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 response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 4/17/2026. Applicant amended claims 1-6 and added claims 7-11. Claims 1-11 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s amendments filed on 4/17/2026 obviate said interpretation – accordingly, the claim interpretation under § 112(f) is withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 112(b), Applicant’s amendments filed on 4/17/2026 obviate said rejections – accordingly, the claim rejections under § 112(b) are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, and by extension new claim 7, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the clauses
“as the flight vehicle takes off and the one or more processors determined that the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging, the one or more processors perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area,” and
“as the flight vehicle takes off and the one or more processors determined that the flight vehicle is not performing wireless charging, the one or more processors do not perform the flight control to extend the time period for staying in the wirelessly chargeable area.”
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Gao does not perform hovering both while a drone takes off and while a drone performs wireless charging. Gao’s wireless charging occurs when a drone gradually moves downward before hovering and wirelessly charging, which one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider as a take-off procedure.
Neither Lee nor Gao describe that flight control may be different when a flying vehicle is taking off and wirelessly charging as compared to taking off and not wirelessly charging. That is, Lee and Gao are silent as to different take-off flight control procedures for whether the flying vehicle is charging or not.
Continuing, Applicant argues as to dependent claims 2-3 that one of ordinary skill would not have combined Lee, Gao and Eller to arrive at the dependent claims because Eller describes a hybrid aircraft having both an electric motor and liquid fuel engine – the incorporation of Eller would go against the operating principles of Lee and Gao, which are directed towards hybrid aircraft which perform wireless charging of a battery.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Addressing the first argument, recall that Lee discloses performing a take-off procedure while a vehicle is wirelessly charging (See at least ¶ 40.) Against this backdrop, the purpose of Gao is to teach: performing a flight control to extend a time period staying in a wirelessly chargeable area compared to when the flight vehicle does not perform wireless charging (See pp. 2 and 4-5.) As penned in the Non-Final Office Action, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Lee and Gao would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that a flight vehicle should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle.
Addressing the second argument, the combination of Lee and Gao arrives at the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitation at issue. As discussed, Lee and Gao directly yield the first clause pertaining to performing a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area as a flight vehicle takes off and is performing wireless charging. Turning to the second clause, further recall that Gao teaches that when charging reaches set conditions, charging ends and a drone takes off from a platform (See Gao, pp. 4-5.) In other words, Gao teaches that a flight vehicle may take off without performing a hovering procedure when the flight vehicle does not need to perform wireless charging — a skilled artisan would have recognized that the foregoing would necessarily entail not extending a time period of staying in a wirelessly chargeable area as compared to when the flight vehicle performs wireless charging. As a matter of fact, from the same motivation to arrive at the first clause that a flight vehicle should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a flight vehicle would take off without undue time extension when satisfactory charge conditions are met. Such optimizes flight control of a flight vehicle.
Addressing the final argument against Eller, the argument is unpersuasive because the teaching relied upon from Eller does not depend on the liquid fuel engine. Rather, the teaching relied upon is: wherein when the flight vehicle is performing charging, an ascending speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging (See Eller, ¶ 38.) A skilled artisan would have recognized that it would have been obvious to implement Eller’s limiting of a forward speed while a flight vehicle which has taken off is charging in a wirelessly-chargeable area as disclosed by the combination of Lee and Gao to achieve predictable and desirable effects of ensuring that a flight vehicle is fully charged before performing flight operations.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 1 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Joo Sung (KR20180043558A; “Lee”) in view of Kai-feng Gao et al. (CN116946427A; “Gao”)
As to independent claim 1, Lee discloses a flight vehicle that is battery driven, comprising:
a battery (“The flying object 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a battery 120.” ¶ 26.),
wherein a flight vehicle takes off while performing wireless charging (“When the take-off of the object 100 is sensed, it is possible to charge the take-off power supply unit 121 of the drones 100 for take-off wireless charging.” ¶ 40.)
Lee fails to explicitly disclose:
one or more processors;
the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging;
as the flight vehicle takes off and the one or more processors determined that the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging, the one or more processors perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area; and
as the flight vehicle takes off and the one or more processors determined that the flight vehicle is not performing wireless charging, the one or more processors do not perform the flight control to extend the time period for staying in the wirelessly chargeable area.
Nevertheless, Gao teaches:
one or more processors (“UAV: An unmanned aircraft is referred to as ‘UAV’. It is an unmanned aircraft controlled by radio remote control equipment and its own program control device.” p. 2.);
the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging (“(6) The charging control module monitors parameters during the charging process, such as current, voltage, and temperature, and adjusts and controls them as needed to ensure the stability and safety of the charging process.” Pages. 4-5. );
as the one or more processors determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging, perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area (“When the drone is inspecting and the remaining power is lower than the set value, the drone flies to the set or nearest wireless charging station[] platform, when it flies directly above the wireless charging platform, it gradually moves downward until it enters the non-contact charging area, then hovers so that the drone is suspended in the non-contact charging area, and the drone is charged through the non-contact charging device.” Page. 2. “(6) The charging control module monitors parameters during the charging process, such as current, voltage, and temperature, and adjusts and controls them as needed to ensure the stability and safety of the charging process. (7) When the charging reaches the set conditions, the charging process ends. (8) The drone leaves the charging platform and continues to perform the cruise mission.” Pages. 4-5. Note: When the flight vehicle requires charging, the flight vehicle performs a flight control (hovering) to wirelessly charge in a wirelessly chargeable area for an associated time period required to complete the charge. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said associated time period would necessarily be larger than a time period of, say, zero associated with not performing any charging at all.); and
as the one or more processors determine whether the flight vehicle is not performing wireless charging, do not perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area (“(7) When the charging reaches the set conditions, the charging process ends. (8) The drone leaves the charging platform and continues to perform the cruise mission.” Pages. 4-5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee to include the features of: one or more processors; the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging; as the one or more processors determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging, perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area; and as the one or more processors determine whether the flight vehicle is not performing wireless charging, do not perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area, as taught by Gao, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Lee and Gao would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that a flight vehicle should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a flight vehicle would take off without undue time extension when satisfactory charge conditions are met. Such optimizes flight control of a flight vehicle.
Claims 2, 3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao and in view of Eller (US20190084684A1; “Eller”)
As to independent claim 7, Lee discloses a flight vehicle that is battery driven, comprising:
a battery (“The flying object 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a battery 120.” ¶ 26.),
determining whether a flight vehicle will take off (“When the take-off of the object 100 is sensed, it is possible to charge the take-off power supply unit 121 of the drones 100 for take-off wireless charging.” ¶ 40.);
wherein a flight vehicle takes off while performing wireless charging (“When the take-off of the object 100 is sensed, it is possible to charge the take-off power supply unit 121 of the drones 100 for take-off wireless charging.” ¶ 40.)
Lee fails to explicitly disclose:
one or more processors;
the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging;
after making a determination that the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging and after making a determination that the flight vehicle will take off, perform a first take-off flight control of the flight vehicle; and
after making a determination that the flight vehicle is not performing wireless charging and after making the determination that the flight vehicle will take off, perform a second take-off flight control of the flight vehicle, the second take-off flight control being different from the first take-off flight control, wherein:
the first take-off flight control causes the flight vehicle to take off while remaining in a wirelessly chargeable area for a longer period of time than the second take-off flight control.
Nevertheless, Gao teaches:
one or more processors (“UAV: An unmanned aircraft is referred to as ‘UAV’. It is an unmanned aircraft controlled by radio remote control equipment and its own program control device.” p. 2.);
the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging (“(6) The charging control module monitors parameters during the charging process, such as current, voltage, and temperature, and adjusts and controls them as needed to ensure the stability and safety of the charging process.” Pages. 4-5. );
as the one or more processors determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging, perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area (“When the drone is inspecting and the remaining power is lower than the set value, the drone flies to the set or nearest wireless charging station[] platform, when it flies directly above the wireless charging platform, it gradually moves downward until it enters the non-contact charging area, then hovers so that the drone is suspended in the non-contact charging area, and the drone is charged through the non-contact charging device.” Page. 2. “(6) The charging control module monitors parameters during the charging process, such as current, voltage, and temperature, and adjusts and controls them as needed to ensure the stability and safety of the charging process. (7) When the charging reaches the set conditions, the charging process ends. (8) The drone leaves the charging platform and continues to perform the cruise mission.” Pages. 4-5. Note: When the flight vehicle requires charging, the flight vehicle performs a flight control (hovering) to wirelessly charge in a wirelessly chargeable area for an associated time period required to complete the charge. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said associated time period would necessarily be larger than a time period of, say, zero associated with not performing any charging at all.); and
as the one or more processors determine whether the flight vehicle is not performing wireless charging, do not perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area (“(7) When the charging reaches the set conditions, the charging process ends. (8) The drone leaves the charging platform and continues to perform the cruise mission.” Pages. 4-5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee to include the features of: one or more processors; the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging; as the one or more processors determine whether the flight vehicle is performing wireless charging, perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area; and as the one or more processors determine whether the flight vehicle is not performing wireless charging, do not perform a flight control to extend a time period for staying in a wirelessly chargeable area, as taught by Gao, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Lee and Gao would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that a flight vehicle should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a flight vehicle would take off without undue time extension when satisfactory charge conditions are met. Such optimizes flight control of a flight vehicle.
The combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: a battery configured to supply power to a motor.
Nevertheless, Eller teaches: a battery configured to supply power to a motor (“one or more electrical motors powered by the electrical energy system” - Abstract.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee to include the feature of: a battery configured to supply power to a motor, as taught by Eller, with a reasonable expectation of success because motors are a well-known structural component in flight vehicles.
As to claims 2 and 8, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the flight control causes the flight vehicle to travel at a slower forward speed while the flight vehicle is wirelessly charging as compared to when the flight vehicle is not wireless charging.
Nevertheless, Eller teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle is performing charging, a forward speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging (“After climb out, the battery may be depleted to a certain threshold. Until the battery is charge up, majority of engine power may be diverted to charging the battery until the upper charge threshold is reached. Until that happens, forward speed and climb rate can be limited.” ¶ 38.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle is performing charging, a forward speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging, as taught by Ellen, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above modification would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging via the limiting of its forward speed, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that flight vehicles should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle. Hence, it would have been obvious to implement Eller’s limiting of a forward speed while a flight vehicle which has taken off is charging in a wirelessly-chargeable area as disclosed by the combination of Lee and Gao to achieve the above predictable and desirable effects.
As to claims 3 and 9, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the flight control causes the flight vehicle to travel at a slower ascending speed while the flight vehicle is wirelessly charging as compared to when the flight vehicle is not wireless charging.
Nevertheless, Eller teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle is performing charging, an ascending speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging (“After climb out, the battery may be depleted to a certain threshold. Until the battery is charge up, majority of engine power may be diverted to charging the battery until the upper charge threshold is reached. Until that happens, forward speed and climb rate can be limited.” ¶ 38.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle is performing charging, an ascending speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging, as taught by Ellen, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above modification would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging via the limiting of its ascending speed, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that flight vehicles should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle. Hence, it would have been obvious to implement Eller’s limiting of an ascending speed while a flight vehicle which has taken off is charging in a wirelessly-chargeable area as disclosed by the combination of Lee and Gao to achieve the above predictable and desirable effects.
Claim 4 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Park (US20240183316A1; “Park”)
As to claim 4, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the flight control causes the flight vehicle to travel at a forward speed less than a prescribed speed until the flight vehicle reaches a prescribed altitude.
Nevertheless, Park teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, a forward speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude (“As shown in FIG. 1 , the overall flight process of the vertical take-off and landing aerial vehicle includes (1) a take-off preparation step, (2) a vertical take-off step of vertically ascending to a predetermined height, (3) a hovering step of temporarily stopping for horizontal flight preparation, (4) a transition step of moving to an altitude for horizontal flight, (5) an acceleration step of accelerating to a speed for horizontal flight.” ¶ 5 and FIG. 1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, a forward speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude, as taught by Park, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aerial vehicle’s typically reach a certain altitude to transition into horizontal flight for safety (e.g., obstacle clearance), efficiency vis-à-vis aerodynamics, flight planning and the like.
Claim 5 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Tarleton et al. (US20080300736; “Tarleton”)
As to claim 5, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the flight control causes the flight vehicle to travel at an ascending speed less than a prescribed speed until the flight vehicle reaches a prescribed altitude.
Nevertheless, Tarleton teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, an ascending speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude (“Speed increases during the climb segment …may be limited by certain constraint speeds …. Thus, during the climb segment, as illustrated in FIG. 5, the aircraft may accelerate to a speed of 250 knots during portion a, then maintain a constant speed of 250 knots during portion b, until the aircraft reaches 10,000 feet. At that point, the aircraft may begin to accelerate again during portion c of the climb segment.” ¶ 33 and FIG 5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, an ascending speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude, as taught by Tarleton, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that limiting an ascending speed is useful for following regulatory compliance and enhancing safety as suggested by Tarleton. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above modification would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging via the limiting of its ascending speed, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that flight vehicles should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle. Hence, it would have been further obvious to implement Tarleton’s limiting of an ascending speed while a flight vehicle which has taken off is charging in a wirelessly-chargeable area as disclosed by the combination of Lee and Gao to achieve the above predictable and desirable effects.
Claim 6 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Ota et al. (US20220130260A1; “Ota”)
As to claim 6, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the flight vehicle is a vehicle of a mobility as a service provider.
Nevertheless, Ota teaches: wherein the flight vehicle is a vehicle of a mobility as a service provider (“A mobility service system delivers a mobility service utilizing an eVTOL.” Abstract.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: wherein the flight vehicle is a vehicle of a mobility as a service provider, as taught by Ota, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for applying the combination of Lee and Gao into a useful business venture which is suitable for “an air taxi business where movement for a relatively short distance is repeated at a high frequency.” (Ota, ¶ 50.)
Claim 10 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao and in view of Eller as applied to claim 7 — further in view of Park.
As to claim 10, the combination of Lee, Gao and Eller fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the flight control causes the flight vehicle to travel at a forward speed less than a prescribed speed until the flight vehicle reaches a prescribed altitude.
Nevertheless, Park teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, a forward speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude (“As shown in FIG. 1 , the overall flight process of the vertical take-off and landing aerial vehicle includes (1) a take-off preparation step, (2) a vertical take-off step of vertically ascending to a predetermined height, (3) a hovering step of temporarily stopping for horizontal flight preparation, (4) a transition step of moving to an altitude for horizontal flight, (5) an acceleration step of accelerating to a speed for horizontal flight.” ¶ 5 and FIG. 1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee, Gao and Eller to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, a forward speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude, as taught by Park, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aerial vehicle’s typically reach a certain altitude to transition into horizontal flight for safety (e.g., obstacle clearance), efficiency vis-à-vis aerodynamics, flight planning and the like.
Claim 11 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao and in view of Eller as applied to claim 7 — further in view of Tarleton.
As to claim 11, the combination of Lee, Gao and Eller fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the flight control causes the flight vehicle to travel at an ascending speed less than a prescribed speed until the flight vehicle reaches a prescribed altitude.
Nevertheless, Tarleton teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, an ascending speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude (“Speed increases during the climb segment …may be limited by certain constraint speeds …. Thus, during the climb segment, as illustrated in FIG. 5, the aircraft may accelerate to a speed of 250 knots during portion a, then maintain a constant speed of 250 knots during portion b, until the aircraft reaches 10,000 feet. At that point, the aircraft may begin to accelerate again during portion c of the climb segment.” ¶ 33 and FIG 5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee, Gao and Eller to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, an ascending speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude, as taught by Tarleton, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that limiting an ascending speed is useful for following regulatory compliance and enhancing safety as suggested by Tarleton. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above modification would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging via the limiting of its ascending speed, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that flight vehicles should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle. Hence, it would have been further obvious to implement Tarleton’s limiting of an ascending speed while a flight vehicle which has taken off is charging in a wirelessly-chargeable area as disclosed by the combination of Lee and Gao to achieve the above predictable and desirable effects.
CONCLUSION
This action is 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights