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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/2/25 has been entered. Claim 16 has been canceled. Claims 1-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has argued neither Ouwenga (U.S. 2016/0237880) nor Glover (U.S. 5,893,355) disclose a “motorcycle” (see Remarks filed 12/2/25, Pages 5-6). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The term “motorcycle” appears in the preamble of claim 1 and is considered an intended use. Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, and if so, the recitation serves to limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02 II). Here, the intended use of being a “motorcycle” fails to result in a structural difference between the prior art and the claimed invention as detailed below in the rejection of claim 1. This lack of structural difference between the claimed invention and prior art is highlighted in the rejection of claim 16 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 9/2/25, where Claim 16 added structural limitations regarding the motorcycle to parent claim 1 and resulted in a difference between the prior art and the claimed invention, and these structural differences were addressed by the additional prior art of Kato (U.S. 4,508,189). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (MPEP 2111.02 II). The body of claim 1 fully sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention and therefore as the word “motorcycle” is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Therefore, Applicants arguments regarding neither Ouwenga nor Glover disclosing a motorcycle are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant appears to argue Ouwenga could not be applied to a motorcycle because “Ouwenga indicates that his Booster system is exemplarily employed in an engine size ranging from one liter to four liters” and therefore “Ouwenga (even combined with Glover) fails to render obvious the motorcycle of Applicant’s claims” (see Remarks filed 12/2/25, Page 5). The Examiner does not find argument persuasive because Ouwenga states “the gasoline engine can have a size ranging from one liter to four liters” but “in other examples, aspects of the present disclosure are also applicable to engines having sizes outside the ranges specified above” (Ouwenga; Para 16). Therefore, Ouwenga is not limited to engines ranging from one liter to four liters. Further motorcycles can have engines over one liter (as evidenced by Applicant’s Exhibit A where the “Superbike / Performance Motorcycles” class is shown with displacement range of 1000cc+ (emphasis on the plus after 1000cc))), and therefore even if Ouwenga was constricted to the range of 1 liter to 4 liters it would still be applicable to motorcycles. Additionally, Applicant argues that “Ouwenga’s engine system includes dual turbochargers” and “Motorcycle engines seldom include two turbochargers” (see Remarks filed 12/2/25, Page 5). The Examiner does not find this persuasive because Applicant has offered no evidence to support the assertion that “Motorcycle engines seldom include two turbochargers”, thereby making the assertion an opinion, and because “seldom” does not mean “never”. Finally, Applicant argues that “Ouwenga touts that by using this hybrid mechanical and electrical system, the amount of electrical energy needed by the system ‘can easily be met by standard automobile electrical systems’ and that this contemplates use of his invention in automobile and truck engines (see Remarks filed 12/2/25). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because a motorcycle is a type of automobile. Therefore, Applicant’s argument regarding Ouwenga not being applicable to motorcycles is not found persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant has argued claims 2-15 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1 (see Remarks filed 12/2/25, Page 6). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because “the demand” in line 3 should be --a demand--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "output means" in claim 1 -- "According to an aspect of the invention, the output means is a traction mechanism stage or a gearwheel stage. The traction mechanism stage can be, for example, a chain drive or a toothed belt drive, such that a drive wheel for a toothed chain or another type of chain, or a drive pulley for a toothed belt, can be arranged on an output shaft of the internal combustion engine" (Page 3, Lines 16-20 of the instant specification).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouwenga (U.S. 2016/0237880) in view of Glover et al. (U.S. 5,893,355).
Re claim 1:
Ouwenga discloses a motorcycle comprising:
an internal combustion engine (102, engine - Para 18) with an output means (171, crankshaft - Para 24; 170, pulley - Para 24; 168, belt - Para 24; 172, pulley - Para 24 (elements 171, 170, 168, and 172 are collectively a type of output means as shown in Fig. 4 and as described in Para 24)), a charging device (108, supercharger - Para 18; 120, hybrid drive system - Para 18 (elements 108 and 120 are collectively a type of charging device as shown in Figs. 2, 4 and as described in Para 18)) for the internal combustion engine (102)(see Figs. 2 and 4), a control device (Para 18 - "...an electronic controller..."), and an electric machine (122, electric motor/generator - Para 18);
wherein the charging device (108, 120) has a compressor (108) with a drive shaft (154, input shaft - Para 23) and a transmission (120) with a transmission input (158, carrier - Para 24; 160, planetary gears - Para 24; 162, ring gear - Para 24; 166, gears - Para 24; input/output shaft - Para 164 (elements 154, 158, 160, 162, 166, and 164 are collectively a type of transmission input as shown in Fig. 4 and as described in Para 24)) and a transmission output (156, sun gear - Para 24);
wherein the compressor (108) is coupled transmission input (154, 158, 160, 162, 166, and 164) is adapted to be driven by the electric machine (122) and/or the output means (171, 170, 168, and 172)(see Fig. 4 and Paras 24-25); and
wherein a switchable clutch device (174, clutch - Para 24) is provided between the output means (171, 170, 168, and 172) of the internal combustion engine (102) and the transmission input (154, 158, 160, 162, 166, and 164)(see Fig. 4 and Paras 24 and 28).
