DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claim(s) is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Canceled:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by the Applicant listed below:
December 4, 2024
Drawings
Figures are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR § 1.83(a), which requires a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box / labeled graphical drawing symbol) for claimed features depicted in the form of a graphical drawing symbol (e.g., block diagrams, methods, and flowcharts). The unlabeled shapes depicted in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 Interpretation - Dictionary Definition
The Examiner has relied on dictionary definitions to interpret claim terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §§ 2111, 2111.01. The dictionary definitions and sources are as follows:
:
”” [ [Def. ]. (n.d.).
Retrieved , from .]--
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim depends from a method claim and introduces apparatus type limitations. Therefore, the claim recites both apparatus limitations and control method steps. Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite when the boundaries are unclear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is created or when the method is performed. For example, it is not clear if infringement would occur if claimed apparatus is/are created or when method steps are performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1548 (1990) and MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II)
A claim that “recites both a system and the method for using that system . . . does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In IPXL, the claim at issue recited, “The system of claim 2 wherein . . . the user uses the input means ...” Id. at 1384. The problem with such a claim is that “it is unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a system . . ., or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the [the system].” Id. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar “wherein” clauses to be indefinite for reciting both a system and a method for using that system. E.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data”).
Here, Claim 22 introduces system claim limitations beginning with the following clause: “A control unit configured to perform the method” (See Claim 22). Therefore, just like in IPXL, and Katz, this renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Regarding Claim ,
The claim depends from a method claim and introduces apparatus type limitations. Therefore, the claim recites both apparatus limitations and control method steps. Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite when the boundaries are unclear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is created or when the method is performed. For example, it is not clear if infringement would occur if claimed apparatus is/are created or when method steps are performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1548 (1990) and MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II)
A claim that “recites both a system and the method for using that system . . . does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In IPXL, the claim at issue recited, “The system of claim 2 wherein . . . the user uses the input means ...” Id. at 1384. The problem with such a claim is that “it is unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a system . . ., or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the [the system].” Id. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar “wherein” clauses to be indefinite for reciting both a system and a method for using that system. E.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data”).
Here, Claim 23 introduces system claim limitations beginning with the following clause: “A vehicle comprising the control unit” (See Claim 23). Therefore, just like in IPXL, and Katz, this renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Regarding Claim ,
The claim depends from a method claim and introduces apparatus type limitations. Therefore, the claim recites both apparatus limitations and control method steps. Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite when the boundaries are unclear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is created or when the method is performed. For example, it is not clear if infringement would occur if claimed apparatus is/are created or when method steps are performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1548 (1990) and MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II)
A claim that “recites both a system and the method for using that system . . . does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In IPXL, the claim at issue recited, “The system of claim 2 wherein . . . the user uses the input means ...” Id. at 1384. The problem with such a claim is that “it is unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a system . . ., or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the [the system].” Id. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar “wherein” clauses to be indefinite for reciting both a system and a method for using that system. E.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data”).
Here, Claim 24 introduces system claim limitations beginning with the following clause: “wherein the vehicle comprises a first set of steerable wheels and a second set of wheels, the vehicle comprising a first set of motion support devices for controlling a movement of said first set of steerable wheels, and at least one second motion support device for controlling a movement of said second set of wheels, whereby each motion support device in said first set of motion support devices is drivingly connected, directly or indirectly, to a respective individual wheel of the first set of steerable wheels, such that each motion support device out of the first set of motion support devices can produce a load via a respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels.” (See Claim 24). Therefore, just like in IPXL, and Katz, this renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Regarding Claim ,
The claim depends from a method claim and introduces apparatus type limitations. Therefore, the claim recites both apparatus limitations and control method steps. Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite when the boundaries are unclear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is created or when the method is performed. For example, it is not clear if infringement would occur if claimed apparatus is/are created or when method steps are performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1548 (1990) and MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II)
A claim that “recites both a system and the method for using that system . . . does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In IPXL, the claim at issue recited, “The system of claim 2 wherein . . . the user uses the input means ...” Id. at 1384. The problem with such a claim is that “it is unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a system . . ., or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the [the system].” Id. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar “wherein” clauses to be indefinite for reciting both a system and a method for using that system. E.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data”).
Here, Claim 25 introduces system claim limitations beginning with the following clause: “wherein the vehicle comprises a first set of steerable wheels and a second set of wheels, the vehicle comprising a first set of motion support devices for controlling a movement of said first set of steerable wheels, and at least one second motion support device for controlling a movement of said second set of wheels, whereby each motion support device in said first set of motion support devices is drivingly connected, directly or indirectly, to a respective individual wheel of the first set of steerable wheels, such that each motion support device out of the first set of motion support devices can produce a load via a respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels..” (See Claim 25). Therefore, just like in IPXL, and Katz, this renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Regarding Claim ,
The claim depends from a method claim and introduces apparatus type limitations. Therefore, the claim recites both apparatus limitations and control method steps. Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite when the boundaries are unclear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is created or when the method is performed. For example, it is not clear if infringement would occur if claimed apparatus is/are created or when method steps are performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1548 (1990) and MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II)
A claim that “recites both a system and the method for using that system . . . does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In IPXL, the claim at issue recited, “The system of claim 2 wherein . . . the user uses the input means ...” Id. at 1384. The problem with such a claim is that “it is unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a system . . ., or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the [the system].” Id. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar “wherein” clauses to be indefinite for reciting both a system and a method for using that system. E.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data”).
Here, Claim 26 introduces system claim limitations beginning with the following clause: “wherein the first set of motion support devices comprises a respective electric motor for each respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels.” (See Claim 26). Therefore, just like in IPXL, and Katz, this renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Regarding Claim ,
The claim depends from a method claim and introduces apparatus type limitations. Therefore, the claim recites both apparatus limitations and control method steps. Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite when the boundaries are unclear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is created or when the method is performed. For example, it is not clear if infringement would occur if claimed apparatus is/are created or when method steps are performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1548 (1990) and MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II)
A claim that “recites both a system and the method for using that system . . . does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In IPXL, the claim at issue recited, “The system of claim 2 wherein . . . the user uses the input means ...” Id. at 1384. The problem with such a claim is that “it is unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a system . . ., or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the [the system].” Id. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar “wherein” clauses to be indefinite for reciting both a system and a method for using that system. E.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data”).
Here, Claim 27 introduces system claim limitations beginning with the following clause: “wherein the first set of motion support devices comprises a respective electric motor for each respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels.” (See Claim 27). Therefore, just like in IPXL, and Katz, this renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Regarding Claim ,
The claim depends from a method claim and introduces apparatus type limitations. Therefore, the claim recites both apparatus limitations and control method steps. Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite when the boundaries are unclear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is created or when the method is performed. For example, it is not clear if infringement would occur if claimed apparatus is/are created or when method steps are performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1548 (1990) and MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II)
A claim that “recites both a system and the method for using that system . . . does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In IPXL, the claim at issue recited, “The system of claim 2 wherein . . . the user uses the input means ...” Id. at 1384. The problem with such a claim is that “it is unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a system . . ., or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the [the system].” Id. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar “wherein” clauses to be indefinite for reciting both a system and a method for using that system. E.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data”).
Here, Claim 28 introduces system claim limitations beginning with the following clause: “wherein the first set of motion support devices comprises a respective electric motor for each respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels.” (See Claim 28). Therefore, just like in IPXL, and Katz, this renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Regarding Claim ,
The claim depends from a method claim and introduces apparatus type limitations. Therefore, the claim recites both apparatus limitations and control method steps. Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite when the boundaries are unclear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is created or when the method is performed. For example, it is not clear if infringement would occur if claimed apparatus is/are created or when method steps are performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1548 (1990) and MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II)
A claim that “recites both a system and the method for using that system . . . does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In IPXL, the claim at issue recited, “The system of claim 2 wherein . . . the user uses the input means ...” Id. at 1384. The problem with such a claim is that “it is unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a system . . ., or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the [the system].” Id. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar “wherein” clauses to be indefinite for reciting both a system and a method for using that system. E.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data”).
Here, Claim 29 introduces system claim limitations beginning with the following clause: “A computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer.” (See Claim 29). Therefore, just like in IPXL, and Katz, this renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Regarding Claim 30,
The claim depends from a method claim and introduces apparatus type limitations. Therefore, the claim recites both apparatus limitations and control method steps. Claims that mix apparatus and method limitations are indefinite when the boundaries are unclear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph since it is not clear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is created or when the method is performed. For example, it is not clear if infringement would occur if claimed apparatus is/are created or when method steps are performed. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Ex parte Lyell, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1548 (1990) and MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II)
A claim that “recites both a system and the method for using that system . . . does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In IPXL, the claim at issue recited, “The system of claim 2 wherein . . . the user uses the input means ...” Id. at 1384. The problem with such a claim is that “it is unclear whether infringement. . . occurs when one creates a system . . ., or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the [the system].” Id. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar “wherein” clauses to be indefinite for reciting both a system and a method for using that system. E.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data”).
Here, Claim 30 introduces system claim limitations beginning with the following clause: “A computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer.” (See Claim 30). Therefore, just like in IPXL, and Katz, this renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and are rejected for depending therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A method for controlling a yaw motion of a vehicle,
the vehicle comprising a first set of steerable wheels () and a second set of wheels (); See at least ¶¶
the vehicle comprising a first set of motion support devices () for controlling a movement of said first set of steerable wheels (), See at least ¶¶; and
at least one second motion support device () for controlling a movement of said second set of wheels (), See at least ¶¶;
whereby each motion support device () in said first set of motion support devices () is drivingly connected, directly or indirectly, to a respective individual wheel of the first set of steerable wheels, () such that each motion support device out of the first set of motion support devices () can produce a load via the respective individual wheel by propelling and/or braking the respective individual wheel, See at least ¶¶ “Information obtained from each sensor is input to a vehicle motion integrated control device (vehicle control device) 15 via a braking control device 20 or directly. The vehicle motion integrated control device 15 transmits a braking force command for each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14 to the braking control device 20 on the basis of the information obtained from each sensor, and the braking control device 20 applies the hydraulic pressure to braking devices 21, 22, 23, 24 of each of the wheels that are hydraulic actuators in accordance with the received braking force command, to generate braking forces on the each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14.”; the method comprising:
- obtaining an indication of a desired yaw motion to be applied by the vehicle, See at least ¶¶; “a method of compensating unnecessary yaw moment”; “(for example, excess or deficiency (increase or decrease) with respect to the yaw moment required for turning)”;
- determining See at least ¶¶; whether or not the desired yaw motion is obtainable by the first set of steerable wheels by selecting a steering configuration for the said first set of steerable wheels (), thereby producing a first yaw motion portion, and by operating said first set of motion support devices () associated with said first set of steerable wheels () so as to impart a first yaw moment on the vehicle, and thereby producing a second yaw motion portion, without exceeding one or more predetermined limits for the steering configuration and/or the first set of motion support devices () associated with said first set of steerable wheels () See at least ¶¶; “control width of the steering wheel torque H depends on F.sub.Long MAX, the steering wheel torque control by the braking forces of the steered wheels 11, 12 in the present embodiment is control applied in a situation where braking that is sufficient for performing the steering wheel torque control in steering”;, and wherein the second yaw motion portion is based on a torque applied to each respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels (), and/or based on a wheel suspension scrub radius of each respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels (); See at least ¶¶; “increase and decrease of the steering wheel torque depends on the positive or negative of the scrub radius.”; “”
- in response to determining that the desired yaw motion cannot be obtained by the first set of steerable wheels without exceeding the one or more predetermined limits for the steering configuration and/or the first set of motion support devices associated with said first set of steerable wheels, ---
operating the at least one second motion support device () associated with said second set of wheels () so as to impart a second yaw moment on the vehicle, See at least ¶¶; wherein the second yaw moment is at least partly a resulting yaw moment produced by operating the at least one second motion support device () to propel the vehicle, to achieve a yaw moment based on respective individual steering angles for the first set of steerable wheels (). See at least ¶¶; “since the object is to control the steering wheel torque, it is effective to add control for compensating the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment generated by the braking/driving forces to the steered wheels 11, 12 (for example, excess or deficiency (increase or decrease) with respect to the yaw moment required for turning)”; “control device (vehicle control device) 15 of the present embodiment sets the braking/driving forces of the rear wheels 13, 14 to the left and right distribution opposite to the front wheels 11, 12, to compensate the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein operating said first set of motion support devices (), associated with said first set of steerable wheels () so as to impart the first yaw moment on the vehicle, comprises each motion support device out of the first set of motion support devices producing individual loads for its respective individual wheel out of the first set of steerable wheels. See at least Abstract; Fig. 2; ¶¶; “a vehicle provided with a left-right pair of steered wheels for which the braking/driving forces can each be controlled”; “controlling the braking/driving forces for each of the steered wheels on the basis of a lateral force acting on the steered wheels.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein producing individual loads for respective individual wheels out of the first set of steerable wheels () comprises applying respective loads () in different directions for two different respective wheels () in the first set of steerable wheels (). See at least Abstract; Fig. 12; ¶¶; “force caused by braking/driving forces acting on a steering mechanism when a difference between the left and right braking/driving forces of the steered wheels 11, 12 is applied.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein producing individual loads of respective individual wheels () out of the first set of steerable wheels () comprises braking and/or propelling () at least one wheel in the first set of steerable wheels (). See at least Abstract; Fig. 12; ¶¶; “force caused by braking/driving forces acting on a steering mechanism when a difference between the left and right braking/driving forces of the steered wheels 11, 12 is applied.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the one or more predetermined limits for the first set of motion support devices () comprises, for each motion support device () in the first set of motion support devices (), a maximum individual load based on a frictional force for its respective individual wheel () See at least ¶¶;“it is necessary to make a difference between the left and right braking forces of the steered wheels 11, 12 larger as the lateral force (F.sub.LateralL+F.sub.LateralR)”, out of the first set of steerable wheels (). See at least ¶¶; “control width of the steering wheel torque H depends on F.sub.Long MAX, the steering wheel torque control by the braking forces of the steered wheels 11, 12 in the present embodiment is control applied in a situation where braking that is sufficient for performing the steering wheel torque control in steering”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the one or more predetermined limits for the first set of motion support devices comprises, a power and/or energy limit for each motion support device in the first set of motion support devices. See at least ¶¶; “compensating the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment generated by the braking/driving forces to the steered wheels 11, 12 (for example, excess or deficiency (increase or decrease) with respect to the yaw moment required for turning)… vehicle motion integrated control device (vehicle control device) 15 of the present embodiment sets the braking/driving forces of the rear wheels 13, 14 to the left and right distribution opposite to the front wheels 11, 12, to compensate the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment.”;
[Examiner Note: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “energy limit” for each motion support device (brakes) has been interpreted as the braking capacity.]
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the one or more predetermined limits for the steering configuration comprises, a maximum steering angle which can be applied by each respective individual wheel out of the first set of steerable wheels. See at least ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the one or more predetermined limits for the first set of motion support devices () comprises a maximum torque for each individual wheel () out of the first set of steerable wheels (). See at least ¶¶ Note maximum torque for each wheel;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein determining whether or not the desired yaw motion is obtainable by the first set of steerable wheels () comprises assessing whether or not it is possible to identify a combination of the first yaw motion portion and the second yaw motion portion which combination results in the desired yaw motion. See at least ¶¶; “steering wheel torque imparted to the driver in the vehicle 1 having a negative scrub radius is reduced, in order to make the braking force of the right front wheel 12 larger than the braking force of the left front wheel 11 in turning to the left (see also FIG. 8) a yaw moment of directing the vehicle 1 to the right direction occurs. If this yaw moment is excessive, the yaw moment hinders the left turn and even if the characteristics of the steering wheel torque are improved by the above control, there is a possibility that the vehicle motion is adversely affected.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein assessing whether or not it is possible to identify a combination of the first yaw motion portion and the second yaw motion portion which combination results in the desired yaw motion comprises selecting respective steering angles for the first set of steerable wheels (). See at least ¶¶; “since the object is to control the steering wheel torque, it is effective to add control for compensating the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment generated by the braking/driving forces to the steered wheels 11, 12 (for example, excess or deficiency (increase or decrease) with respect to the yaw moment required for turning)”; “control device (vehicle control device) 15 of the present embodiment sets the braking/driving forces of the rear wheels 13, 14 to the left and right distribution opposite to the front wheels 11, 12, to compensate the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein assessing whether or not it is possible to identify a combination of the first yaw motion portion and the second yaw motion portion which combination results in the desired yaw motion comprises selecting respective loads to be produced by each respective wheel in the first set of steerable wheels. See at least ¶¶; “since the object is to control the steering wheel torque, it is effective to add control for compensating the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment generated by the braking/driving forces to the steered wheels 11, 12 (for example, excess or deficiency (increase or decrease) with respect to the yaw moment required for turning)”; “control device (vehicle control device) 15 of the present embodiment sets the braking/driving forces of the rear wheels 13, 14 to the left and right distribution opposite to the front wheels 11, 12, to compensate the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein obtaining the indication of the desired yaw motion of the vehicle (1), comprises obtaining a steering angle of the vehicle. See at least ¶¶; “a steering angle sensor built in the electric power steering device 27… Information obtained from each sensor is input to a vehicle motion integrated control device (vehicle control device)”; “since the object is to control the steering wheel torque, it is effective to add control for compensating the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment generated by the braking/driving forces to the steered wheels 11, 12 (for example, excess or deficiency (increase or decrease) with respect to the yaw moment required for turning)”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprises comparing the steering angle with a model of a reference vehicle, and determining the desired yaw motion to be a yaw motion applied by the reference vehicle in the model when the reference vehicle in the model is steered with the obtained steering angle. See at least Fig. 4, Fig. 5; ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein obtaining the indication of a desired yaw motion of the vehicle, comprises obtaining the desired yaw motion to be applied by the vehicle. See at least ¶¶; “a method of compensating unnecessary yaw moment”; “it is effective to add control for compensating the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment generated by the braking/driving forces to the steered wheels 11, 12 (for example, excess or deficiency (increase or decrease) with respect to the yaw moment required for turning)”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the scrub radius of each respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels is a distance between a position of where a king pin axis of the respective wheel intersects a road surface and a center part of the respective wheel. See at least ¶¶; Fig 2 “a relationship between which the left and right distribution of the braking/driving forces is biased toward and the increase and the decrease of the steering wheel torque is an example in the case where a sign of the scrub radius or the on-axle kingpin offset is temporarily determined”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the at least one second motion support device () comprises for each of the second set of wheels () a respective second motion support device () for individual control of the movement of each respective wheel () in the second set of wheels (). See at least Fig. 10, See at least ¶¶ “Information obtained from each sensor is input to a vehicle motion integrated control device (vehicle control device) 15 via a braking control device 20 or directly. The vehicle motion integrated control device 15 transmits a braking force command for each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14 to the braking control device 20 on the basis of the information obtained from each sensor, and the braking control device 20 applies the hydraulic pressure to braking devices 21, 22, 23, 24 of each of the wheels that are hydraulic actuators in accordance with the received braking force command, to generate braking forces on the each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the at least one second motion support device () controlling a movement of said second set of wheels () by jointly controlling the movement of the second set of wheels (). See at least ¶¶; “control device (vehicle control device) 15 of the present embodiment sets the braking/driving forces of the rear wheels 13, 14 to the left and right distribution opposite to the front wheels 11, 12, to compensate the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the second set of wheels () consists of non-steerable wheels (). See at least Fig. 1, Fig 10, ¶¶; “FIG. 1 shows a system configuration of a mechanism and a control system of a vehicle 1 in which braking forces of four wheels (left front wheel 11, right front wheel 12, left rear wheel 13, right rear wheel 14) can be independently controlled, and the front wheels 11, 12 are steered wheels (wheels of which steering angle can be controlled by a steering mechanism)”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the second yaw moment is at least partly a resulting yaw moment produced by operating the at least one second motion support device with respective individual steering angles for the first set of steerable wheels. See at least ¶¶; “since the object is to control the steering wheel torque, it is effective to add control for compensating the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment generated by the braking/driving forces to the steered wheels 11, 12 (for example, excess or deficiency (increase or decrease) with respect to the yaw moment required for turning)”; “control device (vehicle control device) 15 of the present embodiment sets the braking/driving forces of the rear wheels 13, 14 to the left and right distribution opposite to the front wheels 11, 12, to compensate the excess or deficiency of the yaw moment.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A control unit () configured to perform the method according to claim 1. See at least ¶¶ “Information obtained from each sensor is input to a vehicle motion integrated control device (vehicle control device) 15 via a braking control device 20 or directly. The vehicle motion integrated control device 15 transmits a braking force command for each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14 to the braking control device 20 on the basis of the information obtained from each sensor, and the braking control device 20 applies the hydraulic pressure to braking devices 21, 22, 23, 24 of each of the wheels that are hydraulic actuators in accordance with the received braking force command, to generate braking forces on the each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A vehicle (1 “vehicle”; Fig 10) comprising the control unit () \according to claim 22. See at least ¶¶;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
The vehicle according to claim 23,
wherein the vehicle comprises a first set of steerable wheels () and a second set of wheels (), the vehicle comprising a first set of motion support devices () for controlling a movement of said first set of steerable wheels (), See at least ¶¶; and at least one second motion support device () for controlling a movement of said second set of wheels () See at least ¶¶ “Information obtained from each sensor is input to a vehicle motion integrated control device (vehicle control device) 15 via a braking control device 20 or directly. The vehicle motion integrated control device 15 transmits a braking force command for each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14 to the braking control device 20 on the basis of the information obtained from each sensor, and the braking control device 20 applies the hydraulic pressure to braking devices 21, 22, 23, 24 of each of the wheels that are hydraulic actuators in accordance with the received braking force command, to generate braking forces on the each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14.”,
whereby each motion support device () in said first set of motion support devices () is drivingly connected, directly or indirectly, to a respective individual wheel () of the first set of steerable wheels (), such that each motion support device out of the first set of motion support devices () can produce a load via a respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels (). See at least ¶¶ “Information obtained from each sensor is input to a vehicle motion integrated control device (vehicle control device) 15 via a braking control device 20 or directly. The vehicle motion integrated control device 15 transmits a braking force command for each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14 to the braking control device 20 on the basis of the information obtained from each sensor, and the braking control device 20 applies the hydraulic pressure to braking devices 21, 22, 23, 24 of each of the wheels that are hydraulic actuators in accordance with the received braking force command, to generate braking forces on the each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
The vehicle (1) according to claim 24,
wherein each respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels () is mounted to a respective kingpin bolt such that an axis along an angle of the respective kingpin bolt is a scrub radius from intersecting a center line of a respective wheel, See at least ¶¶;and wherein a yaw motion produced when turning at least one wheel out of the first set of steerable wheels (10) is based on the scrub radius. See at least ¶¶; “steering wheel torque imparted to the driver in the vehicle 1 having a negative scrub radius is reduced, in order to make the braking force of the right front wheel 12 larger than the braking force of the left front wheel 11 in turning to the left (see also FIG. 8) a yaw moment of directing the vehicle 1 to the right direction occurs. If this yaw moment is excessive, the yaw moment hinders the left turn and even if the characteristics of the steering wheel torque are improved by the above control, there is a possibility that the vehicle motion is adversely affected.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
The vehicle according to claim 24,
wherein the first set of motion support devices comprises a respective electric motor for each respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels. See at least Fig. 10 ¶¶; ”control system of a vehicle including motors that independently drives left and right front wheels to which a second embodiment of the vehicle control device according to the present invention is applied.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
The vehicle according to claim 26,
wherein the first set of motion support devices further comprises a respective brake for each respective wheel of the first set of steerable wheels (). See at least ¶¶ “braking control device 20 applies the hydraulic pressure to braking devices 21, 22, 23, 24 of each of the wheels that are hydraulic actuators in accordance with the received braking force command, to generate braking forces on the each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer. See at least ¶¶ “Information obtained from each sensor is input to a vehicle motion integrated control device (vehicle control device) 15 via a braking control device 20 or directly. The vehicle motion integrated control device 15 transmits a braking force command for each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14 to the braking control device 20 on the basis of the information obtained from each sensor, and the braking control device 20 applies the hydraulic pressure to braking devices 21, 22, 23, 24 of each of the wheels that are hydraulic actuators in accordance with the received braking force command, to generate braking forces on the each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14.”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A non-transitory computer program medium carrying a computer comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer. See at least ¶¶ “Information obtained from each sensor is input to a vehicle motion integrated control device (vehicle control device) 15 via a braking control device 20 or directly. The vehicle motion integrated control device 15 transmits a braking force command for each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14 to the braking control device 20 on the basis of the information obtained from each sensor, and the braking control device 20 applies the hydraulic pressure to braking devices 21, 22, 23, 24 of each of the wheels that are hydraulic actuators in accordance with the received braking force command, to generate braking forces on the each of the wheels 11, 12, 13, 14.”;
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 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.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above.
Regarding Claim ,
fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. (See at least MPEP § 2144(I)).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note the claimed autonomous quality of the vehicle critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over the other determination methods.
For example, the Instant Specification states:
Optionally, the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
The Instant Specification further states:
In some embodiments herein, the vehicle 1 is autonomous.
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an autonomous vehicle in a method for controlling yaw motion of a vehicle because applicant does not note that utilization of an autonomous vehicle is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over utilizing a non-autonomous vehicle in a method for controlling yaw motion of a vehicle.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
:
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights