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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 8/28/2026. Claims 1-14 and 20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed.
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 1-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “…at least one processor configured to: based on identifying a user input via the at least one key while the home appliance is in a normal state, control the home appliance to perform a first operation,
identify whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state, based on identifying the home appliance as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to output a notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance and control the home appliance to change an operation corresponding to the user input via the at least one key, from the first operation to a second operation, the second operation being different with the first operation and comprising an operation turning off the notification, and
based on identifying the user input received via the at least one key while the notification is being output, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim language is not consistent with the disclosure [see at least page 32 and figure 6] and the claim has language that is wordy and not concise.
The limitation “…based on identifying a user input via the at least one key while the home appliance is in a normal state, control the home appliance to perform a first operation,” does not find clear antecedent basis with the disclosure.
The limitation “…and control the home appliance to change an operation corresponding to the user input via the at least one key, from the first operation to a second operation, the second operation being different with the first operation and comprising an operation turning off the notification,” is wordy and not concise and one skilled in the art would necessarily have trouble ascertaining the what is meant by the claim.
Lastly, the limitation “…based on identifying the user input received via the at least one key while the notification is being output, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance,” is not concise and appears to be redundant as previous claim language recite turning off the notification.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - at least one processor configured to: based on if the home appliance is in a normal state, control the home appliance to perform a first operation,
identify whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state, based on identifying the home appliance as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to output a notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance and control the home appliance to change an operation
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation of “…based on identifying a user input via the at least one key while the home appliance is in a normal state, controlling the home appliance to perform a first operation, identifying whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state; based on identifying the home appliance as being in an abnormal state, outputting a notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance and controlling the home appliance to change an operation corresponding to the user input via the at least one key, from the first operation to a second operation, the second operation being different with the first operation and comprising an operation turning off the notification; and based on identifying a user input via at least one key while the home appliance is being output, turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim language is not consistent with the disclosure [see at least page 32 and figure 6] and the claim has language that is wordy and not concise.
The limitation “…based on identifying a user input via the at least one key while the home appliance is in a normal state, control the home appliance to perform a first operation,” does not find clear antecedent basis with the disclosure.
The limitation “…and control the home appliance to change an operation corresponding to the user input via the at least one key, from the first operation to a second operation, the second operation being different with the first operation and comprising an operation turning off the notification,” is wordy and not concise and one skilled in the art would necessarily have trouble ascertaining the what is meant by the claim.
Lastly, the limitation “…based on identifying the user input via the at least one key while the notification is being output, turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance,” is not concise and appears to be redundant as previous claim language recite turning off the notification.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - based on identifying if the home appliance is in a normal state, controlling the home appliance to perform a first operation,
identifying whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state;
based on identifying the home appliance as being in an abnormal state, outputting a notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance and controlling the home appliance to change an operation
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “…wherein the first operation comprises an operation unassigned to a specific function of the home appliance, and the at least one processor is configured to: based on identifying the home appliance as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to output information indicating that the at least one key is able to control the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and based on a user input received via the at least one key while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, it is unclear how a first operation of a home appliance cannot be assigned to a function of said home appliance. Additionally, the disclosure is silent as to what is meant by a first operation and the claim language is nebulous and extremely broad such that one skilled in the art would not necessarily know the metes and bounds of the claim.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “…at least one processor configured to: based on identifying a user input via the at least one key while the home appliance is in a normal state, control the home appliance to perform a first operation,
identify whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state, based on identifying the home appliance as being in the abnormal state, control the output interface to output a notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.”
A limitation that ‘…analyzes information, identifies a status of a home appliance and outputs a notification’ is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a processor. That is, other than disclosing a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Additionally, the step of “identifying” the information is disclosed at such a high level of generality it necessarily can be performed by the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the processor, “identifying” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to identify the state of the home appliance and generate a notification. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional limitation of “… and control the home appliance to change an operation corresponding to the user input via the at least one key, from the first operation to a second operation, the second operation being different with the first operation and comprising an operation turning off the notification.” These limitations relate to nothing more than displaying the results of gathering and analyzing information and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)
Dependent claims 2-12 are similarly drawn to the abstract idea and are therefore held to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “…based on identifying a user input via the at least one key while the home appliance is in a normal state, controlling the home appliance to perform a first operation, identifying whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state; based on identifying the home appliance as being in an abnormal state, outputting a notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.”
A limitation that ‘…analyzes information, identifies a status of a home appliance and outputs a notification’ is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a processor. That is, other than disclosing a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Additionally, the step of “identifying” the information is disclosed at such a high level of generality it necessarily can be performed by the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the processor, “identifying” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to identify the state of the home appliance and generate a notification. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional limitation of “… and controlling the home appliance to change an operation corresponding to the user input via the at least one key, from the first operation to a second operation, the second operation being different with the first operation and comprising an operation turning off the notification; and based on identifying a user input via at least one key while the home appliance is being output, turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.” These limitations relate to nothing more than displaying the results of gathering and analyzing information and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 14 and 20 are similarly drawn to the abstract idea and are therefore held to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) in view of Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938).
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 20, Holmes teaches a home appliance [ fig 1; see also col 10, line 58-col 11, line 63 where the system has a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program to control a computer to perform the method] comprising: a memory having stored therein at least one instruction [col 10, lines 47-65];
an output interface [col 15, line 39-col 24, line 15; figs 15, 16 & 17];
a user interface including at least one key [see fig 15], the user interface being configured to receive a user input via the at least one key [col 15, line 39-col 24, line 15; figs 15, 16 & 17]; and at least one processor [370] configured to:
based on identifying if the home appliance is in a normal state, control the home appliance to perform a first operation [col 21, lines 1-8];
identify whether the home appliance is in an abnormal state [col 21, lines 1-8],
based on identifying the home appliance as being in
Holmes does not explicitly teach controlling the home appliance to change an operation from the first operation to a second operation the second operation being different with the first operation and comprising an operation turning off the notification.
However, Olsen teaches electronic circuits and methods for monitoring a refrigerator [0003] that controls the home appliance to change an operation from the first operation to a second operation the second operation being different with the first operation and comprising an operation turning off the notification [0044-0047; where when the refrigerator is not in the alarm state i.e. normal state and in either a change temperature alarm parameter group or a temperature control parameter group the key 103 reduces the selected parameter; see also 0035; where when the refrigerator is in the abnormal state i.e. alarm is active, the key 103 silences the alarm] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. reduces the numbers of button of keys needed to operate the system and thereby improves the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to control the home appliance to change an operation from the first operation to a second operation the second operation being different with the first operation and comprising an operation turning off the notification in view of the teachings of Olsen where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. reduces the numbers of button of keys needed to operate the system and thereby improves the system.
For clarity, in regard to Claim 13, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Holmes, as modified, above.
Regarding Claim 3, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Olsen teaches wherein the first operation comprises an operation for controlling a predetermined function of the home appliance, and the at least one processor is configured to: based on the home appliance being in the normal state, perform the first operation according to the user input received via the at least one key [0035; 0044-0047; As modified above, see the rejection of claim 1 for detailed discussion].
Regarding Claim 7, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Holmes teaches at least one door, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on the at least one door being open during a preset time or longer, identify that the home appliance is in the abnormal state [col 21, lines 1-8].
Regarding Claim 8, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Holmes teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance based on the user input received through the at least one key while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state [col 21, lines 1-8];
control the output interface to turn on the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance when a preset first time elapses while the abnormal state is not resolved [col 21, lines 1-8].
Regarding Claim 10, the absence of an art‐based rejection for claim 8 is not an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather, is an indicium of the indefiniteness of the claims. Without a clear understanding of what the claims are intended to encompass, the examiner cannot apply prior art to the claims without undue speculation.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) and Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN218238034U).
Regarding Claim 2, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance being turned off, control the output interface to output information indicating that the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance is turned off.
However, Zhao teaches a monitoring device for a freezer [0001] having wherein a processor [see 0046] is configured to: based on the notification of the abnormal state of the freezer being turned off, control an output interface to output information indicating that the notification of the abnormal state of the freezer is turned off [0048; 0063] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide effective monitoring of the system [0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance being turned off, control the output interface to output information indicating that the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance is turned off in view of the teachings of Zhao where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide effective monitoring of the system.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) and Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deku et al. (CN101097790A).
Regarding Claim 4, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify information about the home appliance, the information being stored the memory, and based on determining an abnormality in the identified information, identify that the home appliance is in the abnormal state.
However, Deku teaches a control panel for a wine cabinet [0001] having wherein at least one processor [see 0026] is configured to: identify information about the home appliance, the information being stored the memory, and based on determining an abnormality in the identified information, identify that the home appliance is in the abnormal state [0031-0033] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a control panel having compact construction [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify information about the home appliance, the information being stored the memory, and based on determining an abnormality in the identified information, identify that the home appliance is in the abnormal state in view of the teachings of Deku where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a control panel having compact construction.
Regarding Claim 5, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Deku teaches wherein the information about the home appliance includes information for determining an instruction for driving the home appliance, according to a function of the home appliance [0031-0033; where the information refers to a set temperature].
Regarding Claim 6, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Deku teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: when the identified information about the home appliance is preset state information, or the identified information about the home appliance identified from at least one storage space among a plurality of spaces of the memory is different from the identified information about the home appliance identified from other storage spaces among the plurality of spaces, determine that there is an abnormality in the information about the
Regarding Claim 14, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 13 above but does not teach turning on the notification based on the notification having been turned off, based on a preset time elapsing or a predetermined situation occurs while the abnormal state is unresolved.
However, Mori teaches a door open warning device for a refrigerator [0002] that turns on the notification based on the notification having been turned off, based on a preset time elapsing or a predetermined situation occurs while the abnormal state is unresolved [0010] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy [0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to turn on the notification based on the notification having been turned off, based on a preset time elapsing or a predetermined situation occurs while the abnormal state is unresolved in view of the teachings of Mori where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) and Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suemura et al. (JP2015183978A) and Mori (JPH02101370A).
Regarding Claims 9, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify a time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state, based on the time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained being greater than a preset time, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and control the output interface to turn on the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance based on a predetermined situation occurring while the abnormal state remains unresolved.
However, Suemura teaches a refrigerator having an alarm display [0002] having wherein the at least one processor [see 0053] is configured to: identify a time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state, based on the time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained being greater than a preset time, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance [0081-0094; figs 4 & 5; where at expiration of the time after the alarm output is turned on the alarm system is cancelled] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing where it is possible to avoid an erroneous warning display [0105].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify a time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained while the home appliance is identified as being in the abnormal state, based on the time during which the user input received via the at least one key is maintained being greater than a preset time, control the output interface to turn off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance in view of the teachings of Suemura where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing where it is possible to avoid an erroneous warning display.
Lastly, Mori teaches a door open warning device for a refrigerator [0002] that controls an output interface [6] to turn on the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance based on a predetermined situation occurring while the abnormal state remains unresolved [0010] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy [0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to control the output interface to turn on the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance based on a predetermined situation occurring while the abnormal state remains unresolved in view of the teachings of Mori where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a door open warning system having redundancy.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US6802186) and Olsen et al. (US2011/0309938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Natalini et al. (US2002/0095269).
Regarding Claim 11, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach a communication module, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device, the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and control the communication module to receive, from the external device, a control command for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.
However, Natalini teaches a refrigerator [0004] having a communication module [37; 0028; fig 2], wherein the at least one processor [33; 0028] is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device [50], the notification of the abnormal state of the refrigerator [0028-0030], and control the communication module to receive, from the external device, a control command for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the refrigerator [0028-0030; 0037-0040; 0044; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a user with personalized oversight and care of the refrigerator and thereby improve the system [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have a communication module, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device, the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance, and control the communication module to receive, from the external device, a control command for turning off the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance in view of the teachings of Natalini where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a user with personalized oversight and care of the refrigerator and thereby improve the system.
Regarding Claim 12, Holmes, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach a communication module, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device, a notification release history related to the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance.
However, Natalini teaches a refrigerator [0004] having a communication module [37; 0028; fig 2], wherein the at least one processor [33; 0028] is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device [50], a notification release history related to the notification of the abnormal state of the refrigerator [0028-0030; 0037-0040; 0044; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a user with personalized oversight and care of the refrigerator and thereby improve the system [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Holmes to have a communication module, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit, to an external device, a notification release history related to the notification of the abnormal state of the home appliance in view of the teachings of Natalini where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a user with personalized oversight and care of the refrigerator and thereby improve the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 20 have been considered but are moot because new rejection utilizing previously used prior art references have been applied. New rejections are based upon amendments made by Applicant.
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 LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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, Jerry Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights