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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 5, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments, arguments and a request for continued examination (RCE) received on August 5, 2026. Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 13-15 and 18-20 have been amended. Claim 17 has been cancelled. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 remain pending. This communication is the third Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive, and this rejection has been maintained in part. See the expounded rejection below for details.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant arguments on page 10 of arguments that the claims represent a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees at least because the adjustment of the powertrain is both (a) optional and (b) broad in nature and may include merely changing an algorithm or algorithmic setpoint.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1: Applicant claims
a vehicle including a powertrain and a battery, the powertrain including an engine and an electric motor;
and
receive a first set of indications from the vehicle…. wherein the first set of indications includes at least one of… operation of a range extender of the vehicle
Applicant disclosure describes the claimed range extender as internal combustion engine 108 and electric device 110, which overlaps with and/or appears to be the same components as the claimed engine and an electric motor of the claimed powertrain. Applicant appears to be using two separate nomenclatures to refer to the same component or components, which is indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to:
1. A system for estimating a range of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a vehicle including a powertrain and a battery, the powertrain including an engine and an electric motor; (broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) represents well-known structures that are not meaningfully acted upon by the abstract idea, outlined below, and are therefore considered immaterial to the claim.)
a user interface; (BRI includes well-known generic data output devices, such as a display.)
a processor in communication with the vehicle and the user interface; (BRI includes well-known generic computer structure)
and a memory in communication with the processor; (BRI includes well-known generic computer structure)
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a first set of indications from the vehicle corresponding with a beginning and an ending of a first state of charge sampling period, wherein the first set of indications includes at least one of an ending of a previous state of charge sampling period, a system power- up established by manipulation of a vehicle key-switch of the vehicle, operation of a range extender of the vehicle, and a battery charging event of the battery; (BRI includes generic data gathering via an unclaimed source that represents insignificant pre-solution activity.)
responsive to the first set of indications, provide a weighted average state of charge gain according to a first set of data received from a first set of vehicle subsystems of the vehicle during the first state of charge sampling period and a first cumulative total vehicle distance travelled by the vehicle during a first accumulation of previous sampling periods received from the memory; (the BRI includes data processing steps that are performable by one of ordinary skill mentally or by hand, and are therefore considered abstract mental processes. Further, these steps include purely mathematical functions, and are therefore also considered abstract mathematical concepts.)
receive a second set of indications from the vehicle corresponding with a beginning and an ending of a fuel sampling period; (BRI includes further generic data gathering via an unclaimed source that represents insignificant pre-solution activity.)
responsive to the second set of indications, provide a weighted average fuel gain according to a second set of data received from a second set of vehicle subsystems of the vehicle during the fuel sampling period and a second cumulative total vehicle distance travelled by the vehicle during an accumulation of previous fuel sampling periods received from the memory; (BRI includes an abstract mathematical calculation using received data, recalled from a generic memory and performed by a generic computer processor, performable by one of ordinary skill mentally or by hand.)
provide a current vehicle range of the vehicle using at least one of the weighted average state of charge gain and the weighted average fuel gain; (BRI includes an abstract mathematical calculation using received data, recalled from a generic memory and performed by a generic computer processor, performable by one of ordinary skill mentally or by hand.)
transmit the current vehicle range to the user interface; (BRI includes data communication between computer components, a well-known generic computer activity that is considered insignificant post-solution activity that does not integrate the exception into a practical application.)
adjust, based on the current vehicle range, at least one of a proposed route of the vehicle or an operation of the powertrain. (BRI includes merely adjusting data being displayed on a user interface, i.e. a proposed route, which is a well-known generic computer activity that is considered insignificant post-solution activity that does not integrate the exception into a practical application. It should also be noted that the BRI of the optional adjusting an operation of the powertrain may include causing a change in a control algorithm in a computer memory, such as changing a restart threshold, restart frequency, etc. at some point in the future that also is considered mere data manipulation, and not a practical application.)
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mathematical processes) performed by a generic computer processor that collects data, performs mathematical calculations, and outputs a result. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, the mathematical steps claimed are also performable mentally or by hand by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the data analysis steps of the abstract idea above, the only additional elements recited in claim 1 are generic data collections by an unknown source, and an outputted result of the abstract idea to a generic user interface. Claim 1 does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 1 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 1 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 11 is a method that is the same or similar to the method performed by the system of claim 1, and is also rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
Independent claim 20 represents a system that is the same or equivalent to the system of claim 1, and is also rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-19 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-19 appear to further limit the insignificant pre-solution activity without providing steps beyond the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 11 outlined above, or providing meaningful applications such that the rejection outlined above is rendered invalid. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected in the same or a similar manner as claims 1 and 11, above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130158758 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20100325049 A1) and Beechie et al. (US 20110153141 A1) herein Beechie.
In regards to Claim 1, Kim discloses the following:
1. A system for estimating a range of a vehicle, (see abstract) the system comprising:
a vehicle including a powertrain and a battery, (see at least [0005] ‘powered by motors driven via electricity charged in a battery”) the powertrain including an engine and an electric motor; (see at least [0027] “hybrid vehicle is a vehicle that has two or more sources of power, for example both gasoline-powered and electric-powered vehicles.”)
a user interface; (see [0034] “DTE from the blended driving fuel efficiency” and [0035] “DTE finally calculated has to be displayed on a cluster”)
a processor in communication with the vehicle and the user interface; and a memory in communication with the processor; (see at least [0035] “controller may include a trip computer, or a separate controller for calculating DTE and transmitting DTE to the trip computer” and “controller may include a storage device and a calculation block”)
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a first set of indications from the vehicle corresponding with a beginning and an ending of a first state of charge sampling period, wherein the first set of indications includes at least one of an ending of a previous state of charge sampling period, a system power- up established by manipulation of a vehicle key-switch of the vehicle, operation of a range extender of the vehicle, and a battery charging event of the battery; (see at least [0039] “The fuel efficiency (km/%) may be calculated and stored at the end of every driving cycle (e.g., previous driving cycle is finished when charging), and then the stored fuel efficiencies may be averaged.”)
responsive to the first set of indications, provide a weighted average state of charge gain (see at least [0043] “[0043] For calculation of average fuel efficiency, a weighted average method in which a weighed value is applied to each fuel efficiency may be used” and Equation (1).) according to a first set of data received from a first set of vehicle subsystems of the vehicle during the first state of charge sampling period (see at least [0040] “fuel efficiency (km/%) of the driving cycle may be expressed as accumulation driving distance of a corresponding driving cycle (km)/.DELTA.SOC(%), where .DELTA.SOC(%)=SOC(%) immediately after a previous charging-SOC(%) just before a current charging of the battery.”) and a first cumulative total vehicle distance travelled by the vehicle during an accumulation of previous state of charge sampling periods received from the memory; (see at least [0041] “fuel efficiencies of all driving cycles may be stored n buffers”)
Kim is silent, but Tanaka teaches the following:
receive a second set of indications from the vehicle corresponding with a beginning and an ending of a fuel sampling period; (see at least [0118][-[0120] “new unit run data”)
responsive to the second set of indications, provide a weighted average fuel gain according to a second set of data received from a second set of vehicle subsystems of the vehicle during the fuel sampling period (see at least [0048] “car controller 6 calculate the flash fuel cost on the basis of the fuel flow and the run to indicate it at flash fuel cost area 38 in display 14.”, [0083] “weighted average for "cost/10 km run", fuel cost, and speed.”) and a second cumulative total vehicle distance travelled by the vehicle during an accumulation of previous fuel sampling periods received from the memory; (see at least [0113] “checked whether or not the newest unit run data is included in the run weighted averages”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Tanaka with the invention of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a run efficiency measuring system for a hybrid car powered by both a gasoline engine and electric motor. (Tanaka, [0045]) and/or with the motivation of more accurately calculating DTE (Kim, [0030]). Kim expressly discloses hybrid vehicles having two or more sources of power, including both gasoline-powered and electric-powered sources. (Kim, [0027]) One of ordinary skill would clearly be motivated to apply the BEV disclosures of Kim to a hybrid vehicle.
Kim discloses the following:
provide a current vehicle range of the vehicle using at least one of the weighted average state of charge gain and the weighted average fuel gain; transmit the current vehicle range to the user interface; (see at least [0030] “Distance to Empty (DTE) in an electric vehicle” and [0035] “DTE finally calculated has to be displayed on a cluster, the controller may include a trip computer, or a separate controller for calculating DTE and transmitting DTE to the trip computer.”)
This limitation is also taught by Beechie. (see at least [0020] “trip computer 108 provides the vehicle range extension manager 110 with an estimated distance to empty (DTE), based on the output from the fuel level detection circuit 106.”)
Kim is silent, but Beechie teaches the following:
and adjust, based on the current vehicle range, (see at least [0021] “vehicle range extension manager 110 can be programmed to activate at any DTE, including at the same time a low fuel indication is provided to the driver”) at least one of a proposed route of the vehicle (see at least [0022] “when a range extending mode is active, the vehicle range extension manager 110 can send commands to the navigation system 112 to cause the navigation system 112 to automatically locate and plan a route to the nearest refueling station, or add the nearest refueling station as a waypoint to the current route.) or an operation of the powertrain. (see at least [0017] “When a predetermined fuel condition is detected, the vehicle range extension manager 110 is capable of altering the operating parameters of certain vehicle systems 130-140 so as to decrease the fuel consumption rate of the vehicle.”, [0018] “vehicle range extension manager 110 can automatically modify the engine's displacement setting to the lowest available number of cylinders… [and] promote low-RPM gear shifting, or create artificial redlines for automatic gearshifts”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Beechie with the invention of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing overall fuel consumption (Beechie, [0004]) and increase propulsion system efficiency (Beechie, [0017]) and/or with the motivation of more accurately calculating DTE (Kim, [0030]). Kim expressly discloses hybrid vehicles having two or more sources of power, including both gasoline-powered and electric-powered sources. (Kim, [0027]) One of ordinary skill would clearly be motivated to apply the BEV disclosures of Kim to a hybrid vehicle.
In regards to Claim 2, Kim discloses the following:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the first set of data includes a change in a state of charge of an electrical energy storage coupled to the electric motor. (see at least [0011] “fuel efficiency (km/%) of the driving cycle is expressed as accumulation driving distance during a driving cycle (km)/.DELTA.SOC(%), where .DELTA.SOC(%)=SOC(%) immediately after previous charging-SOC(%) just before current charging.”)
In regards to Claim 3, Kim is silent, but Tanaka teaches the following:
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the second set of data includes an amount of fuel burned by the engine. (see at least [0048] “fuel flow meter 34”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Tanaka with the invention of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a run efficiency measuring system for a hybrid car powered by both a gasoline engine and electric motor. (Tanaka, [0045]) and/or with the motivation of more accurately calculating DTE (Kim, [0030]). Kim expressly discloses hybrid vehicles having two or more sources of power, including both gasoline-powered and electric-powered sources. (Kim, [0027]) One of ordinary skill would clearly be motivated to apply the BEV disclosures of Kim to a hybrid vehicle.
In regards to Claim 4, Kim suggests the following:
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the second set of data includes a change in a state of charge of an electrical energy storage coupled to the electric motor. (see at least [0011] “fuel efficiency (km/%) of the driving cycle is expressed as accumulation driving distance during a driving cycle (km)/.DELTA.SOC(%), where .DELTA.SOC(%)=SOC(%) immediately after previous charging-SOC(%) just before current charging.”)
In regards to Claim 5, Kim discloses the following:
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to:
provide an assumed state of charge distance, wherein the assumed state of charge distance corresponds with a first portion of a vehicle distance travelled during the fuel sampling period which is attributed to the change in the state of charge of the electrical energy storage during the fuel sampling period; (see at least [0052] “current driving fuel efficiency R2 (km/%) may be calculated from an to accumulated driving distance (km) after charging, the SOC (%) immediately after charging, and the current SOC (%). The current driving fuel efficiency R2 may be expressed as Equation (3).”) and provide an assumed fuel distance, wherein the assumed fuel distance corresponds with a second portion of the vehicle distance travelled during the fuel sampling period which is attributed to the amount of fuel burned during the fuel sampling period. (see at least previous citations, see also [0057] “past driving average fuel efficiency may be corrected using the values calculated in the above processes (S13), and the past driving average fuel efficiency and the current driving fuel efficiency may be blended (S15). Thereafter, the final fuel efficiency may be calculated (S17), and then a more accurate final DTE may be calculated therefrom (S18).”)
In regards to Claim 6, Kim is silent, but Beechie teaches the following:
6. The system of claim 3, wherein the processor receives the second set of data from a sensor configured to monitor a level of a fuel tank coupled to the engine. (see at least [0017] “monitors an output from a fuel level detection circuit 106”, see also [0020])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Beechie with the invention of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing overall fuel consumption (Beechie, [0004]) and increase propulsion system efficiency (Beechie, [0017]) and/or with the motivation of more accurately calculating DTE (Kim, [0030]). Kim expressly discloses hybrid vehicles having two or more sources of power, including both gasoline-powered and electric-powered sources. (Kim, [0027]) One of ordinary skill would clearly be motivated to apply the BEV disclosures of Kim to a hybrid vehicle.
In regards to Claim 7, Kim discloses the following:
7. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the first set of data includes a vehicle distance travelled during the first state of charge sampling period; and the second set of data includes a vehicle distance travelled during a second state of charge sampling period. (see at least [0039] “each individual interval from a previous charging to next charging is defined as one driving cycle” and [0040] “accumulation driving distance”)
In regards to Claim 8, Kim is silent, but Tanaka teaches the following:
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the second cumulative total vehicle distance travelled during the second accumulation of previous sampling periods includes the first cumulative total vehicle distance travelled during the first accumulation of previous sampling periods and the vehicle distance travelled during the first state of charge sampling period. (see at least [0051] “run area 62 for run data from odometer 36”, see also [0053] “various data other than car ID 54, are divided into data 1 for unit run data area 102, data 2 for unit run data area 104, data 3 for unit run data area 106, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Tanaka with the invention of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a run efficiency measuring system for a hybrid car powered by both a gasoline engine and electric motor. (Tanaka, [0045]) and/or with the motivation of more accurately calculating DTE (Kim, [0030]). Kim expressly discloses hybrid vehicles having two or more sources of power, including both gasoline-powered and electric-powered sources. (Kim, [0027]) One of ordinary skill would clearly be motivated to apply the BEV disclosures of Kim to a hybrid vehicle.
In regards to Claim 9, Kim discloses the following:
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a third set of indications from the vehicle corresponding with a beginning and an ending of a second state of charge sampling period. (see at least [0039] “each individual interval from a previous charging to next charging is defined as one driving cycle”)
In regards to Claim 10, Kim, as modified by Tanaka, discloses the following:
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the ending of the first state of charge sampling period of the first set of indications is simultaneous with the beginning of the fuel sampling period of the second set of indications. (see at least [0039] “each individual interval from a previous charging to next charging is defined as one driving cycle”)
As discussed in claim 1, Kim does not explicitly disclose a fuel sampling period, which is taught by Tanaka. Tanaka (see [0119]) further teaches “If it is determined in step S164 that the regular travel distance is reached, the flow goes to step S166 to prepare a new unit run data form into which data accumulation is started. And at the same time in step S168, the data accumulation into the former unit run data is closed.” Accordingly, Tanaka teaches simultaneous run periods.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Tanaka with the invention of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a run efficiency measuring system for a hybrid car powered by both a gasoline engine and electric motor. (Tanaka, [0045]) and/or with the motivation of more accurately calculating DTE (Kim, [0030]). Kim expressly discloses hybrid vehicles having two or more sources of power, including both gasoline-powered and electric-powered sources. (Kim, [0027]) One of ordinary skill would clearly be motivated to apply the BEV disclosures of Kim to a hybrid vehicle.
In regards to Claims 11-16 and 18-19: Claims 11-16 and 18-19 represent the same or patentably similar method performed by the systems of claims 1-10 above, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 1-10, above.
In regards to claim 20: Claim 20 is an equivalent or patentably similar system as claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
September 25, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
