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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 3/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on page 4 directed towards the previous IDS,
The Examiner respectfully notes that nothing in the MPEP allows for or states that noting the references cited from an NPL foreign document not provided in English can be used as a translation or statement of relevance. While a search report that is in English can be used as a statement of relevance for the same corresponding documents listed on an IDS should these documents not be published in English, this rule is limited to this situation. Applicant has provided a foreign office action that is not in English, and in order to have this document considered, a statement of relevance in English that explains the relevance of this document is required. For example, as explained in MPEP 609,04(a)(III), “Where the information listed is not in the English language, but was cited in a search report or other action by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, the requirement for a concise explanation of relevance can be satisfied by submitting an English-language version of the search report or action which indicates the degree of relevance found by the foreign office.” However, the instant German Office Action in question was not cited in the search report noted by applicants, and a search report not citing the foreign document in question therefore cannot reasonably be used as a statement of relevance. Furthermore, noting one or more documents from the German Office Action are found in the search report does not reasonably act as a statement of relevance. See also 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i). As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 4-5 directed towards the previous 112 rejections,
Applicant argues that a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal and detecting an anomaly via the diagnostic method re known elements in the art and therefore need not be describe in detail. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that while such features are not required to be described in detail, applicant is still required to reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art as to the manner in which applicant is implementing a feature. For example, what the MPEP is addressing is, for example, stating that a microprocessor is used to implement an actually provided formula, but with no further detail, as such detail would not be required. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know how to implement a provided and disclosed formula on a microprocessor. However, when the original disclosure is completely or mostly silent as to the manner in which applicant implements a claim feature, and when applicant does not reasonably provide a complete example of what applicant is doing, then a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant is doing, nor recognize how to implement the invention or claim feature without figuring out how it can be done. Applicant’s disclosure is mostly silent as to the argued claim features, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicants is doing, would not recognize if applicant even intended to rely upon that which is well-known or if applicant had their own specific manner of implementing the claim feature that was not well-known, and would require undue experimentation to figure out what a diagnostic method would even be or required in order to implement the claim feature.
The Examiner further respectfully note that applicant is misstating what is found in the MPEP. Applicant argues that MPEP 2163 and 2164.01 state that known elements in the art need not be described in detail, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the actual wording is “Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” There is a difference between something that is merely “known” as opposed to information that “well known” in the art. Applicant, respectfully, has neither established the argued features are well-known, nor established that applicant intended to rely upon such features.
Applicant then argues that the limited anomaly counter and unlimited anomaly counter are known in the art, but the Examiner again respectfully notes 1) there is no evidence that these specific devices are known, 2) the test is whether they are well-known or conventional and not merely “known,” and 3) applicant is relying upon what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know without evidence, but where such evidence is required to establish such features are well-known (see MPEP 2145(I)).
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that what applicant is presenting is attorney argument, as applicant is relying upon what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know but without evidence, but where such evidence is required (see MPEP 2145(I)). Additionally, whether a feature was “known” in the art does not reasonably meet the requirement as such a feature must be “well-known” or “conventional” in order to be relied upon. There is no evidence that the argued features were well-known, and there is no evidence that applicant ever intended to rely upon or otherwise include any well-known diagnostic method in the instant application.
Applicant lastly cites paragraphs [0028] and [0029] for support for the determining of the thermal runaway, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While thresholds are disclosed, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant identifies an anomaly or other aspects of the claim, as explained above, that the above determination relies upon. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
That stated, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has not addressed all previously 112 rejections, and these rejections are respectfully repeated below.
With regard to the arguments on page 5 directed towards the 101 rejections,
The Examiner respectfully notes that no specific arguments are presented, and that the instant amendments do not reasonably overcome the previous 101 rejections.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has not responded to the specific Claim 19 101 rejection previously made, and no amendment is presented. As such, this rejection is repeated.
Second, as best understood, applicant’s amendment adding the outputting a warning message is intended to overcome the 101 rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, the last claim feature is not positively recited in the claim, as is requires the determining of the thermal runaway, which is also not positively recited. Such an outputting claim feature is therefore not required in the claim, and thus cannot reasonably overcome the 101 rejection.
That stated, the Examiner respectfully notes that the mere outputting of a signal, such as warning message, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection. First, such a signal is a necessary part of the claim because some form of indication must be provided in order for the claim method to have any meaning, and thus the warning message is merely necessary data outputting, which has been held to be insufficient extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Second, as explained in the same MPEP section, the mere selecting and displaying of data is insufficient extra-solution activity (see for example Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Merely outputting a result of the method, such as to merely display information or generate an audible signal, is insufficient extra solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim or act as something significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, this rejection is repeated.
