The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 12/17/2025 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, 15-18, 21 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-22 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 1’s language, the applicant argued that “claim 1 recites that the plurality of detection coils are [always] symmetrically disposed with respect to a primary field of the transmitter unit…” (Remarks, pg.10). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Nowhere in claim 1 does it require that the detection coils are always symmetrically disposed with respect to the magnetic field of the transmitter unit. That is, no temporal limitation exists that requires continuous symmetry. “Although operational characteristics of an apparatus may be apparent from the specification, we will not read such characteristics into the claims when cannot be fairly connected to the structure recited in the claims” (emphasis added). In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). It is further noted that dependent claims 2, 14 among others discuss aligning and repositioning the transmitter coil, which means there are instances where the transmitter coil is misaligned to the left or right of the detection coils. If there is complete misalignment, how can the detection coils be symmetrically disposed to the primary field of a misaligned transmitter unit? The broad language of the claim does not expound on how “symmetrically disposed” is implemented.
See below for further analysis of the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first group of detection coils and a second group of detection coils disposed in two or more layers at same geometric locations of a detection mat, and wherein each group of detection coils include concentric coils, adjacently disposed coils, or a side-by-side arrangement” in claims 15 and 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). “Two or more layers…” implies separation in vertical direction; however, none of the drawings show first and second group of detection coils disposed in two or more layers at “same geometric locations of the detection mat”. Note: changes in the drawings may necessitate changes in the specification. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-22 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.
Claim 1 recites “A method for wireless power transfer… exciting two or more detection coils of a detection mat detachably coupled to a transmitter unit…” Claim 1 is directed to a method, and the limitation “detachably coupled” is descriptive of the detection mat and is not recited as a step of the method. Additionally, it is not functionally tied to any of the recited method steps of claim 1 (i.e., “exciting two or more detection coils”, “determining an alignment position”, or “communicating information”). Therefore, it is unclear whether the applicant intends for the “detection mat detachably coupled” to be further limiting or not. Additionally, it is unclear what is required by “detachably coupled”- a direct physical connection (e.g., mechanical fastening), a wired electrical connection, or a wireless-based coupling. As such, it is unclear what and how “detachably coupled” is implemented. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 15 and 17 each recite “…coils disposed in two or more layers at same geometric locations of the detection mat…” It is unclear how coils in two different layers are at the “same” geometric locations, since coils in different layers are in different spatial positions along the thickness dimension of the detection mat. Further, it is unclear what is intended by “same geometric locations”- does the applicant intend vertical alignment, coincident centers, or some other positional relationship? For purposes of examinations, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claim 16 recites “A detection device, comprising: a detection mat detachably coupled to a transmitter unit…” It is unclear what particular structure is intended by the phrase “detachably coupled”. The claim does not specify the structure or manner of coupling between the detection mat and the transmitter unit and therefore it is unclear whether this coupling requires a particular mechanical interface, an electrical connection, or another type of coupling. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 2-14 and 18-22 depend on claims 10 and 16-17, respectively, and therefore inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, 15, 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…determining an alignment position of a receiver unit…”, then “communicating information… to at least one of a user, a control unit, a display, the transmitter unit, or the receiver unit.” The claim does not recite any positive action taken in response to the communication of information. The fact that the information reaches a destination does not mean it is used for any particular purpose or that it has any effect on the system. The claim should be amended to clearly tie in the communicated information to a step that effectively uses it to positively change/have an impact on how the system operates. Otherwise, the “information” has no actual meaning or particular purpose. Claim 16 is the apparatus counterpart and recites similar limitations to those in claim 1. As such, claim 16 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 13 recites “a differential current signal…” It should be “a differential current”.
Claim 15 recites “…of a detection mat” It should be “of the detection mat”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raedy et al. (2015/0137801 A1) in view of Henkel et al. (2018/0366985 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Raedy teaches a method of a wireless power transfer (WPT) system, the method comprising:
exciting two more detection coils (14a, 14c and/or 14b, 14d) having a plurality of detection coils that are symmetrically disposed with respect to a primary magnetic field of a transmitter unit (pars [31, 33] and related discussion; when there is perfect alignment between Raedy’s transmitter unit and receiver, the plurality of detection coils is symmetrically disposed with respect to primary magnetic field 10 of the transmitter unit. Examiner note: the claim does not require the detection coils are “always”/at all times symmetrically disposed with respect to a primary magnetic field. Raedy teaches an instance in which they are and thus meets the BRI of the claim);
determining an alignment position of a receiver unit in relation to a transmitter coil based on a distribution of responses from the two or more detection coils (pars [33-35]; determining an alignment position of the receiver unit 8 in relation to transmitter coil based on distribution of responses from coils 14a, 14c and/or 14b, 14d including when the receiver in relation to the transmitter is aligned and misaligned);
communicating information about the alignment position of the receiver unit to at least one of a user (pars [33-34]; communicating information about the alignment position of the receiver unit that is visually observed by an operator/user), a control unit, a display (18, pars [33-34]); communicating information about the alignment position of the receiver unit relative to the transmitter coil to display 18), the transmitter unit, or the receiver unit.
Raedy teaches the two or more detection coils “may be arranged externally of the secondary coil” (par [33]). That is, Ready does not require the detection coils to be integrated with the receiver coil and gives the motivation to have them arranged “externally” of the receiver coil. Raedy, however, does not explicitly disclose the detection coils are of a detection mat detachably coupled to a transmitter unit.
Henkel (figs.1-2), however, teaches it is known in the art for detection coils (16.1-16.n) to be of a detection mat (item 13; note: the claim does not structurally define the “detection mat”) detachably coupled to the transmitter unit (see figs.1-2, par [24]; separate and detachable detection mat 13 inserted in the air gap 14 between the transmitter unit 11 and the receiver unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Raedy’s detection coils to be of a detection mat detachably coupled to a transmitter unit as discussed within Henkel. The motivation would have been because Raedy provides the suggestion that the detection coils may be arranged externally of the secondary coil and one skilled in the art would have looked to Henkel’s teachings to include the detection coils in a detachable detection mat coupled to a transmitter unit for purposes of flexibility and ease of use. That is, by making the detection coils independent and detachable from the transmitter unit and receiver unit, one skilled in the art would be able to place the detection mat exactly where the detection is needed including having the detection coils symmetrically disposed with respect to the transmitter unit’s primary magnetic field and would be able to replace/remove the detection mat when desired. The motivation for having a detection mat would have been to protect the detection coils from external elements while being used outdoors.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein communicating the information about the alignment position includes at least one of: communicating a recommendation for aligning the transmitter coil and the receiver unit (Raedy, pars [33-34]; communicating a recommendation read on by a directional signal to the display corresponding to the position of the receiver unit relative to the transmitter coil that functions as a recommendation as it is a suggestion for how to move towards alignment- Note: a recommendation does not actually require using it; it may or may not be used); communicating a control signal for aligning the transmitter coil; causing a display of the information about the alignment position of the transmitter coil (Raedy, pars [33-34]; causing display of information via 18 about the alignment state of the system which includes the alignment position of the transmitter coil); or causing the transmitter coil to reposition in order to optimize its coupling to the receiver unit by maximizing power transfer efficiency.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches generating a control signal indicative of the alignment position of the receiver unit with respect to the transmitter coil based on a comparison of one or more alignment parameters (Raedy, pars [33-34]; Raedy teaches generating a control signal read on by the directional signal indicative of the alignment position between the receiver unit and the transmitter coil based on comparison of alignment parameters).
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches it is known in the art for the plurality of detection coils (Raedy, 14a-14d) to collectively form a circular detection area (Raedy, fig. 4; detection coils 14a-14d are formed in a circle and thus form a circular detection area).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the detection mat contacts at least a portion a surface of the transmitter unit (Raedy, pars [33-34] and Henkel, figs.1-2, par [24]; In the combination Henkel teaches detection mat 13 lies on the transmitter unit 11 and thus contacts at least a portion of a surface of the transmitter unit).
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches determining one or more alignment parameters that includes at least one of (i.e., only one is required to be read into the claim): the distribution of responses from the two or more detection coils (Raedy, pars [33-34]; voltage induced in each of the two or more detection coils); a differential voltage (Raedy, pars [33-34]; voltage differential between two or more detection coils); a differential current; a differential impedance value; an actual voltage pattern (Raedy, pars [33-34]; the induced voltages of the detection coils reads on “actual voltage pattern”); an actual current pattern; or any combination of the actual voltage pattern, the actual current pattern, the differential current, or the differential voltage.
Regarding Claim 16,
Raedy teaches a detection device, comprising:
a plurality of detection coils (14a, 14c and/or 14b, 14d) that are symmetrically disposed with respect to a primary magnetic field of a transmitter unit (pars [31, 33] and related discussion; when there is perfect alignment between Raedy’s transmitter unit and receiver, the plurality of detection coils is symmetrically disposed with respect to primary magnetic field 10 of the transmitter unit. Examiner note: the claim does not require the detection coils are “always”/at all times symmetrically disposed with respect to a primary magnetic field. Raedy teaches an instance in which they are and thus meets the BRI of the claim); and
a system configured to:
determine an alignment position of a receiver unit in relation to a transmitter coil based on a distribution of responses from the plurality of detection coils (pars [33-35]; determining an alignment position of the receiver unit 8 in relation to transmitter coil based on distribution of responses from coils 14a, 14c and/or 14b, 14d including when the receiver in relation to the transmitter is aligned and misaligned); and
communicating information about the alignment position of the receiver unit to at least one of a user (pars [33-34]; communicating information about the alignment position of the receiver unit that is visually observed by an operator/user), a control unit, a display (18, pars [33-34]), the transmitter unit, or the receiver unit.
