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
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 01/15/2026. Claims 1 and 24 were amended. Claims 1-24 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed on 01/15/2026 with respect to Reed et al. (US20190112792A1) in view of Zitterbart et al. (US20220412040A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Applicant argues that “Reed in view of Zitterbart fails to teach or suggest all of the features recited in Applicant's claims 1 and 24. Applicant’s claim 1, and similarly claim 24, recites the feature that ‘the controller is configured or programmed to select, based on a selection condition varying depending on the relative position [of the linkage relative to the machine body], a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a received signal strength which satisfies the selection condition.
This argument is not persuasive. The combination teaches or renders obvious this limitation. Reed, [0026]: “the short-range wireless scanner 44 may be configured to detect short-range wireless devices in the surrounding area, detect the active flag in the data 46, and identify the work tool 26 as the connected work tool based in part on the active flag.” and “change the first signal strength to a second signal strength in response to the indication”.
Zitterbart, [0015]: “the signal strengths of the wireless connections are compared with one another … the attachment tool attached … is closer … and thus that the first … signal … is stronger” and [0037]: “that attachment tool is recognized as attached … whose acceleration most agrees with the measured acceleration of the connection region” (selection explicitly depends on relative position/proximity of the linkage/connection region).
The relative position of the linkage (quick coupler at distal boom/arm) to the machine body changes as the position changer (boom/arm) is driven (Zitterbart [0012]: “during a movement of the connection region (for example a pivoting of an excavator arm)”). Reed’s strength adjustment + Zitterbart’s position-aware comparison provide the varying selection condition based on RSS satisfying the condition. Applicant’s argument that Zitterbart only compares acceleration signals from tool vs. linkage (not linkage vs. machine body) is not persuasive; the overall system uses kinematics/position of the articulated arm (linkage relative to body) to distinguish the attached tool, and it would have been obvious to apply this to RSS-based selection in Reed.
Applicant also argues that “However, as discussed above, Applicant’s recited ‘relative position’ is a relative position of the linkage relative to the machine body. … As discussed in paragraph [0029] of Zitterbart, the signal strengths or amplitudes of the acceleration signals … are each an indication of the distance of each attachment tool 30 from the connection region 18 (the linkage) of Zitterbart, instead of an indication of the relative distance (relative position) of the connection region 18 (a linkage) from (relative to) the superstructure 14 (a machine body).”
This argument is not persuasive. Zitterbart teaches selection based on relative position/geometry of the linkage (connection region) in the context of the overall work device, including the superstructure (machine body). Zitterbart et al., [0033]: “the instantaneous position or state of the work device 10 may be taken into account” and [0037]–[0038]: expected acceleration/position calculations for the attachment tool during arm movement. The articulated excavator structure inherently involves changing relative position of the distal linkage to the machine body as the boom/arm moves (Zitterbart [0012]). Reed’s coupling-based strength change occurs precisely when the tool is attached to the linkage, altering its position relative to the body-mounted scanner. The combination renders obvious a controller that varies the RSS selection condition with this relative position (e.g., adjusting thresholds or correcting RSS based on boom/arm posture/kinematics to maintain selection accuracy). Applicant’s distinction between “tool-to-linkage” vs. “linkage-to-body” distance does not overcome the obviousness; the system as a whole accounts for changing geometry of the linkage relative to the body.
Applicant also argues that “Moreover, Applicant notes that Zitterbart does not teach, suggest, or even hint at how the position or orientation of the excavator arm is taken into account in the comparison of the acceleration represented by the first acceleration signal and the acceleration represented by the second acceleration signal. … Zitterbart simply does not teach or suggest using the position or orientation of the excavator arm in the determination based on the signal strengths or amplitudes. Therefore, Zitterbart does not provide any motivation for a person skilled in the art to employ a feature focused on the relative positions of a machine body and a linkage in selecting a piece of identification information using the received signal strengths of wireless signals.”
The argument is not persuasive. Zitterbart explicitly contemplates using arm position/orientation and instantaneous state of the work device in the identification process. Zitterbart, [0033]: “the instantaneous position or state of the work device 10 may be taken into account” in the context of signal evaluation and tool association. Combined with Reed’s explicit signal strength adjustment upon coupling ([0026]: “change the first signal strength to a second signal strength”) and scanner-based detection, a POSITA would have been motivated to vary the RSS selection condition with the relative position of the linkage (distal quick coupler) to the machine body as the arm moves, using standard posture/angle sensors on the boom/arm. This directly addresses maintaining selection accuracy as relative distance changes (as Applicant acknowledges in the specification at [0248]). The motivation is the shared goal of reliable attached-tool identification in dynamic excavator operation with multiple possible tools.
Applicant also argues that “For at least the reasons discussed above, Reed in view of Zitterbart fails to teach or suggest the features of ‘a machine body,’ ‘a position changer provided on the machine body,’ ‘a linkage provided on the position changer…,’ ‘the position changer is operable to be driven to change a relative position of the linkage relative to the machine body,’ and ‘the controller … selection condition varying depending on the relative position…’ as recited in Applicant’s claim 1, and similarly Applicant’s claim 24.”
The argument is not persuasive. The base elements (machine body, position changer/boom-arm, linkage/quick coupler) are expressly taught in Reed [0020]–[0021] and Zitterbart [0007]–[0009]. The dynamic position-dependent RSS selection condition is taught by the combination as detailed above. The amendments do not overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. (US20190112792A1) in view of Zitterbart et al. (US20220412040A1), hereinafter referred to as Reed and Zitterbart respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Reed discloses A working vehicle (“The machine 10 may be an excavator, as shown, or any other off-highway machine or on-highway machine.” [0020]) comprising:
a machine body (“a machine body 16” [0020]);
a position changer provided on the machine body (“The machine 10 also includes an operator control station 20 housing various controls for facilitating control of systems and components of the machine 10, including, for example, the ground-engaging elements 14 and the implement assembly 18.” [0020] and “The implement assembly 18 … generally comprises a lift arm assembly 22, a tilt linkage 24…” [0021](lift arm functions as position changer).);
a linkage provided on the position changer to attach and detach an attachment thereto and therefrom (“the machine 10 may include a quick coupler 28, or other similar mechanism supported by the implement assembly 18, which provides a means for coupling a variety of interchangeable work tools … to the machine 10.” And “The implement assembly 18, which is provided for exemplary purposes, generally comprises a lift arm assembly 22, a tilt linkage 24, and a work tool 26.” [0021]);
a receiver provided in or on the machine body to receive one or more wireless signals which are transmitted periodically from one or more transmitters in or on one or more of the attachments, which include respective one or more pieces of identification information relating to the one or more attachments, and which are compliant with a near field communication standard (“the short-range wireless system 42 may also include a short-range wireless scanner 44 of the machine 10. The short-range wireless scanner 44 … may be configured to scan for and/or detect short-range wireless devices … in a surrounding area” [0025] and “the short-range data transmission component 38 of the short-range wireless device 30 may be configured to transmit data 46” [0026] (data includes ID/active flag).see also [0006]);
and a controller configured or programmed to, based on one or more received signal strengths of the one or more wireless signals received by the receiver, select a piece of identification information relating to the attachment attached to the linkage and perform a predetermined process based on the selected piece of identification information (“According to some embodiments, the controller 48 may ……. to execute computer readable program code, which may be stored using the data storage component.” [0025]: “the short-range wireless scanner 44 may be configured to detect short-range wireless devices in the surrounding area, detect the active flag in the data 46, and identify the work tool 26 as the connected work tool based in part on the active flag.” [0026]see also [0004]–[0005]: Signal strength is adjusted and used to isolate the connected tool; controller reconfigures systems based on identified tool.);
wherein the position changer is operable to be driven to change a relative position of the linkage relative to the machine body (“According to some embodiments, the machine 10 may include a quick coupler 28, or other similar mechanism supported by the implement assembly 18, which provides a means for coupling a variety of interchangeable work tools, including work tool 26, to the machine 10. For example, the work tool 26 is shown in a coupled configuration relative to the machine 10 in FIG. 1, while the work tool 26 is shown in a decoupled configuration relative to the machine 10 in FIG. 2.” [0021]: Lift arm/tilt linkage driven to move the tool (relative position changes));
Reed does not explicitly teach the controller is configured or programmed to select, based on a selection condition varying depending on the relative position, a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a received signal strength which satisfies the selection condition.
However, Zitterbart does teach the controller is configured or programmed to select, based on a selection condition varying depending on the relative position, a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a received signal strength which satisfies the selection condition ( “the signal strengths of the wireless connections are compared with one another. It is assumed here that the attachment tool attached to the connection region is closer to the connection region than other attachment tools and thus that the first … signal … is stronger” [0015] and “that attachment tool is recognized as attached … whose acceleration most agrees with the measured acceleration of the connection region” [0037] (position-dependent selection) See also [0028-0029]). Both Reed and Zitterbart teach methods for determining and selecting attachments for a work machine. However, Zitterbart explicitly teaches the controller is configured or programmed to select, based on a selection condition varying depending on the relative position, a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a received signal strength which satisfies the selection condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle tool management method of Reed to also include the controller is configured or programmed to select, based on a selection condition varying depending on the relative position, a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a received signal strength which satisfies the selection condition, as taught by Zitterbart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for tool selection of a work vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Zitterbart, 0015, 0028, 0035, 0037]).
Regarding claims 2, 7, 12 and 17,
Reed does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a first threshold having a value that varies depending on the relative position and the selection condition includes a condition in which the piece of identification information to be selected by the controller is a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a received signal strength greater than the first threshold.
However, Zitterbart does teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a first threshold having a value that varies depending on the relative position (“A property of the first and/or second acceleration signals. It can here preferably be the signal strengths or amplitudes of the acceleration signals, in particular of the first acceleration signals. It can be an indication of the distance of the respective attachment tool from the connection region (the larger the distance, the smaller the signal strength)” [0029]);
the selection condition includes a condition in which the piece of identification information to be selected by the controller is a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a received signal strength greater than the first threshold (“It can be an indication of the distance of the respective attachment tool from the connection region (the larger the distance, the smaller the signal strength); A property of the identification signal. It can here preferably be the signal strength or amplitude of the identification signal” [0029]). Both Reed and Zitterbart teach methods for determining and selecting attachments for a work machine. However, Zitterbart explicitly teaches the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a first threshold having a value that varies depending on the relative position and the selection condition includes a condition in which the piece of identification information to be selected by the controller is a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a received signal strength greater than the first threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle tool management method of Reed to also include the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a first threshold having a value that varies depending on the relative position and the selection condition includes a condition in which the piece of identification information to be selected by the controller is a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a received signal strength greater than the first threshold, as taught by Zitterbart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for tool selection of a work vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Zitterbart, 0015, 0028, 0035, 0037]).
Regarding claims 3, 8, 13 and 18,
Reed does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when a relative distance between the machine body or the receiver and the linkage is a first distance, acquire the first threshold having a value less than when the relative distance is a second distance which is shorter than the first distance.
However, Zitterbart does teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when a relative distance between the machine body or the receiver and the linkage is a first distance, acquire the first threshold having a value less than when the relative distance is a second distance which is shorter than the first distance (“An instantaneous location of the attachment tool. It can be determinable by means of a location determination unit (e.g. a GPS module) arranged at the attachment tool;
A position or arrangement of the first communication unit at an attachment tool. A more exact calculation can be made on the basis of this information as to which accelerations can be expected at the attachment tool in the coupling procedure and during operation and a higher accuracy can be achieved in the calculation of an expected acceleration or in the comparison with the actually measured acceleration;” [0031-0032]). Both Reed and Zitterbart teach methods for determining and selecting attachments for a work machine. However, Zitterbart explicitly teaches the controller is configured or programmed to, when a relative distance between the machine body or the receiver and the linkage is a first distance, acquire the first threshold having a value less than when the relative distance is a second distance which is shorter than the first distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle tool management method of Reed to also include the controller is configured or programmed to, when a relative distance between the machine body or the receiver and the linkage is a first distance, acquire the first threshold having a value less than when the relative distance is a second distance which is shorter than the first distance, as taught by Zitterbart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for tool selection of a work vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Zitterbart, 0015, 0028, 0035, 0037]).
Regarding claims 4, 9, 14 and 19,
Reed does not explicitly teach wherein the position changer includes: a boom supported on the machine body such that the boom is swingable up and down and an arm swingably connected to a distal portion of the boom wherein the linkage is swingably connected to a distal portion of the arm.
However, Zitterbart does teach wherein the position changer includes: a boom supported on the machine body such that the boom is swingable up and down (“an attached attachment tool 30 is shown in a side view in FIG. 1 . In the embodiment shown here, it is a hydraulic excavator 10 having an excavator bucket 30 as the attachment tool. The excavator 10 comprises a travelable undercarriage 12, a superstructure 14 rotatably supported on the undercarriage 12, and a pivotable excavator boom 16 at whose end (arm end) a connection region 18 is arranged that is formed as a pivotable quick-changer. The quick-changer 18 enables a fast and uncomplicated attachment and removal or changing of different attachment tools 30 in a manner known per se.” [0067]);
an arm swingably connected to a distal portion of the boom (“The excavator 10 comprises a travelable undercarriage 12, a superstructure 14 rotatably supported on the undercarriage 12, and a pivotable excavator boom 16 at whose end (arm end) a connection region 18 is arranged that is formed as a pivotable quick-changer.” [0067]);
wherein the linkage is swingably connected to a distal portion of the arm (“The excavator 10 comprises a travelable undercarriage 12, a superstructure 14 rotatably supported on the undercarriage 12, and a pivotable excavator boom 16 at whose end (arm end) a connection region 18 is arranged that is formed as a pivotable quick-changer. The quick-changer 18 enables a fast and uncomplicated attachment and removal or changing of different attachment tools 30 in a manner known per se.” [0067]). Both Reed and Zitterbart teach methods for determining and selecting attachments for a work machine. However, Zitterbart explicitly teaches the position changer includes: a boom supported on the machine body such that the boom is swingable up and down and an arm swingably connected to a distal portion of the boom wherein the linkage is swingably connected to a distal portion of the arm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle tool management method of Reed to also include the position changer includes: a boom supported on the machine body such that the boom is swingable up and down and an arm swingably connected to a distal portion of the boom wherein the linkage is swingably connected to a distal portion of the arm, as taught by Zitterbart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for tool selection of a work vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Zitterbart, 0015, 0028, 0035, 0037, 0067]).
Regarding claims 5, 10, 15 and 20,
Reed does not explicitly teach a posture detector to detect a posture of the boom relative to the machine body and a posture of the arm relative to the boom wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire the first threshold based on the posture of the boom and the posture of the arm detected by the posture detector.
However, Zitterbart does teach a posture detector to detect a posture of the boom relative to the machine body and a posture of the arm relative to the boom (“An instantaneous position and/or an instantaneous equipment state of the work device. It/They can be determinable by means of at least one sensor of the work device. The position can relate, for example, to the position or orientation of an excavator arm; and
An instantaneous coupling state of the attachment tool with the connection region of the work device. It can be determinable by means of a coupling sensor that, for example, detects that an attachment tool is coupled to the connection region.” [0033-0034]);
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire the first threshold based on the posture of the boom and the posture of the arm detected by the posture detector An instantaneous coupling state of the attachment tool with the connection region of the work device. It can be determinable by means of a coupling sensor that, for example, detects that an attachment tool is coupled to the connection region.” [0034]). Both Reed and Zitterbart teach methods for determining and selecting attachments for a work machine. However, Zitterbart explicitly teaches a posture detector to detect a posture of the boom relative to the machine body and a posture of the arm relative to the boom wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire the first threshold based on the posture of the boom and the posture of the arm detected by the posture detector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle tool management method of Reed to also include a posture detector to detect a posture of the boom relative to the machine body and a posture of the arm relative to the boom wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire the first threshold based on the posture of the boom and the posture of the arm detected by the posture detector, as taught by Zitterbart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for tool selection of a work vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Zitterbart, 0015, 0028 - 0035, 0037]).
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 16,
Reed does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire the first threshold by correcting a first reference value based on the posture of the boom and the posture of the arm.
However, Zitterbart does teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire the first threshold by correcting a first reference value based on the posture of the boom and the posture of the arm (“A position or arrangement of the first communication unit at an attachment tool. A more exact calculation can be made on the basis of this information as to which accelerations can be expected at the attachment tool in the coupling procedure and during operation and a higher accuracy can be achieved in the calculation of an expected acceleration or in the comparison with the actually measured acceleration” [0032]). Both Reed and Zitterbart teach methods for determining and selecting attachments for a work machine. However, Zitterbart explicitly teaches the controller is configured or programmed to acquire the first threshold by correcting a first reference value based on the posture of the boom and the posture of the arm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle tool management method of Reed to also include the controller is configured or programmed to acquire the first threshold by correcting a first reference value based on the posture of the boom and the posture of the arm, as taught by Zitterbart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for tool selection of a work vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Zitterbart, 0015, 0028 - 0035, 0037]).
Regarding claim 21,
Reed does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a first threshold as the reference value, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength greater than the first threshold.
However, Zitterbart does teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a first threshold as the reference value, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength greater than the first threshold (“A property of the first and/or second acceleration signals. It can here preferably be the signal strengths or amplitudes of the acceleration signals, in particular of the first acceleration signals. It can be an indication of the distance of the respective attachment tool from the connection region (the larger the distance, the smaller the signal strength);
A property of the identification signal. It can here preferably be the signal strength or amplitude of the identification signal” [0028-0035]). Both Reed and Zitterbart teach methods for determining and selecting attachments for a work machine. However, Zitterbart explicitly teaches the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a first threshold as the reference value, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength greater than the first threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle tool management method of Reed to also include the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a first threshold as the reference value, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength greater than the first threshold, as taught by Zitterbart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for tool selection of a work vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Zitterbart, 0028 - 0035]).
Regarding claim 22,
Reed does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire, as a plurality of the reference values, a first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength greater than the first threshold and less than or equal to the second threshold.
However, Zitterbart does teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire, as a plurality of the reference values, a first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength greater than the first threshold and less than or equal to the second threshold (“A property of the first and/or second acceleration signals. It can here preferably be the signal strengths or amplitudes of the acceleration signals, in particular of the first acceleration signals. It can be an indication of the distance of the respective attachment tool from the connection region (the larger the distance, the smaller the signal strength);
A property of the identification signal. It can here preferably be the signal strength or amplitude of the identification signal” [0028-0035]). Both Reed and Zitterbart teach methods for determining and selecting attachments for a work machine. However, Zitterbart explicitly teaches the controller is configured or programmed to acquire, as a plurality of the reference values, a first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength greater than the first threshold and less than or equal to the second threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle tool management method of Reed to also include the controller is configured or programmed to acquire, as a plurality of the reference values, a first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength greater than the first threshold and less than or equal to the second threshold, as taught by Zitterbart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for tool selection of a work vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Zitterbart, 0028 - 0035]).
Regarding claim 23,
Reed does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a second threshold as the reference value, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength less than or equal to the second threshold.
However, Zitterbart does teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a second threshold as the reference value, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength less than or equal to the second threshold (“A property of the first and/or second acceleration signals. It can here preferably be the signal strengths or amplitudes of the acceleration signals, in particular of the first acceleration signals. It can be an indication of the distance of the respective attachment tool from the connection region (the larger the distance, the smaller the signal strength);
A property of the identification signal. It can here preferably be the signal strength or amplitude of the identification signal” [0028-0035]). Both Reed and Zitterbart teach methods for determining and selecting attachments for a work machine. However, Zitterbart explicitly teaches the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a second threshold as the reference value, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength less than or equal to the second threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle tool management method of Reed to also include the controller is configured or programmed to acquire a second threshold as the reference value, and select a piece of identification information included in a wireless signal with a corrected received signal strength less than or equal to the second threshold, as taught by Zitterbart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for tool selection of a work vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Zitterbart, 0028 - 0035]).
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 AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/AA/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights