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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 11, 14-15, and 17-20 are amended.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 19 September 2025.
The objections to the drawings and claims from the prior office action are withdrawn.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action are withdrawn in view of the amended claims / persuasive arguments.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 from the prior office are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s argument regarding the prior art from the prior office action is persuasive. The prior art applied in the rejection of Claim 1 from the prior office action did not explicitly disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious “the plurality of wheels together bear an overall weight of the implement” in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, the prior art rejections from the prior office action are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and necessitated by amendment, new prior art has been applied that teaches “the plurality of wheels together bear an overall weight of the implement” in combination with the other limitations (see below).
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the following steps” in Claim 1
“the steps” in Claim 2
“the following steps” in Claim 8
“the steps” in Claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0237795 (Koch et al., hereinafter, Koch) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0068238 (hereinafter, Wendte).
Regarding Claim 1, Koch discloses A method (see at least FIG. 3), comprising the following steps:
measuring, by a computing system, each weight of a plurality of weights applied to a plurality of wheels of an agricultural implement at a geographic location of a crop field while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field… (see at least [0024], [0028], [0033], [0035], and [0039]: “monitor device 110 is preferably in electrical communication with seed sensors 160, downforce sensors 162, ride quality sensors 164, a GPS receiver 166, and one or more speed sensors 168 via a harness 156”; “The depth adjusting mechanism 268 preferably pivots about the downforce sensor 162, which preferably comprises a pin instrumented with strain gauges for measuring the force exerted on the gauge wheels 248 by the soil 40.”; “as the planter 10 is drawn through the field, the monitor device 110 receives raw as-applied data 181 including signals from seed sensors 160, downforce sensors 162, ride quality sensors 164, GPS receiver 166 and seed sensors 168. The monitor device 110 preferably processes the raw as-applied data 181, and stores the as-applied data to the memory 114.”; “At step 305, the monitor device 110 records the position reported by the GPS receiver 166 and determines the position of each row unit. At step 308, the monitor device 110 records the signal generated by the downforce sensors 162”);
matching, by the computing system, the geographic location of the crop field with a location entity of a model for a wheel weight map of the crop field, wherein the location entity corresponds to the geographic location (see at least [0035], [0039], FIG. 4, and FIG. 4: “At step 305, the monitor device 110 records the position reported by the GPS receiver 166 and determines the position of each row unit. At step 308, the monitor device 110 records the signal generated by the downforce sensors 162”);
associating, by the computing system, at least one of the measured plurality of weights to the location entity of the model (see at least [0035, [0038]-[0039], FIG. 3, and FIG. 4: FIG. 4 shows the weight distribution applied to the location entity).
Koch does not explicitly disclose wherein each weight of the plurality of weights is applied to one of the plurality of wheels and the plurality of wheels together bear an overall weight of the implement and dynamically inflating and deflating at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels as the agricultural implement moves through the crop field according to the measured weight or weights applied to the at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels.
Wendte, in the same field of agricultural implements, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein each weight of the plurality of weights is applied to one of the plurality of wheels and the plurality of wheels together bear an overall weight of the implement (see at least [0022], [0031], [0040], [0045]-[0046], and FIG. 1: “the agricultural implement load characteristic sensor 30 provides the processor 12 with information about a load on the agricultural implement. In many agricultural applications, implement load changes throughout operation. Here, a sensor periodically or constantly monitors load and the processor controls inflation based on the changing load. The type of load characteristic sensor needed depends on agricultural implement type. For example, the agricultural implement load characteristic sensor 30 can be a load cell on at least one tire supporting axle”; “In some cases the central tire inflation system will control the inflation of multiple towed implements (e.g., an air seeder followed be a seed cart or an anhydrous applicator followed by an anhydrous tank)”; “receive load characteristic values from each of vehicle tires 20 (e.g., from sensor 23) as well as implement tires 28 and may use that information to control the vehicle and implement tires differently”) and dynamically inflating and deflating at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels as the agricultural implement moves through the crop field according to the measured weight or weights applied to the at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels (see at least [0012], [0017], [0022], [0035], [0039], and FIG. 4: “generating a tire inflation control signal based on the load characteristic value and database data (step 38) and sending the control signal to the tire inflation controller thereby causing the controller to inflate or deflate the tires as appropriate (step 40)”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to substitute the determinations related to planters of Koch with the determinations related to tires of Wendte because it is a simple substitution for one device applying a weight to the ground with another, using known techniques for predictable results, with the motivation of tracking and adjusting soil compaction by the tires which are known to impact yield, as well as to prevent the need for expensive tracks instead of tires (see at least Wendte [0004]-[0011]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Koch further discloses comprising repeating, by the computing system, the steps of claim 1 for a plurality of geographic locations of the crop field (see at least [0038] and FIG. 4: “As the planter 10 traverses the field, a map block (e.g., map block 428) is placed in the location occupied by each row unit 1-4”).
Regarding Claim 3, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Additionally, Koch further discloses further comprising rendering, by a mapping application of the computing system, the wheel weight map to be displayed in a graphical user interface, based on the model for the wheel weight map (see at least [0022]-[0023], [0035]-[0039], FIG. 1, and FIG. 4: graphical user interface (GUI) 132 is a sub-component of display device 130; “the display device 130 preferably renders a map of the processed as-applied data 182”; “At step 1215, as the planter 10 is drawn through the field, the monitor device 110 receives raw as-applied data 181 including signals from seed sensors 160, downforce sensors 162, ride quality sensors 164, GPS receiver 166 and seed sensors 168. The monitor device 110 preferably processes the raw as-applied data 181, and stores the as-applied data to the memory 114. The monitor 130 preferably transmits processed as-applied data 182 to the display device 130 via the communication module 120. The processed as-applied data 182 is preferably streaming, piecewise, or partial data.”),
wherein the wheel weight map shows at least a plurality of measured weights applied to at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels at a plurality of location entities of the model corresponding to geographic locations of the crop field where measuring of the weights applied to the at least one wheel occurred (see at least [0038] and FIG. 4: for Row 1, see map block 428 and map block 426).
Regarding Claim 4, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Additionally, Koch suggests comprising rendering, by the mapping application of the computing system, the wheel weight map to be displayed along with a yield map of the crop field (see at least [0062], [0068], FIG. 16, FIG. 17, and FIG. 18: live yield map window 1660 is on one side of FIG. 16-18 and the other side is a map of an agricultural parameter; “An interface 90 allows the user to select which map (e.g., downforce map 400) is currently displayed on the screen” (i.e., change with agricultural parameter is showing next to the live yield map window 1660)).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, that the Koch system suggests displaying in this manor because “An interface 90 allows the user to select which map (e.g., downforce map 400) is currently displayed on the screen” (see at least [0038]) and the figures with the yield map include an interface 90 which would make it obvious to try changing, for example, the population map on one side of FIG. 16 to the downforce map of FIG. 4 while keeping the yield map (live yield map 1660) of FIG. 16. The motivation to combine would be to compare the downforces to the yield.
Regarding Claim 7, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches Claim 4. Additionally, Koch further suggests wherein the rendering of the wheel weight map comprises rendering the wheel weight map to be positioned adjacent to the yield map (see at least FIG. 16, FIG. 17, and FIG. 18: agricultural parameter maps are displayed adjacent to the yield map, which map is displayed is selectable with interface 90). Note: the motivation / rationale is the same as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 8, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Koch further discloses measuring, by the computing system, each weight of the plurality of weights at the same time (see at least [0024], [0028], [0033], [0035], [0039], and FIG. 4: “monitor device 110 is preferably in electrical communication with seed sensors 160, downforce sensors 162, ride quality sensors 164, a GPS receiver 166, and one or more speed sensors 168 via a harness 156”; “The depth adjusting mechanism 268 preferably pivots about the downforce sensor 162, which preferably comprises a pin instrumented with strain gauges for measuring the force exerted on the gauge wheels 248 by the soil 40.”; “as the planter 10 is drawn through the field, the monitor device 110 receives raw as-applied data 181 including signals from seed sensors 160, downforce sensors 162, ride quality sensors 164, GPS receiver 166 and seed sensors 168. The monitor device 110 preferably processes the raw as-applied data 181, and stores the as-applied data to the memory 114.”; “At step 305, the monitor device 110 records the position reported by the GPS receiver 166 and determines the position of each row unit. At step 308, the monitor device 110 records the signal generated by the downforce sensors 162”);
determining, by the computing system, a weight distribution of the plurality of wheels based on the measured plurality of weights (see at least FIG. 4: FIG. 4 shows the weight distribution on row unit 1 and row unit 2); and
associating, by the computing system, the determined weight distribution to the location entity of the model corresponding to the geographic location of the crop field (see at least [0038] and FIG. 4: FIG. 4 shows the weight distribution applied to the location entity).
Regarding Claim 9, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Additionally, Koch further discloses wherein the determined weight distribution comprises respective indications of each of the plurality of measured weights (see at least [0038] and FIG. 4: the indication of weight on each wheel is shown by matching the pattern in the respective box for the row unit to legend 410 on downforce map 400 in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Additionally, Koch further discloses comprising repeating, by the computing system, the steps of claim 8 for a plurality of geographic locations of the crop field (see at least [0038] and FIG. 4: “As the planter 10 traverses the field, a map block (e.g., map block 428) is placed in the location occupied by each row unit 1-4”).
Regarding Claim 11, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 10. Additionally, Koch further discloses further comprising rendering, by a mapping application of the computing system, the wheel weight map to be displayed in a graphical user interface (see at least [0022]-[0023], [0035]-[0039], FIG. 1, and FIG. 4: graphical user interface (GUI) 132 is a sub-component of display device 130; “the display device 130 preferably renders a map of the processed as-applied data 182”; “At step 1215, as the planter 10 is drawn through the field, the monitor device 110 receives raw as-applied data 181 including signals from seed sensors 160, downforce sensors 162, ride quality sensors 164, GPS receiver 166 and seed sensors 168. The monitor device 110 preferably processes the raw as-applied data 181, and stores the as-applied data to the memory 114. The monitor 130 preferably transmits processed as-applied data 182 to the display device 130 via the communication module 120. The processed as-applied data 182 is preferably streaming, piecewise, or partial data.”),
wherein the wheel weight map shows at least a plurality of determined weight distributions of the plurality of wheels at a plurality of location entities of the model corresponding to geographic locations of the crop field where measuring of the weights applied to the first wheel and the second wheel of the set of wheels occurred (see at least [0038] and FIG. 4: for Row 1, see map block 428 and map block 426; for Row 2, the map blocks are not numbered but there are a plurality).
Regarding Claim 12, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Additionally, Koch suggests comprising rendering, by the mapping application of the computing system, the wheel weight map to be displayed along with a yield map of the crop field (see at least [0062], [0068], FIG. 16, FIG. 17, and FIG. 18: live yield map window 1660 is on one side of FIG. 16-18 and the other side is a map of an agricultural parameter; “An interface 90 allows the user to select which map (e.g., downforce map 400) is currently displayed on the screen” (i.e., change with agricultural parameter is showing next to the live yield map window 1660)). Note: the motivation / rationale is the same as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 13, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Koch further discloses wherein the agricultural implement is a planter (see at least [0025] and FIGS. 2A and 3B: planter 10).
Regarding Claim 14, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Wendte further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the measuring of each one of the plurality of weights is measured via a signal generated by a load cell, and wherein the load cell is a part of the wheel or a walking tandem pivot attached to the wheel (see at least [0013] and [0040]: “The implement tires that are mounted on an axle may have load sensors that are load cells or strain gauges on the axle and the like”; “the agricultural implement load characteristic sensor 30 can be a load cell on at least one tire supporting axle”).
Regarding Claim 18, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Koch further discloses wherein the measuring each one of the plurality of weights is measured via a signal generated by a load cell of the wheel (see at least [0039]: “the monitor device 110 records the signal generated by the downforce sensors 162”) and Wendte further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the measuring each one of the plurality of weights is measured via a signal generated by a load cell of the wheel (see at least [0013] and [0040]: “The implement tires that are mounted on an axle may have load sensors that are load cells or strain gauges on the axle and the like”).
Regarding Claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1, and for most limitations the rejection for Claim 1 should be referenced. Additionally, Koch further discloses A system, comprising a computing device, comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for tangibly storing thereon computer program code for execution by the processor, the computer program code comprising: executable logic… (see at least [0022]-[0024], [0031], and FIG. 1: methods are carried out by the monitor system 100).
Regarding Claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1, and for most limitations the rejection for Claim 1 should be referenced. Additionally, Koch further discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a processor of a computing device the processor performs a method comprising the following operations… (see at least [0022]-[0024], [0031], and FIG. 1: methods are carried about the monitor system 100).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Wendte in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0083907 (Motavalli et al., hereinafter, Motavalli).
Regarding Claim 5, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches Claim 4. As previously mentioned, Koch further discloses an agricultural parameter map of a wheel weight map. Koch does not explicitly disclose wherein the rendering of the wheel weight map comprises combining the wheel weight map with the yield map.
Motavalli, in the same field of agricultural tracking, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the rendering of the agricultural parameter map comprises combining the agricultural parameter map with the yield map (see at least [0048], [0071], [0085], and [0098]: “For example, user interface 168 could display a geographically referenced map of fertilizer application information 150 for application area 110 and enable a user to input a request to see historic crop-yield information superimposed onto the map”; “For example, other embodiments of map 350 might also depict additional information including attribute zones, geographic features of the application area, attributes, crop information such as past crop yields geographically referenced within the application area, economic data such as the incremental cost of fertilizer for each cell or a listing of the total cost and quantities of fertilizer needed for the application, regulatory data, and other information.”; “In another embodiment, a user may export a map showing fertilizer application as a shape file or similar format, which then can be used as a map layer with other information such as crop-yield maps”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the Koch and Wendte combination with a substitution of the map layering of Motavalli as opposed to the map displays of Koch because it is a simple substitution for one method of displaying data for another, using known techniques for predictable results, with the motivation to improve decision making (see at least Motavalli [0085] and [0098]).
Regarding Claim 6, the Koch, Wendte, and Motavalli combination teaches Claim 5. As previously mentioned, Koch further discloses an agricultural parameter map of a wheel weight map. Additionally, Motavalli further teaches wherein the combining of the agricultural parameter map with the yield map comprises the agricultural parameter map overlapping the yield map, or vice versa (see at least [0048], [0071], [0085], and [0098]: “For example, user interface 168 could display a geographically referenced map of fertilizer application information 150 for application area 110 and enable a user to input a request to see historic crop-yield information superimposed onto the map”; “For example, other embodiments of map 350 might also depict additional information including attribute zones, geographic features of the application area, attributes, crop information such as past crop yields geographically referenced within the application area, economic data such as the incremental cost of fertilizer for each cell or a listing of the total cost and quantities of fertilizer needed for the application, regulatory data, and other information.”; “In another embodiment, a user may export a map showing fertilizer application as a shape file or similar format, which then can be used as a map layer with other information such as crop-yield maps”). Note: the motivation to combine is the same as Claim 5.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Wendte in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0077849 (Fanshier et al., hereinafter, Fanshier).
Regarding Claim 15, the Koch and Wendte combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 13. The Koch and Wendte combination does not explicitly teach wherein the measuring of each one of plurality of weights is measured via a signal generated by a load cell, and wherein the load cell is a part of a spindle of a wheel.
Fanshier, in the same field of agricultural implements, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the measuring of each one of plurality of weights is measured via a signal generated by a load cell, and wherein the load cell is a part of a spindle of a wheel (see at least [0018], [0020], and FIG. 2: “The sensors 30 are coupled to the wheels 20 in a manner suitable to sense the load at each of the wheels 20. For instance, each sensor 30 may be secured to the respective axle portion of the associated wheel 20, and may comprise a load cell. For instance, each sensor 30 may comprise a spindle load cell.”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the spindle load cell of Fanshier with the Koch and Wendte combination with the motivation of using the spindle load cell as a specific way to measure load from an axle (see at least Fanshier [0018]) in Wendte which teaches load sensing from the axle more generally.
Regarding Claim 16, the Koch, Wendte, and Fanshier combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Fanshier teaches the load cell may be part of the spindle (see rejection for Claim 15). Additionally, Wendte teaches wherein the load cell is a part of a system that inflates and deflates the wheel while the agricultural implement moves through the crop field (see at least [0040], Fig. 2, and Fig. 4: “the agricultural implement load characteristic sensor 30 provides the processor 12 with information about a load on the agricultural implement. In many agricultural applications, implement load changes throughout operation. Here, a sensor periodically or constantly monitors load and the processor controls inflation based on the changing load. The type of load characteristic sensor needed depends on agricultural implement type. For example, the agricultural implement load characteristic sensor 30 can be a load cell on at least one tire supporting axle”). The motivations to combine are the same as Claim 1 and Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17, the Koch, Wendte, and Fanshier combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 16. Furthermore, Wendte teaches wherein the system that inflates and deflates the wheel inflates and deflates the wheel dynamically according to feedback provided by the load cell (see at least [0039] and Fig. 4: “sensing a load characteristic of the implement (step 36), generating a tire inflation control signal based on the load characteristic value and database data (step 38) and sending the control signal to the tire inflation controller thereby causing the controller to inflate or deflate the tires as appropriate (step 40)”). The motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1.
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 ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658