaluate the consideration state based on velocities of one or more other autonomous mobile robots to determine whether the at least one of the autonomous mobile robot has restricted mobility.
Takai, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach determining, based on at least one state of operation, that at least one of the autonomous mobile robots is in a consideration state, the consideration state comprising the at least one of the autonomous mobile robots waiting in place for the duration, the one or more processing devices being configured to evaluate the consideration state based on velocities of one or more other autonomous mobile robots to determine whether the at least one of the autonomous mobile robot has restricted mobility (0045, in order to prevent such a deadlock from occurring, the autonomous mobile robot control system 1 gives the autonomous mobile robots 20 an instruction to perform deadlock avoidance behavior that puts one autonomous mobile robot 20 into standby mode until the other autonomous mobile robot 20 passes on the basis of the priority assigned to each of the autonomous mobile robots 20, Examiner’s note: the determination as to whether the autonomous mobile robot exits standby mode requires the other autonomous mobile robot to travel, i.e., have a velocity greater than 0).
Takase, Liu, and Takai are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the standby mode of Takai in order to provide further means of alleviating a potential deadlock condition. The motivation to combine is to ensure the robotic system is able to properly avoid deadlock conditions.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase, and further in view of Jeon (US 20190018427 A1), hereafter Jeon.
Regarding claim 15, Takase discloses the system of claim 8, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first robot and the second robot are each part of a queue defining an order in which the first robot and the second robot may access the first resource zone.
Jeon, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the first robot and the second robot are each part of a queue defining an order in which the first robot and the second robot may access the first resource zone (0075, the waiting area may be an area in which an autonomous driving robot apparatus 100 waits in order to use a shared resource in the order of arrival when the shared resource is being used).
Takase and Jeon are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to have included the queueing of Jeon in order to provide further means of ensuring that a deadlock condition can be avoided. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robots in the environment are able to navigate as efficiently as possible.
Regarding claim 16, Takase discloses the system of claim 13, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to determine that the first robot has restricted mobility due to the second robot blocking the first resource zone by being within the first resource zone.
Jeon, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach determining that the first robot has restricted mobility due to the second robot blocking the first resource zone by being within the first resource zone (0209, here, it is confirmed that a first autonomous driving robot apparatus 100-1 occupies the shared resource 300, which is the automatic door, and that a second autonomous driving robot apparatus 100-2 waits in a waiting area 20).
Takase and Jeon are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to have included the movement restriction based on zone occupancy of Jeon in order to provide further means of ensuring that a deadlock condition can be avoided. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robots in the environment are able to navigate as efficiently as possible.
Regarding claim 17, Takase discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein monitoring comprises determining that the first robot has restricted mobility due to the second robot being within the first resource zone.
Jeon, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach determining that the first robot has restricted mobility due to the second robot being within the first resource zone (0209, here, it is confirmed that a first autonomous driving robot apparatus 100-1 occupies the shared resource 300, which is the automatic door, and that a second autonomous driving robot apparatus 100-2 waits in a waiting area 20).
Takase and Jeon are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to have included the movement restriction based on zone occupancy of Jeon in order to provide further means of ensuring that a deadlock condition can be avoided. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robots in the environment are able to navigate as efficiently as possible.
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 BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3658