With regard to the arguments on pages 5-6 directed towards the prior art rejections,
Applicant argues that Kim (US 2021/0263107) has nothing to do with thermal runaway of a store unit and is silent as to thermal runaway. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant does not positively recite or require any determination or detection of thermal runaway in the claim. While applicant has change the term “when” to “in response to,” the effect, respectfully, is the same. These terms are synonymous, and neither positively recite nor require any claim features associated with them. Claiming “in response to a door opening, a light turns on,” is the same as claiming “when a door opens, a light turns on.” In both situations, the light is only required to be turned on if/when or in response to the door being opened. However, there is no requirement that the door ever be opened. Similarly, applicant claims “in response to detecting an anomaly … determining: a frequency of the anomaly … and dynamics of the anomaly.” This phrase is conditional and only requires the determination of aspects of the anomaly “in response to detecting an anomaly.” However, when no anomaly is present, which is reasonably the majority of the time, this feature is not implemented or required, and as such neither this nor any claim feature that relies upon this feature are required in the claim.
Note that this is different than reciting an apparatus component that is configured to determine aspects of an anomaly when an anomaly is detected. In this situation, the component is configured to perform the determination regardless of whether an anomaly is detected. However, in a method claim, the conditional limitations recited by applicant are not positive recitations, and the prior art can therefore be reasonably stated to disclose the claim when it discloses the positively recited features, as explained below.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the device of Kim can be used for thermal runaway, and because it discloses the features of the claim that are positively recited.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “in response to determining the thermal runaway, outputting on an output device a warning message to an occupant in the motor vehicle” on the last two lines stands rejected as being directed towards or encompassing a human organism.
A claim that requires a human being are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter as they reasonably are directed towards or otherwise encompass a human organism. In the instant case, applicant is expressly stating outputting a warning message to an occupant. The only way the message can be output to an occupant is if the occupant is present and required in the claim, otherwise the message could not be output to the occupant as no occupant would be present for the message to be output to. Such a claim reasonably at least encompasses a human organism, as it requires a person be present so a message can be sent or output to that person. Similarly, the Board explained on pages 7-8 of the Board Decision of 3/2/2015 in 11/179,228, that claims require the presence of a person, absent some reasonable explanation of how the claim can be satisfied without the presence of a human being, are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed towards patent-ineligible subject matter. This claim feature, similarly, cannot reasonably be satisfied without the presence of a human being, and thus is also directed towards patent-ineligible subject matter.
As to Claims 12-17, 19, and 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because this claim is directed towards a computer program (data structure), but where a data structure does not fall within one of the four statutory categories.
As to Claim 19,
Applicant explains on lines 13-14 of page 5 “The computer program product can also be referred to as a computer program.” As such, Claim 19 is expressly directed towards a computer program. As explained in MPEP 2106.03, “ Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.” The Examiner acknowledges that applicant’s claim does state that the computer program product comprises the program code which causes an electronic computing device (10) to carry out the method according to claim 11 when the program code is processed by the electronic computing device (10),” but the issue here is that the term “when” does not require the electronic computing device to ever process the program code. Without such a requirement, the claim is merely directed towards the program code itself, and therefore does not reasonably fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
As to Claim 11,
Step 1: This claim is directed towards a method of use and is therefore a process claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: This claim is directed towards a judicial exception, as it claims “continuously monitoring the electric energy storage unit via a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal; in response to detecting an anomaly via the diagnostic method, determining a frequency of the anomaly over a predefined time period; and dynamics of the anomaly over the predefined time period; continuously monitoring a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter; in response to detecting the anomaly in the communication line, generating a differential signal reflecting a difference between the limited anomaly counter an unlimited anomaly counter; and determining the thermal runaway from the determined frequency, the determined dynamics, and the differential signal” which are directed towards a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical calculations. As best understood, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, all of the above features are directed to mathematical calculations by a processing device and not merely using such calculations.
Note: The Examiner acknowledges that applicant claims “continuously monitoring the electric energy storage unit via a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal” and “continuously monitoring a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter” in the above phase. These features, as best understood, are themselves mathematical calculations or mathematical functions, and not additional elements. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which these features are implemented. However, as evidenced by Claim 20, each of the features recited in Claim 11 are process steps implemented by a computer. Any monitoring performed is actually a mathematical operation used by the computer in a diagnostic method to compute a current state of the energy storage unit or compute some value related to the communication line. Meaning, a mathematical operation can be used to monitor a signal on a line without the communication line being present in the claim, as the claim is really directed towards the operations of monitoring themselves. As such, these features are actually mathematical operations, and thus mathematical calculations/concepts. The limited anomaly counter, as best understood, is not a physical component and is instead a series of mathematical equations use to monitor the communication line. Note that the phrase “in response to detecting the anomaly in the communication line, generating a differential signal reflecting a difference between the limited anomaly counter an unlimited anomaly counter” does not reasonably require the unlimited anomaly counter, because such a feature is only required in the claim “in response to detecting the anomaly.” That stated, even to the extent that the unlimited anomaly counter is required, similar to the above limited anomaly counter, the unlimited anomaly counter is, as best understood, a series of mathematical equations implemented in software.
Similarly, applicant claims “generating a differential signal reflecting a difference between the limited anomaly counter and an unlimited anomaly counter,” but where as best understood, the mere generation of the signal, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mathematical calculation where the signal is computed based on the comparing. Applicant does not claim any signal is output, and the mere generation of a signal does not require anything more than a value for the signal to be computed that could later be output. Meaning, there is a difference between “outputting” a signal as opposed to “generating” a signal. These features, therefore, are not additional elements and the entirety of the claim is directed towards an abstract idea directed towards mathematical calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim does not integrate the above abstract idea into a practical application, as no practical claim recitation involves the determination of the thermal runaway found in the last claim step. Furthermore, while applicant does recite “generating a differential signal” this step does not involve the final determination of the thermal runaway step, and it does not amount to a practical application because it itself is a mathematical calculation. That stated, even to the extent that such a feature as treated as an additional element, it has been held that the mere outputting of a signal, even based on the abstract idea, is not significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
Applicant now claims “in response to determining the thermal runaway, outputting on an output device a warning message to an occupant in the motor vehicle,” but such a feature is not a practical application.
First, this phrase is not required in the claim as it is only invoked “in response” to the above determination, and thus is not reasonably a practical application as it is not always required.
Second, the mere outputting of a signal, such as warning message, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection. First, such a signal is a necessary part of the claim because some form of indication must be provided in order for the claim method to have any meaning, and thus the warning message is merely necessary data outputting, which has been held to be insufficient extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Second, as explained in the same MPEP section, the mere selecting and displaying of data is insufficient extra-solution activity (see for example Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Merely outputting a result of the method, such as to merely display information or generate an audible signal, is insufficient extra solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim or act as something significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: This claim does not integrate the abstract ideal into a practical application as explained above. Furthermore, no additional elements of the claim are present, and the entirety of the claim, as best understood, is directed towards the abstract idea.
Even if the phrases “continuously monitoring the electric energy storage unit via a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal” and “continuously monitoring a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter” were treated as additional elements, such features do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are conventional. For example, US 2021/0263107 to Kim discloses continuous monitoring of the electric energy storage unit by a diagnostic method (see Paragraph [0073] / note the runway monitor 50), continuous monitoring of a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter (Paragraphs [0054][0073] / note the data on the line is monitored by the microprocessor which receives data), and the unlimited anomaly counter is processor 130 (Paragraph [0046]), as all processors include programming to perform counting. Similarly, US 2014/0239964 to Gach et al. discloses continuous monitoring of the electric energy storage unit by a diagnostic method (see Paragraph [0073] / note the runway monitor 50), continuous monitoring of a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter (Paragraphs [0054][0073]-[0076] / note the data on the line is monitored by the microprocessor which receives data as part of the battery fault monitor, and where the program inside the processor that limits the charge counter count is the limited anomaly counter), and the unlimited anomaly counter is that portion of the processor 130 that performs regular counting, as all processors include programming to perform counting.
Even if the phrase “generating a differential signal” were considered an additional element, such a feature is not a practical application of the abstract idea, because neither it nor any other claim feature implements a practical application of the final determination step of the claim, and because it has been held that the mere outputting of a signal, even based on the abstract idea, is not significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
As to Claims 12-17, 19, and 20,
Each of these claims further recites abstract ideas, as all claimed monitoring and determination claim features, as best understood, are computations implemented in a processor, and thus are directed towards the abstract idea. While applicant claims various elements are monitored, such as the switching state of a semiconductor element in Claim 13, the claims do not positively recite or require these elements, as instead only the mathematical determinations necessary for the monitoring by the diagnostic method, as best understood, are required, and mathematical determinations are themselves mathematical calculations. Lastly, the computer program of Claim 19 is itself merely implementing mathematical calculations, and a computer program (Claim 19) and an electronic computing device (Claim 20) are conventional devices, as evidenced by the above references which also rely upon processors (computers) that must involve and include both features.
As to Claims 12-17, 19, and 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 11, 19, and 20,
The phrase “continuously monitoring the electric energy storage unit via a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal; in response to detecting an anomaly via the diagnostic method, determining a frequency of the anomaly over a predefined time period, and dynamics of the anomaly over the predefined time period; continuously monitoring a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter; in response to detecting the anomaly in the communication line, generating a differential signal reflecting a difference between the limited anomaly counter an unlimited anomaly counter; and determining the thermal runaway from the determined frequency, the determined dynamics, and the differential signal, and in response to determining the thermal runaway, outputting on an output device a warning message to an occupant in the motor vehicle” on lines 4 to the end of Claim 11 and the same feature incorporated into Claims 19 and 20 lacks proper written description.
On the outset, the Examiner respectfully notes that the original disclosure is silent on most of the manner in which the above noted claim features are implemented. While applicant may rely upon that which is well-known, applicant must provide some reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which applicant is implementing each claim feature. Such an explanation may be as basic as merely identifying a well-known formula that was well-known to be used in the claimed manner, but when the disclosure is completely silent on the manner in which applicant implements a claim feature, a person of ordinary skill in the art would neither recognize the manner in which applicant intended to implement the claim feature, or even if applicant intended to rely upon that which is well-known or by a new process of feature.
1) The phrase “continuously monitoring the electric energy storage unit via a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal” from the above claim feature lacks proper written description.
Applicant claims that the continuous monitoring is performed “via a diagnostic method,” but where no such method is disclosed, and where a method itself is not reasonably capable of any monitoring. A method claim involve the use of structure features, and where, during the method, the structural features perform monitoring. However, a method itself is not reasonably capable of such monitoring, and applicant neither reasonably discloses the method nor provide the structural features part of the method that perform the claimed monitoring.
The phrase “in response to detecting an anomaly via the diagnostic method, determining a frequency of the anomaly over a predefined time period; and dynamics of the anomaly over the predefined time period” in the above claim feature lacks proper written description.
Applicant initially claims “in response to detecting an anomaly via the diagnostic method,” but applicant neither reasonably identifies what anomaly is or the manner in which it is detected. The original disclosure does explain “In particular it is therefore provided that the cell electronic monitoring system has the task of measuring the cell voltages and cell temperatures. Since these values are used in order to meet safety targets with an ASIL rating, they are checked in any case for correct function by means of diagnostics. These diagnostics are triggered if such an error/anomaly is present” on lines 5-9 of page 3. However, applicant does not reasonably explain if the anomaly is an voltage or temperature not within an excepted range individually, collectively, or if these values are merely used to indicate another type of anomaly. The original disclosure does not reasonably define any anomaly. Furthermore, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which such an anomaly is detected. Applicant does not disclose, for example, whether applicant is doing with any of the measured voltages and temperatures, either individually or collectively, to detect any anomaly. Applicant does not disclose any formulas, flow charts, or other reasonable explanation of what the voltage and/or temperature is used to detect or the manner in which it is use to detect a feature to reasonably establish possession of the claim feature.
Lastly, applicant claims “determining a frequency of the anomaly over a predefined time period,” but where the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant makes such a determination. The Examiner first notes that while a determination of a frequency may be well within the skill of one of ordinary skill, applicant does not reasonably provide a single example or provide any explanation to establish the manner in which applicant implements such a determination, including whether applicant even intended to rely upon a conventional way to determine a frequency or if applicant is relying upon a new manner of such a determination. Further, even to the extent that such a general determination was known, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements such a feature because such a person would not reasonably recognize what type of anomaly is being determined. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonable recognize the manner in which applicant is making any frequency determination of an anomaly when such a person is not reasonably apprised as to what anomaly applicant is determining or identify. For the reasons stated above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the above claim feature in order to establish possession of the claim feature.
Lastly, applicant claims determining “dynamics of the anomaly over the predefined time period,” but where the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant makes such a determination. Applicant does not reasonably provide any explanation as to what the dynamics of the anomaly are, nor provide any explanation as to the manner in which they are determined. The original disclosure is completely silent regarding the manner in which applicant determines dynamics of an anomaly as claimed. For the reasons stated above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the above claim feature in order to establish possession of the claim feature.
The phrase “continuously monitoring a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter” in the above claim feature lacks proper written description.
First, applicant claims a limited anomaly counter, but where such a counter is not reasonably a well-known device, and applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which such a device is implemented. On page 3 of the disclosure, applicant does explain that a “rate limiter” is the limited anomaly counter, but such a disclosure does not reasonably establish possession. A rate limiter, as best understood, is not a well-known device used to perform counting. As best understood, a rate limiter is not a physical structure performing any type of counting, and instead refers to a software approach that allows up to a certain number of count values. However, software is not reasonably capable of performing any type of monitoring. Instead, it is the device, such as a microprocessor, executing the software that would perform monitoring. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which software can perform any type of monitoring, applicant has not established the manner in which any limit on any count or rate is placed by the limited anomaly counter, and applicant has not reasonably explained the manner in which such a rate limiter can be used to monitor for an anomaly to establish possession. Merely limiting a rate or performing a count, limited or otherwise, does not reasonably monitor or otherwise identify an anomaly. The next issue is that a rate limiter cannot reasonably perform continuous monitoring, as claimed, because after whatever limit is set, it would reasonably cease any form of monitoring. Lastly, merely mentioning a rate limiter does not reasonably establish the manner in which applicant implements any form of monitoring using such a feature, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which any monitoring from any rate limiter is implemented in order to establish possession of the claim feature.
The phrase “in response to detecting the anomaly in the communication line, generating a differential signal reflecting a difference between the limited anomaly counter an unlimited anomaly counter” in the above claim feature lacks proper written description.
First, applicant claims an unlimited anomaly counter, but where such a counter is not reasonably a well-known device, and applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which such a device is implemented. On page 3 of the disclosure, applicant does explain that a “packet error counter” is the unlimited anomaly counter, but such a disclosure does not reasonably establish possession. A packet error counter is not a well-known device, and applicant does not reasonably provide any reasonably explanation to demonstrate what this device is. To the extent that applicant is referring to a packet error checking when applicant refers to the counter as a “PEC,” such a feature is a computer program, as best understood, and not any physical device that itself is reasonably capable of any form of monitoring. Instead, it is the device, such as a microprocessor, executing the software that would perform monitoring. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which software can perform any type of monitoring to establish possession. The next issue is that merely mentioning a PEC does not reasonably establish the manner in which applicant implements any form of monitoring using such a feature, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which any monitoring from any PEC is implemented in order to establish possession of the claim feature. Merely performing a count, limited or otherwise, does not reasonably monitor or otherwise identify an anomaly.
The next issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which two counters themselves are compared so as to be able to generate the differential signal. Whether the claimed counters are physical devices or are software programs, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand the manner in which applicant is comparing physical devices or software programs. While applicant may intend the comparison to mean that a comparison is made between values obtained from the counters, such a feature is not claimed. As claimed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the counters themselves are compared, in light of the disclosure, and would therefore not reasonably recognize the manner in which such a feature was implemented to establish possession of the claim feature.
The next issue is that applicant claims the generation of a differential signal on a basis of the comparing, but applicant does not reasonably disclose what the signal is or the manner in which it is generated so as to reflected the claimed difference. The difference must be a comparison, in light of the disclosure. That stated, for example, the signal could merely be the result from the comparison, presuming the comparison is made between two values. However, it could also be more than that, but where any signal generation involves the comparison but also additional steps or features used to create the differential signal. As applicant is calling the signal a “differential signal” which must therefore reasonably include a difference, such a signal could be the difference between the end result of the comparison, and another undisclosed value. The original disclosure is silent as to the manner in which the differential signal is generated on the basis of the comparing, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which such a feature was implemented to establish possession of the claim feature.
The phrase “determining the thermal runaway from of the determined frequency, the determined dynamics, and the differential signal” in the above claim feature lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any thermal runaway is determined, and it does not disclose the manner in which such a determination is made on a basis of the determined frequency and the determined dynamics and the differential signal. The original disclosure is completely silent as to any process, formula, or other reasonably explanation that applicant relies upon to make such a determination, especially based upon all of the above noted claim features. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which such a feature was implemented to establish possession of the claim feature.
As to Claims 12-16,
The phrase “an interruption of a cell voltage measuring line is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 12, “wherein a switching state of a balancing semiconductor element is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 13, “wherein a short circuit between adjacent pins on a circuit board of the electronic computing device (10) is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-3 of Claim 14, “wherein a deviation of a reference voltage source is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 15, “wherein a total voltage across a circuit board of the electronic computing device (10) is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 16 lack proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the above claimed diagnostic method monitors any of the above claim features. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any monitoring of these specific claim features is implemented, including being completely silent as to what the diagnostic method entails to enable or cause any of the claimed monitoring. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements any of the claimed monitoring as recited in these claims in order to establish possession of the claim features.
As to Claims 12-17, 19, and 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for 1) “continuously monitoring the electric energy storage unit via a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal; in response to detecting an anomaly via the diagnostic method, determining a frequency of the anomaly over a predefined time period, and dynamics of the anomaly over the predefined time period; continuously monitoring a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter; in response to detecting the anomaly in the communication line, generating a differential signal reflecting a difference between the limited anomaly counter an unlimited anomaly counter; and determining the thermal runaway from the determined frequency, the determined dynamics, and the differential signal” of Claim 11 and the same feature incorporated into Claims 19 and 20; and 2) “an interruption of a cell voltage measuring line is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 12; 3) “wherein a switching state of a balancing semiconductor element is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 13; 4)“wherein a short circuit between adjacent pins on a circuit board of the electronic computing device (10) is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-3 of Claim 14; 5) “wherein a deviation of a reference voltage source is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 15; 6) “wherein a total voltage across a circuit board of the electronic computing device (10) is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 16. Specifically, the Examiner does not find any explanation as to how applicant is implementing the above any of the above continuous monitoring steps, the diagnostic method, the limited anomaly counter, the unlimited anomaly counter, the detection of an anomaly, the determination of the thermal runaway on a basis of the determined frequency and the determined dynamics and the differential signal, and any of the above monitoring steps found in the dependent claims. This is a scope of enablement rejection because the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to use the invention commensurate with the scope of the claims without undue experimentation.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability or unpredictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction or guidance presented by invent tor;
(G) The existence or absence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation necessary.
See In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
MPEP §2164.01(a)
As to factor (A), the Examiner notes that the claims 11-17, 19, and 20 are unbounded. Applicant has not provided any explanation as to how applicant is implementing the above continuous monitoring steps, the diagnostic method, the limited anomaly counter, the unlimited anomaly counter, the detection of an anomaly, the determination of the thermal runaway on a basis of the determined frequency and the determined dynamics and the differential signal, and any of the above monitoring steps found in the dependent claims, and as such claims 11-17, 19, and 20 would cover any and every way possible to accomplish these claim features.
As to factor (G), the Examiner notes that applicant has not provided sufficient working examples via the specification commensurate with the scope of the claims. Applicant does not provide any example of how applicant implements the above any of the above continuous monitoring steps, the diagnostic method, the limited anomaly counter, the unlimited anomaly counter, the detection of an anomaly, and the determination of the thermal runaway on a basis of the determined frequency and the determined dynamics and the differential signal. The specification is silent as to how applicant monitors the energy storage unit or communication line, how any diagnostic method is implemented including how it is used to determine a current state of the electric energy storage unit based on a diagnostic signal, how applicant fully implements a limited anomaly counter such that it can monitor for anomalies, what applicant considers an anomaly to be, what applicant considers determined dynamics to be, the manner in which these dynamics are determined, what applicant considers an unlimited anomaly counter to be such that it can count anomalies, and how applicant determines the thermal runaway on a basis of the determined frequency and the determined dynamics and the differential signal Similarly, applicant does not reasonably disclose how applicant implements any of the above monitoring steps found in the dependent claims for the specific devices recited in these claims. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose any suitable and sufficient working examples to perform the above claimed features.
As to factor (H), the Examiner notes that the quantity of experimentation need is high. Applicant provides no examples or explanation as to how applicant is implementing the above any of the above continuous monitoring steps, the diagnostic method, the limited anomaly counter, the unlimited anomaly counter, the detection of an anomaly, and the determination of the thermal runaway on a basis of the determined frequency and the determined dynamics and the differential signal. Applicant further does not provide any details of what each determination step entails, what the anomaly can be, what the dynamics can be, how such dynamics are determined, how applicant implements any of the counters such that they can count anomalies or perform the claimed monitoring, how applicant determines of the thermal runaway on a basis of the determined frequency and the determined dynamics and the differential signal. Similarly, applicant does not reasonably disclose how applicant implements any of the above monitoring steps found in the dependent claims for the specific devices recited in these claims. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to independently develop the software and/or hardware for the device needed to perform or accomplish the claimed functions, such as identify how the counters can be implemented, and used to monitor as claimed, what an anomaly can be considered to be, what dynamics can be considered to be and how they can be determined, how a current state can be determined based on a diagnostic signal, what that diagnostic signal can be, how thermal runaway can be determined on the basis of the determined frequency and the determined dynamics and the differential signal, and how any of the claimed devices from the dependent claims can be monitored by a diagnostic method. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have to independently figure out how to implement each of the above noted claim features.
In view of the forgoing, the Examiner finds that the unbounded modes of operation are directed to an invention for which no working examples have been provided commensurate with the scope of the claims. Based on the Wands factors (A), (G), and (H), the Examiner concludes that applicant's specification does not enable those skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The Examiner notes that the claimed features encompass any and all structures and/or acts for achieving their results and operation, including those which were not what the applicant had invented and those which could be invented in the future. As such, claims 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) for lacking an enabling disclosure commensurate with the scope of the claims.
As to Claims 12-17, 19, and 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claims and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “continuously monitoring the electric energy storage unit via a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal; in response to detecting an anomaly via the diagnostic method, determining a frequency of the anomaly over a predefined time period, and dynamics of the anomaly over the predefined time period; continuously monitoring a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter; in response to detecting the anomaly in the communication line, generating a differential signal reflecting a difference between the limited anomaly counter an unlimited anomaly counter; and determining the thermal runaway from the determined frequency, the determined dynamics, and the differential signal, and in response to determining the thermal runaway, outputting on an output device a warning message to an occupant in the motor vehicle” on lines 4 to the end is indefinite.
1) The phrase “continuously monitoring the electric energy storage unit via a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal” from the above claim feature is indefinite.
First, it is unclear if the above diagnostic method is or is not part of the method required in Claim 11. Meaning, Claim 11 is itself a method and therefore reciting method steps, but applicant distinctly recites the above diagnostic method from the instant method of determining a thermal runaway on line 1 of the claim. As such, it is unclear if the diagnostic method is merely one that was already performed prior to the implementation of the instant method for determining a thermal runaway, or if applicant intends the diagnostic method to be actively performed during the instant claim method.
Second, it is unclear what the diagnostic method is in light of the disclosure. The metes and bounds of what limitations the diagnostic method imposes on the instant claim is unclear, as not method steps for the diagnostic method are recited in the claim.
Third, Claim 11 is a method claim, and therefore directed towards the active implementation of method steps. However, applicant is claiming “a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal,” which is an intended use of the diagnostic method. Reciting intended use inside a method of use claim is indefinite, because it renders the claim unclear as to whether the intended use or is not required to be actively performed in the claim. Intended use is an apparatus concept, but such a concept does not reasonably pertain to method steps as it, again, makes it unclear whether that intended use must actually be performed during the method steps, or if the method steps must only be capable of being used in the intended use claimed manner. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the intended use is not positively recited in the claim, and that the method steps must only be capable of such a use.
The phrase “when an anomaly is detected in the diagnostic signal, determining a frequency of the anomaly in the diagnostic signal over a predefined time period” in the above claim feature is indefinite.
Applicant initially claims “when an anomaly is detected in the diagnostic signal,” but applicant neither reasonably identifies what anomaly is or the manner in which it is detected. The original disclosure does explain “In particular it is therefore provided that the cell electronic monitoring system has the task of measuring the cell voltages and cell temperatures. Since these values are used in order to meet safety targets with an ASIL rating, they are checked in any case for correct function by means of diagnostics. These diagnostics are triggered if such an error/anomaly is present” on lines 5-9 of page 3. However, applicant does not reasonably explain if the anomaly is an voltage or temperature not within an excepted range individually, collectively, or if these values are merely used to indicate another type of anomaly. The original disclosure does not reasonably define any anomaly. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand what the claimed anomaly is, and thus such a feature is indefinite because the metes and bounds of what the anomaly is or can be considered to be is unclear.
Lastly, applicant claims “determining dynamics of the anomaly in the diagnostic signal over the predefined time period,” but where the original disclosure is completely silent as to what the dynamics of the anomaly are in order to reasonably demonstrate the metes and bounds of this phrase. It is unclear what the dynamics of the anomaly can be considered to be, in light of the disclosure, and such a feature is therefore indefinite.
The phrase “in response to detecting an anomaly via the diagnostic method, determining a frequency of the anomaly over a predefined time period, and dynamics of the anomaly over the predefined time period” in the above claim feature is indefinite.
Applicant claims “an anomaly” in the above phrase, but where anomalies were already recited on line 6. As best understood, the above anomaly would be one of the previously recited anomalies, and is therefore not distinct. However, applicant is claiming these features as distinct, making the difference and relationship between these distinct recitations unclear.
The phrase “continuously monitoring a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter” in the above claim feature is indefinite.
First, applicant claims a limited anomaly counter, but where applicant does not reasonably disclose what a limited anomaly counter is in the disclosure. On page 3 of the disclosure, applicant does explain that a “rate limiter” is the limited anomaly counter, but such a disclosure does not reasonably establish the metes and bounds of what such a device can be considered to be, as a rate limiter, as best understood, is not a well-known device used to perform counting, and does not reasonably identify any particular device. A rate limiter could be a software program, for example, or some type of physical device, either of which that limits a rate in some manner. However, it is unclear if any device that is reasonably capable of performing any type of rate limiting would meet the claim requirement, or if the claim requires something more specific. For example, if the rate limiter is a software program, then the device must be a device similar to that of a computer, making a computer a rate limiting device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what devices would and would not meet the requirement for a rate limiter or limited anomaly counter, thus rendering the claim feature indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that any device that can limit a rate, such as a computer, would reasonably meet the claim feature.
The phrase “in response to detecting the anomaly in the communication line, generating a differential signal reflecting a difference between the limited anomaly counter an unlimited anomaly counter” in the above claim feature is indefinite.
Applicant claims an unlimited anomaly counter, but where such a counter is not reasonably a well-known device, and applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which such a device is implemented. On page 3 of the disclosure, applicant does explain that a “packet error counter” is the unlimited anomaly counter, but such a disclosure does not reasonably establish possession. A packet error counter is not a well-known device, and applicant does not reasonably provide any reasonably explanation to demonstrate what this device is. To the extent that applicant is referring to a packet error checking when applicant refers to the counter as a “PEC,” such a feature is a computer program, as best understood, and not any physical device that itself is reasonably capable of any form of monitoring. Instead, it is the device, such as a microprocessor, executing the software that would perform monitoring. To that extent, it is unclear what applicant means by an unlimited anomaly counter as the metes and bounds of what can and cannot be considered such a counter are unclear. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what devices would and would not meet the requirement for a rate limiter or limited anomaly counter, thus rendering the claim feature indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that any device that can limit a rate, such as a computer, would reasonably meet the claim feature.
As to Claims 12-16,
The phrase “an interruption of a cell voltage measuring line is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 12, “wherein a switching state of a balancing semiconductor element is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 13, “wherein a short circuit between adjacent pins on a circuit board of the electronic computing device (10) is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-3 of Claim 14, “wherein a deviation of a reference voltage source is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 15, “wherein a total voltage across a circuit board of the electronic computing device (10) is monitored by the diagnostic method (14)” on lines 1-2 of Claim 16 are indefinite.
1) The first issue is, similar to that noted in the above Claim 11, is that applicant is distinctly reciting a diagnostic method from the overall method of determining a thermal runaway. As such, it is unclear whether any of the features recited in these claims are positively recited, as none are being implemented by the actual method of determining a thermal runaway, and are instead being implemented by a diagnostic method, which, as best understood, is separate from the method of determining a thermal runaway.
2) The second issue is that none of these claims positively recite any method steps. Instead, these claims recite that a feature “is monitored” in past tense form. As such, it is unclear if this feature is positively recited, or if applicant is reciting an intended use of the diagnostic method. For the purpose of compact prosecution, these features are being interpreted as an intended use of the diagnostic method.
As to Claims 12-17, 19, and 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s), and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2021/0263107).
As to Claim 11,
Kim discloses A method for determining a thermal runaway of an electric energy storage unit (battery B) of an at least partially electrically operated motor vehicle via an electronic computing device (100) of the motor vehicle (Abstract), (Paragraph [0003]) comprising the steps of: continuously monitoring the electric energy storage unit via a diagnostic method for detecting anomalies in a diagnostic signal (Paragraph [0047] / note the battery is monitored and the detection system of Kim is used in a diagnostic method that can be used for the above intended use); in response to detecting an anomaly via the diagnostic method, determining a frequency of the anomaly over a predefined time period and dynamics of the anomaly over the predefined time period (note that this feature is not positively recited or required, and the prior art meets this claim feature when no anomaly exists); continuously monitoring a communication line of the electric energy storage unit by a limited anomaly counter (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0050] / note the ampere counter is being interpreted as the limited anomaly counter); in response to detecting the anomaly in the communication line, generating a differential signal reflecting a difference between the limited anomaly counter an unlimited anomaly counter (note that this feature is not positively recited or required, and the prior art meets this claim feature when no anomaly exists); and determining the thermal runaway from the determined frequency, the determined dynamics, and the differential signal (note that this feature is not positively recited or required, and the prior art meets this claim feature when no anomaly exists); and in response to determining the thermal runaway, outputting on an output device a warning message to an occupant in the motor vehicle ((note that this feature is not positively recited or required, and the prior art meets this claim feature when no anomaly exists, as this entire feature is based upon the above conditional features of “in response to detecting an anomaly,” and thus any determination is not reasonably required when an anomaly is not detected).
As to Claim 12,
Kim discloses wherein an interruption of a cell voltage measuring line is monitored by the diagnostic method (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0077],[0084]-[0088] / note the device (100) for estimating a stage of charge of the battery is reasonably capable of being used to monitor the above claim feature).
As to Claim 13,
Kim discloses wherein a switching state of a balancing semiconductor element is monitored by the diagnostic method (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0077],[0084]-[0088] / note the device (100) for estimating a stage of charge of the battery is reasonably capable of being used to monitor the above claim feature).
As to Claim 14,
Kim discloses wherein a short circuit between adjacent pins on a circuit board of the electronic computing device is monitored by the diagnostic method (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0077],[0084]-[0088] / note the device (100) for estimating a stage of charge of the battery is reasonably capable of being used to monitor the above claim feature).
As to Claim 15,
Kim discloses wherein a deviation of a reference voltage source is monitored by the diagnostic method (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0077],[0084]-[0088] / note the device (100) for estimating a stage of charge of the battery is reasonably capable of being used to monitor the above claim feature).
As to Claim 16,
Kim discloses wherein a total voltage across a circuit board of the electronic computing device (10) is monitored by the diagnostic method (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0077],[0084]-[0088] / note the device (100) for estimating a stage of charge of the battery is reasonably capable of being used to monitor the above claim feature).
As to Claim 17,
Kim discloses the differential signal is only generated when a predefined threshold between the limited anomaly counter and the unlimited anomaly counter is exceeded (note that this feature is not positively recited or required, and the prior art meets this claim feature when no anomaly exists or when the threshold is not exceeded, as this entire feature is based upon the above conditional features of “when an anomaly is detected,” and thus any determination is not reasonably required when an anomaly is not detected).
As to Claim 19,
Kim discloses A computer program product comprising program code which causes an electronic computing device to carry out the method according to claim 11 when the program code is processed by the electronic computing device (Paragraphs [0052],[0057]), (Figure 1 / note the processor is a digital processor executing a program, and thus meets this claim).
As to Claim 20,
Kim discloses An electronic computing device (100) for determining a thermal runaway of an electric energy storage unit of an at least partially electrically operated motor vehicle, wherein the electronic computing device is configured to perform the method according to claim 11 (Paragraphs [0052],[0057]), (Figure 1 / note the device 100 is configured to implement the features of the claim as it is reasonably capable of implementing the claim features as required).
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights