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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on 30 December 2025. Claims 9, 13 and 15 have/has been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending. This communication is the second 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made in accordance with the objection of claim 9 made in the prior office action are persuasive, and the objection is withdrawn.
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 pages 9-10 of arguments that the claims do not describe an abstract mathematical concept because section 2106.04(a)(2)(I) of the MPEP states that a claim does not recite a mathematical concept if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification, [and] the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection is not based merely on equations appearing only in the specification, claim 1 itself recites mathematical concepts in words, namely provide a weighted average state of charge gain, provide a weighted average fuel gain, and provide a current vehicle range using at least one of the weighted average state of charge gain and the weighted average fuel gain. A claim does not need to recite a mathematical equation in symbolic form to recite a mathematical concept.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) states:
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.” In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).
In response to Applicant arguments on page 10 of arguments that the claims do not represent an abstract mathematical concept because it does not claim an equation due to the rulings of Thales Visionix, Inc. V. United States (850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017)), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to be overreading Thales, as it does not stand for this proposition. Thales merely repeats standards in the MPEP that the use of math does not automatically make a claim abstract, but a claim can still recite a mathematical concept even when the math is expressed in words rather than symbolic equations.
In response to Applicant arguments on pages 10-11 of arguments that the claims do not represent an abstract mathematical concept in view of Example 39, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 39 is materially different than Applicant claim 1 because claim 1 recites mathematical concepts in words, namely provide a weighted average state of charge gain, provide a weighted average fuel gain, and provide a current vehicle range using at least one of the weighted average state of charge gain and the weighted average fuel gain, all of which are calculated mathematically, and then determining (i.e. calculating, mathematically) vehicle range based on these calculated values. Applicant does not provide this data to a machine learning model or a training model, as per Example 39, rather Applicant claim 1 merely claims providing the results of this mathematical calculation to a user interface.
Should Applicant wish to apply a provided USPTO example, the Examiner submits that Example 47, claim 2 is a much more adjacent example to claim 1 than Example 39.
In response to Applicant arguments on page 12 of arguments that the claims represent a practical application in view of Ex Parte Desjardins, the Examiner respectfully disagrees at least because Applicant does not in any way train a machine learning model, as per Ex Parte Desjardins.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Office respectfully reminds the applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to arguments on page 13-14 of arguments that claim 1 is not obvious in view of Fasse in view of Sakai and McGee because the Examiner failed to provide a citation to any portion of any of the prior art reference which describe the detection and use of a state of charge sampling period or a fuel sampling period, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner clearly cited McGee [0019] and [0034] as teaching these limitations.
Applicant further argues on page 14 of arguments that McGee does not describe a period of time having a specified beginning or ending in which data is collected and compared with a cumulative total vehicle distance over an accumulation of previous sampling periods, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. See McGee [0019] and [0034]. Applicant is further reminded of the indefinite nature of these limitations.
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 1-19 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 claims 1 and 11: Applicant claims
provide a weighted average state of charge gain according to a first set of data received from a first set of vehicle subsystems during the first state of charge sampling period and a first cumulative total vehicle distance travelled during a first accumulation of previous sampling periods received from the memory;
and
provide a weighted average fuel gain according to a second set of data received from a second set of vehicle subsystems during the fuel sampling period and a second cumulative total vehicle distance travelled during a second accumulation of previous sampling periods received from the memory;
However, there is a missing step of defining/performing/calculating previous sampling periods. Because Applicant does not clearly define the previous sampling periods, the term is vague and indefinite as claimed because they fail to clearly define which previous sampling periods are included in each accumulation. It is, for example, unclear whether the first/second accumulations refer to the prior SOC sampling periods, prior fuel sampling periods, all prior sampling periods, route-specific sampling periods, vehicle-specific sampling periods, fleet-based historical sampling periods, or some combination thereof. Accordingly, the scope of the weighted average state of charge gain and weighted average fuel gain calculations are unclear. 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 1-20 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, the powertrain including an engine and an electric motor; (represents well-known structures that are not meaningfully acted upon by the abstract idea outlined below)
a user interface; (broadest reasonable interpretation includes a generic data output device, such as a display)
a processor in communication with the vehicle and the user interface; (interpreted as well-known generic computer structure)
and a memory in communication with the processor; (interpreted as 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; (interpreted as generic data gathering via an unclaimed source that represents insignificant extra-solution activity.)
provide a weighted average state of charge gain according to a first set of data received from a first set of vehicle subsystems during the first state of charge sampling period and a first cumulative total vehicle distance travelled during a first accumulation of previous sampling periods received from the memory; (interpreted as 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.)
receive a second set of indications from the vehicle corresponding with a beginning and an ending of a fuel sampling period; (interpreted as generic data gathering via an unclaimed source that represents insignificant extra-solution activity.)
provide a weighted average fuel gain according to a second set of data received from a second set of vehicle subsystems during the fuel sampling period and a second cumulative total vehicle distance travelled during a second accumulation of previous sampling periods received from the memory; (interpreted as 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 using at least one of the weighted average state of charge gain and the weighted average fuel gain; (interpreted as 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.)
and transmit the current vehicle range to the user interface. (Interpreted as insignificant post-solution activity that merely outputs the results of an abstract idea, and does not integrate the exception into 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 and 12-19 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 appear to further limit the insignificant pre-solution activity without providing further meaningful limits to the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11 or providing meaningful applications such that the rejection outlined above is rendered invalid. Therefore dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasse et al. (US 20120239283 A1) herein Fasse in view of Sakai et al. (US 20100131139 A1) herein Sakai and McGee et al. (US 20150276420 A1) herein McGee.
In regards to Claim 1, Fasse discloses the following:
1. A system for estimating a range of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a vehicle including a powertrain, the powertrain including an engine and an electric motor; (see Fig. 1 and “main power source 16, such as an internal combustion engine” and [0017] “Discharging the battery 12 provides a positive virtual consumed fuel flow because battery power is being used to propel the vehicle 10”)
a user interface; (see [0014] “display 20 is provided on the vehicle 10 for displaying the fuel consumption”)
a processor in communication with the vehicle and the user interface; (see [0016] “fuel consumption is determined from the consumed fuel since a last reset of the fuel consumption calculation divided by the driven distance of the vehicle since the last reset of the fuel consumption calculation”, inherent) and a memory in communication with the processor; (see [0016] “fuel consumption is determined from the consumed fuel since a last reset of the fuel consumption calculation divided by the driven distance of the vehicle since the last reset of the fuel consumption calculation”, inherent)
Although considered inherent of the calculations of Fasse, it is admitted that Fasse does not explicitly disclose a processor and a memory. However, this is known in the art as taught by Sakai (see Fig. 1, items 10, 20 and [0053]) as well as McGee (Fig. 1, item 14 and [0013]).
Fasse discloses the following:
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; (Fig. 3, step 42 and [0020] “At box 44, the algorithm determines the virtual available fuel value, which is a function of the SOC of the battery 12”)
As best understood, Fasse is silent, but McGee teaches the following:
provide a weighted average state of charge gain according to a first set of data received from a first set of vehicle subsystems during the first state of charge sampling period and a first cumulative total vehicle distance travelled during a first accumulation of previous sampling periods received from the memory; (see at least [0019] “The vehicle 10 may be configured to advise the driver of an estimate or prediction of propulsive energy that may be expended by the vehicle 10 to traverse a particular route or road segments.” and [0034] “The fusion may be a weighted average of all of the above approaches or at least a portion of the above mentioned approaches. The energy usage estimate may be a weighted average of the propulsive energy previously used by other drivers and vehicles to travel the road segments and to travel other road segments having common characteristics with the road segments.”)
Fasse discloses the following:
receive a second set of indications from the vehicle corresponding with a beginning and an ending of a fuel sampling period; (Fig. 3, step 44 and [0022] “At box 46, the algorithm determines the total available fuel which is the actual available fuel”)
As best understood, Fasse is silent, but McGee teaches the following:
provide a weighted average fuel gain according to a second set of data received from a second set of vehicle subsystems during the fuel sampling period and a second cumulative total vehicle distance travelled during a second accumulation of previous sampling periods received from the memory; (see at least [0019] “The vehicle 10 may be configured to advise the driver of an estimate or prediction of propulsive energy that may be expended by the vehicle 10 to traverse a particular route or road segments.” and [0034] “The fusion may be a weighted average of all of the above approaches or at least a portion of the above mentioned approaches. The energy usage estimate may be a weighted average of the propulsive energy previously used by other drivers and vehicles to travel the road segments and to travel other road segments having common characteristics with the road segments.”)
Fasse discloses the following:
provide a current vehicle range using at least one of the weighted average state of charge gain and the weighted average fuel gain; (see at least Fig. 3, step 48 and [0022] “At box 48, the algorithm then determines the range of the vehicle 10, which is the total available fuel divided by the fuel consumption value as determined above.”)