Ouwenga fails to disclose wherein the compressor is coupled in a force-fitting manner to the transmission output.
Glover teaches wherein a compressor (29, rotor - Col. 2, Line 66) is coupled in a force-fitting manner to the transmission output (60, timing gear - Col. 3, Line 45)(see Fig. 3a and Col. 3, Lines 44-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the coupling of Ouwenga after that of Glover for the advantage of a well-known coupling (Glover; Col. 3, Lines 46-50) as well as for the advantage of a coupling technique which saves time and is simple.
Re claim 2:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the transmission (120) is a spur gear transmission having a plurality of transformation stages or is a planetary transmission (Para 18 - "...hybrid drive system 120 can further include a gear set such as a planetary gear set 126...").
Re claim 3:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the output means (171, 170, 168, and 172) is a traction mechanism stage (elements 171, 170, 168, and 172 are collectively a type of traction mechanism stage as shown in Fig. 4 and as described in Para 24) or a gearwheel stage.
Re claim 4:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 1 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the transmission input (154, 158, 160, 162, 166, and 164) has a transmission input shaft (164), and the electric machine (122) is coupled to the transmission input shaft (164) in a rotationally fixed manner (see Fig. 4 and Para 24).
Re claim 5:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 4 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein when in a first operating state (see Fig. 5 and Para 25 - "... When rotation of the shaft of the electric motor/generator 122 is stopped while the clutch 174 is engaged, the ring gear 162 stops rotating and torque is transferred from the engine crankshaft to the Supercharger 108 at a fixed boost gear ratio defined by the relationship between the sun gear 156 and the planetary gears 160. As shown at FIG. 5, line 176 shows the boost profile provided by mechanical torque taken from the engine at the fixed boost gear ratio...") the clutch device (174) is closed and the drive shaft (154) of the compressor (108) is driven via the transmission (120) by the output means (171, 170, 168, and 172) of the internal combustion engine (102), and the motorcycle is adapted to supply the internal combustion engine (102) with charge air (Para 32 - "...the pressure boost to the air intake manifold...") pressurized by the compressor (108)(see Figs. 2, 4, Paras 25-26 and 32).
Re claim 6:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 5 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein when in a second operating state (see Para 30) the clutch device (174) is open and the drive shaft (154) of the compressor (108) is driven by means of the electric machine (122), and the motorcycle is adapted to supply the internal combustion engine (102) with the charge air pressurised by the compressor (108)(see Figs. 2, 4, Paras 30 and 32).
Re claim 8:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 6 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the motorcycle is adapted to put the electric machine (122) in an operating state in which the electric machine (122) drives the compressor (108) to provide compressed charge air (see Figs. 4-6, Para 26, and Para 30) or to put the electric machine in a regenerative operating state, in which the electric machine supplies an on-board power supply system of the motorcycle with electrical energy, or to put the electric machine in an operating state in which the electric machine provides drive power for driving the motorcycle which is added to the drive power of the internal combustion engine for driving the motorcycle.
Re claim 9:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 6 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the motorcycle is adapted to set the clutch device (174) to an open state and to set the electric machine (122) to a non-driven state when aspirated-engine drive power of the internal combustion engine (102) is sufficient to drive the motorcycle (see Figs. 4-6, Para 28 - "...under normal extended steady state conditions, the clutch 174 can be operated in the disengaged state where torque is not transferred from the pulley 172 to the carrier 158. In this condition, the bypass line 134 can be opened to allow the intake air to bypass the supercharger 108. In this condition, the rotors of the supercharger 108 do not rotate and the carrier 158 also does not rotate...", and Para 29 - "...the control system can prevent the electric motor/generator 122 from operating as a motor...").
Re claim 10:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 6 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the motorcycle is adapted to adjust a rotational frequency of the drive shaft (154) of the compressor (108) to the demand for charge air (see Fig. 6 at 200 and Para 26 - "... FIG. 6 further shows the desired intake manifold pressure ratio pro file provided at the intake manifold of the engine. This pressure ratio profile is depicted by line 200...") of the internal combustion engine (102) by changing an output rotational frequency of the transmission output (156)(see Figs. 4-6 and Paras 24-26).
Claims 7, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouwenga (U.S. 2016/0237880) in view of Glover et al. (U.S. 5,893,355), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of St. James (U.S. 2006/0180130).
Re claim 7:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 6 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the motorcycle maintains the second operating state with the clutch device (174) open as a rotational frequency of the internal combustion engine (102) increases (see Figs. 4-6 and Para 30)
Ouwenga/Glover fails to disclose wherein the motorcycle maintains the second operating state with the clutch device open as a rotational frequency of the internal combustion engine increases until a predetermined rotational frequency of the internal combustion engine is reached, after which the clutch device is closed and the electric machine is set to an operating state which differs from an operating state adapted to drive the compressor.
St. James teaches wherein a motorcycle (Para 5) maintains a second operating state with a clutch device (40, magnetic clutch - Para 28) open as a rotational frequency of the internal combustion engine (14, engine - Para 26) increases until a predetermined rotational frequency of the internal combustion engine (14) is reached, after which the clutch device (40) is closed and an electric machine (50, electric motor - Para 29) is set to an operating state which differs from an operating state adapted to drive a compressor (22, compressor - Para 26)(Para 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the motorcycle of Ouwenga/Glover after that of St. James (thereby operating the clutch and motor of Ouwenga in the way taught by St. James) for the advantage of being able to speed the compressor wheel in less than one second such that the engine can be supplied with pressurized air for rapid initial acceleration (St. James; Para 35).
Re claim 11:
Ouwenga/Glover teaches the motorcycle according to claim 6 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the motorcycle is adapted to detect an increased power requirement of the internal combustion engine (102) a given operating condition of the engine. For example, if additional boost above the baseline value 176 is needed, the electric motor/generator 122 can be operated as a motor and can draw electricity from the battery 124 to rotationally drive the ring gear 162 so as to increase the rotational speed of the rotors of the supercharger 108 to a desired level...") and, when the clutch device (174) is open, to set the electric machine (122) to an operating state which drives the compressor (108) to provide compressed charge air (Para 30), which leads to an increase in a rotational frequency of the internal combustion engine (102)(Para 3 - "...boosting the air pressure at the engine intake to increase the torque available from the engine...")
Ouwenga/Glover fails to disclose detecting an increased power requirement of the internal combustion engine triggered by a user, nor when the clutch device is open, to set the electric machine to an operating state which drives the compressor to provide compressed charge air, which leads to an increase in the rotational frequency of the internal combustion engine until a predetermined rotational frequency range of the internal combustion engine is reached, and wherein further the motorcycle is adapted to close the clutch device for driving the compressor by the output means of the internal combustion engine when the predetermined frequency range is reached.
St. James teaches wherein a motorcycle (Para 5) is adapted to detect an increased power requirement of an internal combustion engine (14, engine - Para 26) triggered by a user (Para 35 - "... Once the gear is engaged and the accelerator pedal is depressed, the electric motor receives a signal from the engine management system and is energized, speeding up the compressor wheel..."), and when a clutch device (40, magnetic clutch - Para 28) is open (see Para 35 - "... As the engine speed builds up, so that the engine speed multiplied by the belt and pulley speed multiplication and gear drives can take over rotation of the compressor wheel, the magnetic clutch is engaged and the electric motor is switched off, so that the engine can continue to drive the compressor..." (engaging a magnetic clutch requires the magnetic clutch to have been disengaged)), to set an electric machine (50, electric motor - Para 29) to an operating state (Para 35 - "... Once the gear is engaged and the accelerator pedal is depressed, the electric motor receives a signal from the engine management system and is energized, speeding up the compressor wheel in less than one second and supplying the engine with pressurized air for the initial rapid acceleration...") which drives a compressor (22, compressor - Para 26) to provide compressed charge air (Para 35 - "... Once the gear is engaged and the accelerator pedal is depressed, the electric motor receives a signal from the engine management system and is energized, speeding up the compressor wheel in less than one second and supplying the engine with pressurized air for the initial rapid acceleration..."), which leads to an increase in the rotational frequency of the internal combustion engine until a predetermined rotational frequency range of the internal combustion engine is reached (see Figs. 1-2 and Para 35), and wherein further the motorcycle is adapted to close the clutch device (40) for driving the compressor (22) by output means (30, drive mechanism - Para 27) of the internal combustion engine when the predetermined frequency range is reached (Para 35 - "... As the engine speed builds up, so that the engine speed multiplied by the belt and pulley speed multiplication and gear drives can take over rotation of the compressor wheel, the magnetic clutch is engaged and the electric motor is switched off, so that the engine can continue to drive the compressor.").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the motorcycle of Ouwenga/Glover after that of St. James (thereby detecting the increased power requirement of the internal combustion engine of Ouwenga as triggered by a user in the way taught by St. James, and operating the clutch and motor of Ouwenga in the way taught by St. James) for the advantage of being able to speed the compressor wheel in less than one second such that the engine can be supplied with pressurized air for rapid initial acceleration (St. James; Para 35).
Re claim 12:
Ouwenga/Glover/St. James teaches the motorcycle according to claim 11 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the motorcycle is adapted to control the clutch device (174) for driving the compressor (108) such that the drive shaft (154) of the compressor (108) is driven via the transmission (120) both by the electric machine (122) and by the internal combustion engine (102)(see Figs. 4-6 and Paras 25-26 - "... It will be appreciated that the electric motor/generator 122 can be used to vary the speed of the supercharger 108 from the baseline profile set by line 176. In one example, an electronic controller interfaces with the electric motor/generator 122 to control operation of the electric motor/generator 122 such that the boost provided by the supercharger 108 varies to match a given operating condition of the engine. For example, if additional boost above the baseline value 176 is needed, the electric motor/generator 122 can be operated as a motor and can draw electricity from the battery 124 to rotationally drive the ring gear 162 so as to increase the rotational speed of the rotors of the Supercharger 108 to a desired level....")
Re claim 13:
Ouwenga/Glover/St. James teaches the motorcycle according to claim 11 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the motorcycle is adapted to determine the currently required drive power of the internal combustion engine (102), which is dependent on the current driving state of the motorcycle (Para 25 - "...an electronic controller interfaces with the electric motor/generator 122 to control operation of the electric motor/generator 122 such that the boost provided by the supercharger 108 varies to match a given operating condition of the engine. For example, if additional boost above the baseline value 176 is needed, the electric motor/generator 122 can be operated as a motor and can draw electricity from the battery 124 to rotationally drive the ring gear 162 so as to increase the rotational speed of the rotors of the supercharger 108 to a desired level...." and Para 26 - "... taking into consideration both steady state and transient operating conditions..." and "... FIG. 6 also shows the boost pressure ratio profile provided by the turbocharger at steady state conditions (see line 196) and the boost pressure ratio provided by the turbocharger at transient conditions (see line 198). FIG. 6 further shows the desired intake manifold pressure ratio profile provided at the intake manifold of the engine. This pressure ratio profile is depicted by line 200..."), and to set the clutch device (174) to an open state after determining that the current drive power provided in the aspiration-engine operation of the internal combustion engine (102) is sufficient (see Fig. 5 at 180 and Para 25 - "... line 178 is representative of the supercharger not providing any boost (e.g., when the clutch 174 is disengaged)"... (178 refers to element 180 of Fig. 5 here) and Para 30).
Re claim 15:
Ouwenga/Glover/St. James teaches the motorcycle according to claim 13 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the control device is adapted to control the clutch device (174) for opening and closing (see Para 28).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouwenga (U.S. 2016/0237880) in view of Glover et al. (U.S. 5,893,355) and St. James (U.S. 2006/0180130), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tellert et al. (U.S. 4,591,034).
Re claim 14:
Ouwenga/Glover/St. James teaches the motorcycle according to claim 13 (as described above).
Ouwenga further discloses wherein the clutch device (174) is switchable (see Fig. 4 and Para 24).
Ouwenga/Glover/St. James fails to disclose wherein the clutch device is switchable by an electric motor.
Tellert teaches wherein a clutch device (3, friction clutch - Col. 2, Lines 67-68) is switchable by an electric motor (15, electric motor - Col. 3, Line 11)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 1-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the clutch device of Ouwenga/Glover/St. James after that of Tellert (thereby making the clutch device of Ouwenga switchable by an electric motor in the way taught by Tellert) for the advantage of being able to engage and disengage the clutch quickly (Tellert; Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 12/19/25
Prosecution Insights