Raedy teaches the two or more detection coils “may be arranged externally of the secondary coil” (par [33]). That is, Ready does not require the detection coils to be integrated with the receiver coil and gives the motivation to have them arranged “externally” of the receiver coil. Raedy, however, does not explicitly disclose a detection mat detachably coupled to a transmitter unit.
Henkel (figs.1-2), however, teaches it is known in the art to have a detection mat (item 13; note: the claim does not structurally define the “detection mat” in size, shape, etc.) detachably coupled to the transmitter unit (see figs.1-2, par [24]; separate and detachable detection mat 13 inserted in the air gap 14 between the transmitter unit 11 and the receiver unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Raedy’s detection coils to be included in a detection mat detachably coupled to the transmitter unit as discussed within Henkel. The motivation would have been because Raedy provides the suggestion that the detection coils may be arranged externally of the secondary coil and one skilled in the art would have looked to Henkel’s teachings to include the detection coils in a detachable detection mat coupled to a transmitter unit for purposes of flexibility and ease of use. That is, by making the detection coils independent and detachable from the transmitter unit and receiver unit, one skilled in the art would be able to place the detection mat exactly where the detection is needed including having the detection coils symmetrically disposed with respect to the transmitter unit’s primary magnetic field and would be able to replace/remove the detection mat when desired. The motivation for having a detection mat would have been to protect the detection coils from external elements while being used outdoors.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raedy et al. (2015/0137801 A1) in view of Henkel et al. (2018/0366985 A1) in further view of Piasecki et al. (2019/0103771 A1).
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and the combination further teaches determining the alignment parameters of atleast one of the actual voltage pattern (see rejection of claim 9).
The combination does not explicitly disclose determining an amplitude, a phase or both of at least one of the actual voltage pattern, the actual current pattern, the differential current, and/or (the recitation of “and/or” means “and” or “or”) the differential voltage.
Piasecki, however, similarly teaches detection coils (414) and determining an amplitude, a phase, or both of an actual voltage (par [47]; the phase and amplitude of the voltage signal received at each resonating coil can be determined by the CMCM device…).
Thus, the combination teaches Raedy’s determination of the alignment parameter of at least one of the actual voltage pattern further comprises determining the amplitude, phase or both of said voltage pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Piasecki in order to gather more information to help in analyzing the actual voltage pattern determined by Raedy.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raedy et al. (2015/0137801 A1) in view of Henkel et al. (2018/0366985 A1) in further view of Baek et al. (2019/0027973 A1).
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9. The examiner notes that claim 12 is directed to a non-selected alternative option; namely, the differential current of claim 9. However, for the sake of expediting prosecution, the combination does not explicitly disclose determining a differential current signal between the at least one pair of groups of detection coils; and determining at least one actual current signal from one of the groups of the at least one pair of groups of detection coils.
Baek (figs.21-22), however, teaches a differential current signal between the two or more detection coils (figs.21-22, pars [168-169]; detection coils 210a, 210b. Processor 271 can compare the signal generated from first sensor 232a with the signal generated from the second sensor 232b and takes the difference between them-i.e. a differential current signal); and determining at least one actual current signal from the two or more detection coils (pars [166-167]; determining at least one actual current signal i1 or i2 from the two or more detection coils 210a or 210b via sensor 232a or 232b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally determined differential current and at least one actual current signal from the two or more detection coils because current and differential current between detection coils is/are obviously a known parameter of power that could similarly be used to determine whether there is alignment between the transmitter and receiver. Baek’s teachings that determining the differential current signal indicates a foreign object is additionally obviously an indication the transmitter and receiver are not aligned, because there is something in the way. A significant deviation than the expected differential current is an efficiency reading that would indicate something is wrong between the transmitter and receiver.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9. The examiner notes that claim 13 is directed to a non-selected alternative option; namely, a differential current of claim 9. However, for the sake of expediting prosecution, the combination does not explicitly disclose measuring a differential current for one more pairs of detection zones of a plurality of detection zones.
Baek, however, teaches measuring a differential current signal for one or more pairs of detection zones of a plurality of detection zones (Raedy, pars [33-34] and Baek, see fig.22, pars [166-169]; Raedy teaches measuring voltage for a pair of detection zones and Baek teaches measuring differential current for two coils 210a, 210b. Thus, the combination teaches it does so in two detection zones. Note: the claim does not define “detection zones”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally determined differential current for one or more pairs of detection zones because differential current between detection coils is/are obviously a known parameter of power that could similarly be used to determine whether there is alignment between the transmitter and receiver. Baek’s teachings that determining the differential current signal indicates a foreign object is additionally obviously an indication the transmitter and receiver are not aligned, because there is something in the way. A significant deviation than the expected differential current is an efficiency reading that would indicate something is wrong between the transmitter and receiver.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the plurality of detection coils includes a first group of detection coils (Raedy, 14a is a first group in light of applicant’s disclosure at par [17] that a group can be a singular coil) and a second group of detection coils (Raedy, 14c is a second group in light of applicant’s disclosure at par [17] that a group can be a singular coil) of the detection mat (combination of references, see rejection of claim 1).
The combination does not explicitly disclose the first and second group of detection coils disposed in two or more layers at same geometric locations, and wherein each group of detection coils include concentric coils, adjacently disposed coils, or a side-by-side arrangement of coils.
Baek (figs.4, 5, 7), however, teaches it is known in the art to have a first group of detection coils (210a of 201a) and a second group of detection coils (212b of 201a) disposed in two or more layers (see figs.5, 7) at same geometric locations (pars [65-66]; coil centers are matched/aligned vertically reads on same geometric location), and wherein each group of detection coils include concentric coils, adjacently disposed coils (see figs.4-5, 7, coils 210a, 210b of 201a are adjacently disposed, 212a, 212b of 201b are adjacently disposed), or side-by-side arrangement of coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination’s detection coils so that they take the orientation as discussed within Baek. The motivation would have been to improve sensing rate of the detection coils and to minimize potential dead zones.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 recites the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 15 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Claim(s) 14, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raedy et al. (2015/0137801 A1) in view of Henkel et al. (2018/0366985 A1) in further view of Nguyen et al. (2018/0015832 A1).
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose repositioning the transmitter coil based on a control signal.
Nguyen, however, teaches is known in the art to reposition the transmitter coil based on a control signal (Nguyen, pars [57-59]; Nguyen teaches repositioning the transmitter coil based on a control signal so that it aligns with the receiver coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Nguyen. The motivation would have been to make Raedy in view of Henkel’s system more dynamic by additionally allowing the transmitter coil to be controlled and moved to perfect alignment so that both the transmitter coil and the receiver coil may be repositioned instead of just the receiver unit.
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 16. The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising a communication unit capable of transmitting a control signal to a control unit associated with the transmitter coil.
Nguyen, however, teaches it is known in the art to have a communication unit (252, pars [55, 57-59]; The “communication unit” is read on by Nguyen’s 252 that communicates with control unit 152) capable of transmitting a control signal (the control signal read on by the “current system diagnosis” that indicates misalignment) to a control unit (152, pars [57-58]) associated with the transmitter coil (34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Nguyen. The motivation would have been to make Raedy in view of Henkel’s system more dynamic by additionally allowing the transmitter coil to be controlled and moved to perfect alignment with the receiver unit.
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 19 and Nguyen further teaches wherein the control signal enables the control unit to reposition the transmitter coil based on the control signal (Nguyen, pars [57-59]; Nguyen teaches control unit 152 repositions the transmitter coil 34 to align it with the receiver coil based on the control signal).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raedy et al. (2015/0137801 A1) in view of Henkel et al. (2018/0366985 A1) in further view of Kim et al. (2015/0022012 A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 16 and Raedy further teaches at least one group of detection coils with a first group of detection coils (Raedy, 14a is one group in light of applicant’s disclosure that a group can be a singular coil) having a first impedance value (Raedy teaches the structure of the detection coil 14a that obviously has a first impedance value) and a second group of detection coils (Raedy, 14c) having a second impedance value (Raedy teaches the structure of the detection coil 14c that obviously has a second impedance value).
The combination does not explicitly disclose a compensator compensates for dissimilar impedance values such that the coils provide similar resultant impedance.
Kim, however, generally teaches a compensator (113, pars [24, 61]; capacitors, inductors, etc.) for impedance matching (pars [24, 61]).
In the combination, Kim’s compensator element is combined with modified Nguyen’s detection coils so to compensate for any impedance mismatching and provide similar resultant impedance (i.e., impedance matching) between the detection coils.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the compensator, as taught within Kim, to that of modified Raedy’s detection coils in order to match the overall performance of the system by ensuring the coils work in harmony, providing the desired overall impedance by calibrating/adjusting the impedance of the detection coils as is well-known and well-desired in the art.
Conclusion
There is no prior art for claims 4, 10, 18, 22 with claims 5-6 depending on claim 4. They would be allowable if amended to address the 112b rejections and claim objections set forth above, and rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
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 RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836 /REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836