For the sake of compact prosecution, it should also be noted that Sakai teaches this limitation. (see at least [0090] “If multiple SOC losses and gains are already recorded for each of the control indexes of the object section in the durable storage media 23, the averaged values of the losses and gains are used as the representative SOC loss/gain values corresponding to the relevant control index of the object section.”)
For the sake of compact prosecution, it should also be noted that McGee also teaches this limitation. (see at least [0019] “The vehicle 10 may be configured to advise the driver of an estimate or prediction of propulsive energy that may be expended by the vehicle 10 to traverse a particular route or road segments.” and [0034] “The fusion may be a weighted average of all of the above approaches or at least a portion of the above mentioned approaches. The energy usage estimate may be a weighted average of the propulsive energy previously used by other drivers and vehicles to travel the road segments and to travel other road segments having common characteristics with the road segments.”
Fasse discloses the following:
and transmit the current vehicle range to the user interface. (see at least [0005] “[0014] “A display 20 is provided on the vehicle 10 for displaying the fuel consumption and the travel range of the vehicle 10 as determined below.”)
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 McGee with the invention of Fasse, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately predicting vehicle energy usage along a route, which may otherwise be difficult, (McGee, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of increasing accuracy of the estimations by providing a larger sample size. (McGee, [0028])
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 Sakai with the invention of Fasse, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately planning SOC and range calculations, and thereby reducing re-planning and overhead, and allowing for increases in fuel mileage. (Sakai, [0007])
In regards to Claim 2, Fasse 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. (Fig. 3, step 42 and [0020] “At box 44, the algorithm determines the virtual available fuel value, which is a function of the SOC of the battery 12”)
In regards to Claim 3, Fasse discloses the following:
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the second set of data includes an amount of fuel burned by the engine. (Fig. 3, step 44 and [0022] “At box 46, the algorithm determines the total available fuel which is the actual available fuel”)
In regards to Claim 4, Fasse discloses 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. (Fig. 3, step 42 and [0020] “At box 44, the algorithm determines the virtual available fuel value, which is a function of the SOC of the battery 12”)
In regards to Claim 5, as best understood, Fasse is silent, but McGee teaches 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; 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 [0022] “drive history”)
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 McGee with the invention of Fasse, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately predicting vehicle energy usage along a route, which may otherwise be difficult, (McGee, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of increasing accuracy of the estimations by providing a larger sample size. (McGee, [0028])
In regards to Claim 6, Fasse discloses 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. (Fig. 3, step 44 and [0022] “At box 46, the algorithm determines the total available fuel which is the actual available fuel”)
In regards to Claim 7, Fasse 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 the second state of charge sampling period. (see at least Fig. 3, step 48 and [0022] “At box 48, the algorithm then determines the range of the vehicle 10, which is the total available fuel divided by the fuel consumption value as determined above.”)
In regards to Claim 8, as best understood, Fasse is silent, but McGee 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 [0019] “The vehicle 10 may be configured to advise the driver of an estimate or prediction of propulsive energy that may be expended by the vehicle 10 to traverse a particular route or road segments.” and [0034] “The fusion may be a weighted average of all of the above approaches or at least a portion of the above mentioned approaches. The energy usage estimate may be a weighted average of the propulsive energy previously used by other drivers and vehicles to travel the road segments and to travel other road segments having common characteristics with the road segments.”)
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 McGee with the invention of Fasse, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately predicting vehicle energy usage along a route, which may otherwise be difficult, (McGee, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of increasing accuracy of the estimations by providing a larger sample size. (McGee, [0028])
In regards to Claim 9, as best understood, Fasse is silent, but McGee teaches 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 previous citations, see also [0022] “drive history”)
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 McGee with the invention of Fasse, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately predicting vehicle energy usage along a route, which may otherwise be difficult, (McGee, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of increasing accuracy of the estimations by providing a larger sample size. (McGee, [0028])
In regards to Claim 10, as best understood, Fasse is silent, but McGee teaches 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 previous citations, see also [0022] “drive history”)
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 McGee with the invention of Fasse, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately predicting vehicle energy usage along a route, which may otherwise be difficult, (McGee, [0002]) and/or with the motivation of increasing accuracy of the estimations by providing a larger sample size. (McGee, [0028])
In regards to Claims 11-19: Claims 11-19 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
April 30, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights