DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/04/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the claim objections. In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully agrees. The claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the 112(b) rejections. In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully agrees. The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the 112(f) claim interpretation. In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully agrees. The 112(f) claim interpretation is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendment “pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol having a higher communication speed than the first communication protocol by encapsulating the first communication frame as a payload in a data field of the second communication frame” is not taught by the prior art of record.
In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully agrees. The amendments to the claims change the scope of the invention. An updated search was conducted and a prior art was discovered to read on the amendment: US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha). Wakita still teaches on most of the limitations of Claim 1.
Wakita teaches on utilizing other protocols ([0038]). However, Wakita is silent on pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol having a higher communication speed than the first communication protocol by encapsulating the first communication frame as a payload in a data field of the second communication frame.
Saha teaches on pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol having a higher communication speed than the first communication protocol by encapsulating the first communication frame as a payload in a data field of the second communication frame, and transmit the frame. See Saha, [0013] It is desirable to have a system that allows data streams, encoded using different and relatively low-speed transmission protocols, to be transported over a communication network using a high-speed network protocol without having a special interpreter for each protocol and without introducing additional data latency due to delays that occur during packet interpretation and re-encoding as provided by current systems. [0014] The system can receive the sub-rate data streams encoded using different protocols and transparently frame these data streams into a data payload that is loaded into a network frame and transmitted over a high-speed communication network using a network protocol.
It would have been obvious to modify Wakita per Saha as it would allow the modified system to provide efficiency when processing messages utilizing different protocols, see Saha [0013].
Please see updated rejection below:
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha) further in view of US 2018/0241584 A1 (Ruvio).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha) further in view of US 2022/0317753 A1 (Tokunaga).
Claim(s) 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha) further in view of US 2023/0090042 A1 (Poloni).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha) further in view of US 2019/0258251 A1 (Ditty).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha).
Regarding Claim 1:
Wakita teaches A communication system (Fig 1, communication system 100) comprising: a plurality of communication nodes that relay failure diagnosis communication of (i) a diagnosis request between a request source of a failure diagnosis and a request destination of the failure diagnosis and (ii) a diagnosis result between the request destination and the request source, ([0016] The communication system 100 includes, as communication apparatuses, a plurality of ECUs (Electronic Control Units) 111 to 118 and 121 to 128, and a gateway apparatus (G/W) 101. In the communication system 100, the plurality of ECU s are divided into a plurality of domains. [0032]-[0037] Fig 4B, ECU nodes relaying diagnosis request and diagnosis result messages.)
wherein a communication node of the plurality of communication nodes includes at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, ([0022] Figs 2A & 2B, The master ECU 111 includes a control circuit 201 and communication circuits 204 and 205. The control circuit 201 includes a processor 202 and a memory 203.) configured to implement on the communication node:
a communication determination section configured to determine whether current communication (ie. received frame) is the failure diagnosis communication (ie. diagnosis request or diagnosis result), ([0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result. [0048] Diagnosis result is received (by the master ECU).) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
and a communication setting section configured to, when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication, prior to transmitting the current communication as either (i) the diagnosis request from the request source to the request destination or (ii) the diagnosis result from the request destination to the request source: pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol (Generate a frame using a different communication protocol: [0038] Communication between the diagnostic apparatus 130 and the gateway apparatus 101 may comply with a protocol different from that for communication in the main bus 103 and the sub buses 119 and 129. In this case, the diagnostic apparatus 130 transfers, to the gateway apparatus 101, pieces of information included in the ID field 400a and data field 400b of the frame 401 in accordance with another protocol, and the gateway apparatus 101 generates the frame 402 in accordance with the information. The gateway apparatus 101 extracts the pieces of information included in the ID field 400a and data field 400b of the frame 405, and transfers the pieces of information to the diagnostic apparatus 130.)
Wakita teaches on utilizing other protocols ([0038]). However, Wakita is silent on pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol having a higher communication speed than the first communication protocol by encapsulating the first communication frame as a payload in a data field of the second communication frame.
Saha teaches, in the same field of endeavor, on a system for transporting a sub-rate data stream over a communication network using a selected network protocol, Abstract.
Saha also teaches on pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol having a higher communication speed than the first communication protocol by encapsulating the first communication frame as a payload in a data field of the second communication frame, and transmit the frame. ([0013] It is desirable to have a system that allows data streams, encoded using different and relatively low-speed transmission protocols, to be transported over a communication network using a high-speed network protocol without having a special interpreter for each protocol and without introducing additional data latency due to delays that occur during packet interpretation and re-encoding as provided by current systems. [0014] The system can receive the sub-rate data streams encoded using different protocols and transparently frame these data streams into a data payload that is loaded into a network frame and transmitted over a high-speed communication network using a network protocol.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita per Saha to include pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol having a higher communication speed than the first communication protocol by encapsulating the first communication frame as a payload in a data field of the second communication frame. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide efficiency when processing messages utilizing different protocols, see Saha [0013].
Regarding Claim 2:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein the communication node of the plurality of communication nodes corresponds to a first communication node, ([0016] The communication system 100 includes, as communication apparatuses, a plurality of ECUs (Electronic Control Units) 111 to 118 and 121 to 128, and a gateway apparatus (G/W) 101. In the communication system 100, the plurality of ECU s are divided into a plurality of domains. [0032]-[0037] Fig 4B, ECU nodes relaying diagnosis request and diagnosis result messages.)
the communication determination section corresponds to a first communication determination section, the communication setting section corresponds to a first communication setting section, the first communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the first communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication, ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded.) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
the first communication node transmits the second communication frame to a second communication node other than the first communication node among the plurality of communication nodes, ([0016] The communication system 100 includes, as communication apparatuses, a plurality of ECUs (Electronic Control Units) 111 to 118 and 121 to 128, and a gateway apparatus (G/W) 101. In the communication system 100, the plurality of ECU s are divided into a plurality of domains. [0032]-[0037] Fig 4B, ECU nodes relaying diagnosis request and diagnosis result messages.)
and the second communication node includes at least one of (i) a second circuit and (ii) a second processor with a second memory storing second computer program code executable by the second processor, ([0022] Figs 2A & 2B, The master ECU 111 includes a control circuit 201 and communication circuits 204 and 205. The control circuit 201 includes a processor 202 and a memory 203.) configured to implement on the communication node:
a second communication determination section configured to determine whether a communication (ie. received frame) represented by the second communication frame received from the first communication node is the failure diagnosis communication (ie. diagnosis request or diagnosis result), ([0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result. [0048] Diagnosis result is received (by the master ECU).) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
and a second communication setting section configured to unpack the first communication frame from the second communication frame when the second communication determination section determines that the communication represented by the received second communication frame is the failure diagnosis communication. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded.)
Regarding Claim 3:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 2 as described.
Wakita teaches the second communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the second communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication for transmitting the diagnosis result, ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded.) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
and the first communication setting section unpacks the first communication frame from the second communication frame when the first communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication for transmitting the diagnosis request and the time of transmitting the diagnosis result. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded.) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
Regarding Claim 5:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication and further that at least one of a manual parking gear, a side brake, or an electric parking brake is in a state of stopping a vehicle (ie. brake is actuated by actuator 207). ([0020] FIG. 3A. The column of the "diagnosis request" of the table 301 indicates contents of a diagnosis request for the vehicle. Examples of the diagnosis request are a request of inquiring about the type and contents of a message used at the time of occurrence of a failure in the brake system, and a request of inquiring about the operation result of an ABS (Antilock Braking System) function for a test input. [0023] FIG. 1, the master ECU 111 is an ECU taking charge of the brake function. Therefore, the control circuit 201 collects information about a brake using a sensor 206, and controls the actuation of the brake using an actuator 207 in accordance with the information.)
Regarding Claim 6:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication and further that an external tool (ie. sensor 206) for failure diagnosis is connected to the communication system as the request source of the failure diagnosis. ([0023] FIG. 1, the master ECU 111 is an ECU taking charge of the brake function. Therefore, the control circuit 201 collects information about a brake using a sensor 206, and controls the actuation of the brake using an actuator 207 in accordance with the information.)
Regarding Claim 10:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein the first communication protocol is a CAN protocol. ([0018] Communication via the sub bus 119 or 129 and the main bus 103 may comply with a CAN (Controller Area Network) communication protocol or another protocol.)
Regarding Claim 11:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of communication nodes is an electronic control device. ([0016] The communication system 100 includes, as communication apparatuses, a plurality of ECUs (Electronic Control Units) 111 to 118 and 121 to 128, and a gateway apparatus (G/W) 101.)
Regarding Claim 12:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of communication nodes is a processor core. ([0022] The master ECU 111 includes a control circuit 201 and communication circuits 204 and 205. The control circuit 201 controls the overall operation of the master ECU 111. The control circuit 201 includes a processor 202 such as a microprocessor formed by a CPU.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha) further in view of US 2018/0241584 A1 (Ruvio).
Regarding Claim 4:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Saha) is silent that the communication setting section increases a priority of a priority parameter representing a priority of communication in the second communication frame when packing the first communication frame into the second communication frame.
Ruvio teaches, in the same field of endeavor, methods for manipulating operation of at least one electronic control unit (ECU) connected to a controller area network (CAN) bus, Abstract.
Ruvio also teaches the communication setting section increases a priority of a priority parameter representing a priority of communication in the second communication frame when packing the first communication frame into the second communication frame. ([0011] CAN utilizes an addressing system based on identifiers rather than physical addresses for each node. In addition each identifier assigns a priority to the respective message based on binary value. [0035] CAN communication applies a decentralized priority driven access control methods to guarantee the transmission of a top priority frame first and an error detecting mechanism that can detect errors and interrupt communication.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Saha) by modifying Wakita per Ruvio to include the communication setting section increases a priority of a priority parameter representing a priority of communication in the second communication frame when packing the first communication frame into the second communication frame. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide faster communications for diagnostic measures, allowing precedence for alert messages.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha) further in view of US 2022/0317753 A1 (Tokunaga).
Regarding Claim 7:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded. [0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result.)
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Saha) is silent that a vehicle includes an electric motor as a drive source, and that a rechargeable battery that supplies power to the electric motor is being charged.
Tokunaga teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an in-vehicle electronic system comprises a core ECU (Electronic Control Unit) mounted in a vehicle and a plurality of slave ECUs.
Tokunaga also teaches that a vehicle includes an electric motor as a drive source, and that a rechargeable battery that supplies power to the electric motor is being charged. ([0020] The ECU 220a is an ECU for controlling a fuel injection device. The ECU 220b is an ECU for controlling a high-voltage battery that accumulates electric energy for running the vehicle 20. The ECU 220c is an ECU for controlling an electric power convertor that converts a high voltage from a high-voltage battery to a lower voltage to charge a low-voltage battery. [0042] scheduling/monitoring charging and battery level.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Saha) by modifying Wakita per Tokunaga to include that a vehicle includes an electric motor as a drive source, and that a rechargeable battery that supplies power to the electric motor is being charged. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide diagnostic measures if necessary while the car is being charged for safety measures and to prevent overcharging.
Claim(s) 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha) further in view of US 2023/0090042 A1 (Poloni).
Regarding Claim 8:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded. [0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result.)
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Saha) is silent that a vehicle includes an internal combustion engine, and that the vehicle is being fueled.
Poloni teaches, in the same field of endeavor, Engine systems, vehicles and methods related to refueling in conjunction with infrastructure to vehicle communication, Abstract.
Poloni also teaches that a vehicle includes an internal combustion engine, and that the vehicle is being fueled. ([0035] an internal combustion engine. [0042] Fig 4, the method starts with initializing the method 200. Initialization 200 occurs, for example, when the fuel tank is filled and a fuel tank state is recorded either through a vehicle-internal sensor (i.e., a sensor associated with the fuel tank to indicate refueling is completed.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Saha) by modifying Wakita per Poloni to include that a vehicle includes an internal combustion engine, and that the vehicle is being fueled. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide diagnostic measures during fueling if required as this would prevent damage/harm and spillage.
Regarding Claim 13:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system with a plurality of communication nodes ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Saha) is silent on wherein at least one of the plurality of communication nodes is a virtual machine.
Poloni teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of communication nodes is a virtual machine. ([0051] Onboard and offboard sensor fusion takes place, to combine information from various sensors. One or more sensors may be positioned in the exhaust airstream. A specific combination may be an engine system having a mass air flow (MAF) sensor, which may be a physical sensor (such as a flow meter, Venturi meter, etc.) or which may be a virtual sensor that uses temperature, pressure and other sensor signals to calculate MAF entering the engine.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Saha) by modifying Wakita per Poloni to include that wherein at least one of the plurality of communication nodes is a virtual machine. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide flexible architectures based on load by implementing virtual nodes along with/on physical nodes.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2003/0055998 Al (Saha) further in view of US 2019/0258251 A1 (Ditty).
Regarding Claim 9:
Wakita (as modified by Saha) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded. [0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result.)
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Saha) is silent that an amount of communication other than the failure diagnosis communication is equal to or less than a predetermined amount.
Ditty teaches, in the same field of endeavor, on an end-to-end platform with a flexible architecture, including an architecture for autonomous vehicles that leverages computer vision and known ADAS techniques, Abstract.
Ditty also teaches that an amount of communication other than the failure diagnosis communication is equal to or less than a predetermined amount. ([0225] The system can set a threshold value for the confidence and consider only the detections exceeding the threshold value as true positive detections. [0429] On Demand Diagnostics—Diagnostics that will be requested dynamically in response to event occurrence, e.g., memory diagnostic after single bit error reporting exceeds a pre-set threshold, a certain number of frames are dropped in a certain amount of time.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Saha) by modifying Wakita per Ditty to include that an amount of communication other than the failure diagnosis communication is equal to or less than a predetermined amount. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide a confidence for determining when diagnostic measures are necessary, see Ditty [0225].
Conclusion & Contact Information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL J HACKENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-5417. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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.
/RACHEL J HACKENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights