DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 7/23/2024 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 7/24/2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 have been amended.
Claim 8 has been withdrawn from consideration due to an “Election of Species” received on 3/5/2026, yet can be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 8/12/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 8/12/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Drawing Objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Title Objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Title Objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, 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 the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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.
Claim 1-7 and 9-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “wherein an admissible quantity for a state at an end of the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is predetermined, the admissible quantity being a set of states of the first mobile object” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear thus indefinite. The amendments here state that the “admissible quantity” is a “set of states of the first mobile object” thus the limitation is now “wherein a set of states for a state at an end of the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is predetermined” and the metes and bounds of what is, and what this is not, is unclear thus indefinite. What is a set of states that is predetermined? The Office brought up this issue of extremely broad terms in the previous office action and will again here state the many of the terms in these claims are extremely broad. A set of states of the first mobile object for a state at the end of the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is unclear as to what is being claimed. What is actually required by this limitation? What are the metes and bounds of this set of states of the end state of the state? What would and would not read on this? Based on the specification, and to the Examiner’s best understanding of the claimed subject matter, the Office is going to interpret this as any predetermined end of the trajectory. Be it a location, a speed, an acceleration, a time, any possible state that can be understood based on the specification. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 2-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed 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 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kum et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0172093) in view of Wang et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0089164).
With respect to Claim 1: While Kum discloses “A computer-implemented method for moving a first mobile object at a traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0032, 0044-0047 with Figure 6 (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“comprising: determining a state of the first mobile object including a position, a velocity, or an acceleration of the first mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0032, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used)];
“determining a trajectory of a state of a second mobile object at the traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0032, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (After a probabilistic motion of a surrounding vehicle is predicted using an artificial neural network structure)],
“the state of the second mobile object including a position, a velocity, or an acceleration of the second mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0032, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (An artificial neural network structure using the current and past time-series longitudinal/lateral positions and/or velocity of the surrounding vehicle for a predetermined time as an input value is used)];
“determining a constraint for the state of the first mobile object based on the received trajectory of the state of the second mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (At step 140, a probability of a collision likelihood is computed using the target lane and trajectory predictions of the surrounding vehicle in which future uncertainty has been taken into consideration, and longitudinal control for collision avoidance is performed)];
“determining a trajectory of the state of the first mobile object based on the state of the first mobile object using a model configured to predict the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object based on (i) a trajectory of a driving signal for moving the first mobile object, and (ii) the state of the first mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“and determining the trajectory of the driving signal and the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object within the constraint for the state of the first mobile object as a function of a cost function” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“wherein the cost function defines a destination for movement of the first mobile object with the trajectory of the driving signal on the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)];
“wherein the first mobile object is moved at the traffic node with the driving signal from the trajectory of the driving signal” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“wherein an admissible quantity for a state at an end of the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is predetermined, the admissible quantity being a set of states of the first mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)];
“and wherein the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is determined, such that the state at an end of an optimization horizon lies in the admissible quantity” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)];
Kum does not specifically state that the second vehicle determines its own trajectory and this is received by the system.
Wang, which is also a system and method for controlling vehicles based on trajectories, teaches “receiving a trajectory of a state of a second mobile object at the traffic node, wherein the trajectory of the state of the second mobile object is determined by the second mobile object” [Wang, ¶ 0029 (From implementation in vehicle 100, the vehicle merge control system 170 can automatically detect and predict conflicts, for example, by analyzing sensor data 260 that indicates a position and trajectory of the competitor vehicle 105 or by communicating with the competitor vehicle 105 to receive position and trajectory information directly, e.g., via V2V communication)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the invention of Kum to not only use predicted trajectories of other vehicles to control another vehicle as Kum discloses but to also receive via V2V other vehicles trajectories for vehicle control as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wang into Kum to create a more robust system that not only determine and predict, based on sensors other vehicles trajectories but to also receive the trajectories from other vehicles themselves thus avoiding false sensor readings, as the trajectory is received directly from the other vehicle [Wang, ¶ 0029]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle avoidance based on future locations of other vehicles and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, and driving signals for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 2: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: predetermining a constraint for the driving signal for the first mobile object, wherein the driving signal is determined within the constraint for the driving signal” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (an acceleration range, an acceleration variation, and a collision probability in which the physical limit of a vehicle has been taken into consideration in minimizing the cost function may be used as restriction conditions) and (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 3: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein a target state at the end of the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is predetermined” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)];
“and the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object which comprises the target state at the end of the trajectory” [Kum, ¶ 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, and 0050-0052 with Figure 6 (In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using a cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 4: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving one disturbance variable for the state of the second mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (an acceleration range, an acceleration variation, and a collision probability in which the physical limit of a vehicle has been taken into consideration in minimizing the cost function may be used as restriction conditions) and (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“wherein the constraint for the state of the first mobile object is determined depending on the one disturbance variable for the state of the second mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (an acceleration range, an acceleration variation, and a collision probability in which the physical limit of a vehicle has been taken into consideration in minimizing the cost function may be used as restriction conditions) and (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, admissible quantity, and now disturbance value for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 5: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the model comprises a disturbance variable for the state of the first mobile object” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (an acceleration range, an acceleration variation, and a collision probability in which the physical limit of a vehicle has been taken into consideration in minimizing the cost function may be used as restriction conditions) and (Longitudinal control in which the uncertainty of a collision has been taken into consideration may be performed using longitudinal safety distance restriction between an ego vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in a chance-constraint form because probabilistic motion prediction for a motion of the surrounding vehicle is used. Furthermore, the desired driving style of the automated driving algorithm is adjusted by controlling a chance-constraint parameter)];
“that represents a deviation of a real trajectory of the state of the first mobile object from the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object predicted using the model” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (an acceleration range, an acceleration variation, and a collision probability in which the physical limit of a vehicle has been taken into consideration in minimizing the cost function may be used as restriction conditions) and (the cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, admissible quantity, and now disturbance value for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 6: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: predetermining a sequence in which the first mobile object and the second mobile object are to pass the traffic node based on an order in which the first mobile object and the second mobile object enter a predetermined area around the traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050-0052 and 0058 with Figure 6 (The longitudinal controller 940 computes a probability of a collision likelihood using the target lane and trajectory predictions of the surrounding vehicle in which future uncertainty has been taken into consideration, and performs longitudinal control for collision avoidance. In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using the cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)];
“wherein the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object is determined such that the first mobile object passes the traffic node in compliance with the sequence” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050-0052 and 0058 with Figure 6 (The longitudinal controller 940 computes a probability of a collision likelihood using the target lane and trajectory predictions of the surrounding vehicle in which future uncertainty has been taken into consideration, and performs longitudinal control for collision avoidance. In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using the cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 7: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, further comprising; determining the trajectory of the state of the first mobile object as a function of trajectories of states of mobile objects located in a predetermined area around the traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0028, 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050-0052 and 0058 with Figure 6 (proposed probabilistic prediction for a motion of a lane-based surrounding vehicle and longitudinal control method using the same includes step 110 of obtaining surrounding vehicle information using a sensor)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 9: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the first mobile object and the second mobile object move on adjacent lanes in a same direction or on lanes intersecting at the traffic node towards the traffic node” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6 (Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050-0052 and 0058 with Figure 6 (The longitudinal controller 940 computes a probability of a collision likelihood using the target lane and trajectory predictions of the surrounding vehicle in which future uncertainty has been taken into consideration, and performs longitudinal control for collision avoidance. In this case, optimal longitudinal control is performed using the cost function that minimizes a difference between a longitudinal target velocity and a current velocity and target acceleration so that a collision probability does not exceed a predetermined value and the cost function is minimized)].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 10: Kum discloses “A device for moving a first mobile object at a traffic node according to the method of claim 1” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6].
Office Note: The claims as currently presented are extremely broad. While it is the Office’s stance that broad is not indefinite, the Office strongly suggests adding definitions and metes and bounds to the terms such as traffic node, state, constraint, driving signal, and admissible quantity for clarity and to fine tune applicants intended claimed subject matter.
With respect to Claim 11: Kum discloses “A mobile object comprising the device of claim 10” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050 and 0052 with Figure 6].
With respect to Claim 12: Kum discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein a computer program comprises instructions which can be executed by a computer and during the execution of which by the computer the method is carried out.” [Kum, ¶ 0031-0033, 0044-0047, 0050, 0052, and 0071 with Figure 6 (Software may include a computer program, code, an instruction or a combination of one or more of them and may configure a processor so that it operates as desired or may instruct the processor independently or collectively. The software and/or data may be embodied in a machine, component, physical device, virtual equipment or computer storage medium or device of any type in order to be interpreted by the processor or to provide an instruction or data to the processor. The software may be distributed to computer systems connected over a network and may be stored or executed in a distributed manner. The software and data may be stored in one or more computer-readable recording media)].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights