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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 06/11/2026. Claims 1-2, and 11-12 have been amended. Claims 7 and 17 have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhao et al. US9067589B1 and Kurihashi US20190323848A1. The applicant has cancelled claims 7 and 17 and brought them up into the independent claims. However, the applicant has incorporated more than just claims 7 and 17 into the independent claims, and the applicant’s added amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
Examiner Note: In the previous office action (i.e. the non-final rejection filed 03/11/2026), the examiner rejected the claims via Zhao et al. US20160332616A1. This office action uses Zhao et al. US9067589B1 as a primary reference for the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which is a different reference than the previous Zhao reference.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. US9067589B1 (henceforth Zhao) in view of Kurihashi US20190323848A1.
Regarding claim 1,
Zhao discloses:
A vehicle control apparatus, comprising: an engine; a battery; a processor; and a memory, wherein the processor is configured to: (See at least Fig. 1 with engine 108, battery 114, and Column 14 lines 5-7, “The control logic may be implemented primarily in software executed by a microprocessor-based vehicle, engine, and/or powertrain controller”.)
predict a change in speed of a vehicle according to a route of the vehicle; divide the route into a plurality of sections, using the change in speed; (See at least Fig. 3, Steps 302 and 304, and Column 4 lines 55-66, “During step 302, route input data is received. The input may include for example, vehicle speed, road grade, traffic data, weather conditions, and other route information (traffic signs, traffic lights, posted speed limits). At step 304 the route is separated into smaller route segments. The separation into sub-parts may be performed based on user data, predicted data, or information provided wirelessly from remote sources. One or more rules or variants thereof may also be used to govern the segmentation. For example, a vehicle acceleration profile may be used to determine appropriate start points and endpoints of each route segment.” Additionally see Fig. 5 step 502, “Vehicle speed/road grade profile prediction” and Column 6 lines 35-38 “The vehicle speed may be predicted over the plurality of route segments based on a combination known influencing factors, including at least road information, traffic information, and/or historical driving patterns”. The plurality of sections are divided using the predicted change in speed.)
obtain power information of the vehicle for each of the plurality of sections, the power information varying based on the change in speed; (See at least Fig. 6, step 602 and step 608, wherein the wheel power demand for each section (See column 7 lines 1-3, “each of the predetermined route segments”) is determined from the received vehicle speed/road grade profile forecast. Additionally see claims 1 and 6, wherein the torque allocation is based on “the one of the vehicle speed demand or the wheel power demand that causes a longer engine-on duration during a route segment relative to the other of the vehicle speed demand or the wheel power demand”. Power information of the vehicle is obtained for each of the plurality of sections wherein the power information varies based on the change in speed.)
determine reference power for maintaining driving of the engine while driving the vehicle in each of the plurality of sections. (See at least Column 6 lines 50-52, “The forecasted wheel power is compared to relevant power thresholds to determine an appropriate powertrain mode for the route segment” and at least Column 8 lines 44-53, “If at step 748 PWR.sub.1 is greater than an engine-off power threshold, the controller may consider at step 758 whether PWR.sub.1 is greater than an engine-on power threshold. If PWR.sub.1 is greater than the engine-on power threshold at the start point, the controller considers at step 760 whether there is a sufficient decrease in wheel power demand to prompt a deactivation of the engine. If PWR.sub.2 is less than an engine-off threshold at step 760, the controller may plan at step 762 for the powertrain to switch modes from HEV mode to EV mode during the route segment.” The reference power for maintaining driving of the engine while driving the vehicle in each of the plurality of sections is determined.)
and control the vehicle, based on at least one of an electric vehicle (EV) mode, or a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) mode, or any combination thereof, using the reference power and the power information of the vehicle for each of the plurality of sections. (See at least Fig. 6, and Column 6 lines 17-23, “the result of the mode selection falls into one of four powertrain operating scenarios: (1) an electric machine powertrain mode, or EV mode,(2) hybrid-electric powertrain mode, or HEV mode” and Column 8 lines 44-53, “If at step 748 PWR.sub.1 is greater than an engine-off power threshold, the controller may consider at step 758 whether PWR.sub.1 is greater than an engine-on power threshold. If PWR.sub.1 is greater than the engine-on power threshold at the start point, the controller considers at step 760 whether there is a sufficient decrease in wheel power demand to prompt a deactivation of the engine. If PWR.sub.2 is less than an engine-off threshold at step 760, the controller may plan at step 762 for the powertrain to switch modes from HEV mode to EV mode during the route segment.” The vehicle is controlled based on a EV or HEV mode based on the power information of the vehicle for each of the plurality of sections.
Additionally see at least Column 8 lines 17-22, “FIG. 8 depicts the subroutine powertrain mode selection based on predicted wheel power demand. The wheel power-based selection of method 700B corresponds to step 610 of the arbitration procedure discussed above, and may be performed concurrently with the selection based on vehicle speed.”)
Zhao does not specifically state determine reference power for maintaining driving of the engine while driving the vehicle in each of the plurality of sections, based on a specified state of charge (SOC) of the battery in a last section among the plurality of sections. However, Kurihashi teaches:
determine reference power for maintaining driving of the engine while driving the vehicle in each of the plurality of sections, based on a specified state of charge (SOC) of the battery in a last section among the plurality of sections.
(See at least Para. 0072, “The driving plan generating part 61 sets the driving modes of the sections so that the SOC of the battery 20 reaches the lower limit value of the SOC of the battery 20 when the vehicle 1 reaches the final destination” and Para. 0082, “Next, at step S104, the driving plan generating part 61 calculates the amount of electric power CE of the battery 20 able to be used in the EV mode and judges whether the amount of electric power CE is equal to or more than the amount of total power consumption TE. The driving plan generating part 61 calculates the amount of electric power CE based on the SOC of the battery 20.” The SOC of the battery in a last section is used to determine reference power for maintaining driving of the engine while driving the vehicle in each of the plurality of sections.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Kurihashi to include “determine reference power for maintaining driving of the engine while driving the vehicle in each of the plurality of sections, based on a specified state of charge (SOC) of the battery in a last section among the plurality of sections” since “By doing this, it is possible to raise the ratio of the EV route with respect to all routes of the driving routes and possible to more efficiently reduce the number of times of warm-up of the catalyst 4” (Para. 0072, Kurihashi). Furthermore “if the hybrid vehicle is driven from a departure point through a via point to a final destination, often the temperature of the internal combustion engine will fall while the vehicle is stopped at the via point. If the temperature of the internal combustion engine falls, a catalyst has to be warmed up at the time of restart of the internal combustion engine and fuel is excessively consumed for warming up the catalyst” (Para. 0005, Kurihashi). Therefore, it would create a more robust and efficient Hybrid Electric Vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Kurihashi. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3,
Zhao discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: check whether the speed of the vehicle, the speed to vary with the change in speed according to the route, is included within a specified speed range. (See at least Fig. 7 steps 702, 712, and 722, wherein the speed of the vehicle is checked whether it is included within a specified speed range.)
Regarding claim 11,
Zhao and Kurihashi discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 13,
Zhao and Kurihashi discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao and Kurihashi further in view of Yoon et al. US20170096134A1 (henceforth Yoon) and Jun-nian et al. CN104760594A (Henceforth Jun-nian).
Regarding claim 2,
Zhao and Kurihashi discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Zhao does not specifically state “wherein the processor is configured to: identify an average speed of the vehicle according to the change in speed, in each of the plurality of sections; and obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle.”
However, Yoon teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: identify an average speed of the vehicle according to the change in speed, in each of the plurality of sections; (See at least Para. 0013, “determining a first threshold line and a second threshold line based on the second virtual SOC trend line, the average effective gradient for each section, and the average effective vehicle speed for each section; and operating the engine and the motor using the expected driving mode of the hybrid electric vehicle.” An average speed is identified in each of the plurality of sections.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Yoon to include “wherein the processor is configured to: identify an average speed of the vehicle according to the change in speed, in each of the plurality of sections; and obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle” in order to “optimize driving energy of the hybrid electric vehicle in an entire route” (Para. 0003, Yoon), which would further create a more robust hybrid vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Yoon The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Zhao does not specifically state obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle.
However, Jun-nian teaches:
and obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle.
(See claim 6, “The instantaneous energy consumption according to claim 5, the wheel torque distribution method, wherein, in step c), the left front wheel torque range for dispersion to obtain multiple levels of the left front wheel torque. the torque range of the right front wheel dispersing to get some grades of right front wheel torque, respectively calculating instantaneous total power consumption Ecom at different stage of left front wheel torque and different levels of right front wheel torque condition”. Power information is obtained with dispersion.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Jun-nian to include “obtain the power information with dispersion based on the average speed and an average value obtained using wheel torque of the vehicle” in order to “achieve the best energy-saving effect” (See the abstract, Jun-nian), which would create a more robust hybrid vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Jun-nian. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12,
Zhao, Kurihashi, Yoon, and Jun-nian discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao and Kurihashi further in view of Flardh et al. US20200298866A1 (henceforth Flardh).
Regarding claim 4,
Zhao and Kurihashi discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 3 above.
Zhao does not specifically state wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using a setting value, if the speed is included outside the specified speed range during a specified time.
However, Flardh teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using a setting value, if the speed is included outside the specified speed range during a specified time. (See at least Para. 0023, “the method comprises monitoring A22 the at least one control profile determined with the rule-based method for an indication of at least one predetermined velocity pattern, and upon detecting such an indication, selecting the control profile with the detected predetermined velocity pattern as the reference control profile“ and Para. 0025, “the predetermined velocity pattern corresponds to a situation where, because of a power shortfall in an uphill before a crest, the velocity of the vehicle goes below a preset lower velocity limit before a downhill after the crest”. Power information is obtained using a setting value if the speed is included outside the speed range.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Flardh to include “wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using a setting value, if the speed is included outside the specified speed range during a specified time” in order for “allowing a truck to pick up speed on a downhill rather than braking to control speed, which conserves momentum of the truck” (Para. 0024, Flardh), and “ it may be desired to use the control profile determined using a rule-based method” (Para. 0023, Flardh). This would create a more robust system for conserving the momentum of a vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Flardh. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14,
Zhao, Kurihashi, and Flardh discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao and Kurihashi further in view of Frank et al. US20140229043A1 (henceforth Frank).
Regarding claim 5
Zhao and Kurihashi discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 3 as recited above. Zhao does not specifically state wherein the processor is configured to: determine a variance value, using at least one of outside weather, the speed, or grade information associated with the route, or any combination thereof, if the speed is included within the specified speed range during a specified time; and obtain the power information, using the variance value.
However, Frank teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: determine a variance value, using at least one of outside weather, the speed, or grade information associated with the route, or any combination thereof, if the speed is included within the specified speed range during a specified time; and obtain the power information, using the variance value. (See at least Para. 0121, “For example, if the average speed is below a certain speed (e.g., 30 kph) and the speed variance is also small, then the SOC may be set to this minimum allowed by battery durability and projected vehicle instant power and energy considerations” and “But if the speed variance is high indicating serious stop and go traffic then the LOW SOC boundary should be set to higher value to allow the use of higher power for a longer period of time”. A variance value is determined using the speed of the vehicle if the speed is included within a specified speed range (i.e. below 30kph is a speed range of 0-30kph), such that power information is obtained using this information.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Frank to include “determine a variance value, using at least one of outside weather, the speed, or grade information associated with the route, or any combination thereof, if the speed is included within the specified speed range during a specified time; and obtain the power information, using the variance value” in order to set a power usage based on the speed variance which would “allow the use of higher power for a longer period of time. This may occur in heavy traffic highway driving for example” (Para. 0121, Frank). This would create a more robust vehicle power management system when the variance is high such as in a heavy traffic highway. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Frank. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 15,
Zhao, Kurihashi, and Frank discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao and Kurihashi further in view of Jun et al. US20220032899A1 (henceforth Jun).
Regarding claim 6,
Zhao and Kurihashi discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Zhao does not specifically state wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using at least one of speed data associated with the route and obtained before driving the vehicle or grade data associated with the route and obtained before driving the vehicle, or any combination thereof.
However, Jun teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using at least one of speed data associated with the route and obtained before driving the vehicle or grade data associated with the route and obtained before driving the vehicle, or any combination thereof. (See at least Para. 0045, “At the initial point of time before the vehicle starts to travel, the driving mode of the vehicle may be determined based on the traffic speed profile, the required driving torque and the current battery SOC of the vehicle” and Para. 0038-0039, wherein power information is obtained using the speed data profile.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Jun to include “wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the power information, using at least one of speed data associated with the route and obtained before driving the vehicle or grade data associated with the route and obtained before driving the vehicle, or any combination thereof” since “the vehicle control apparatus may calculate the traffic speed profile indicating a representative traffic speed in a specific travel section, and optimize the driving mode of the hybrid vehicle, which is actively determined based on the calculated traffic speed profile. For example, in case of short-distance driving, the vehicle control apparatus may prevent an unnecessary entry into the HEV mode, and control the vehicle to drive only in the EV mode, thereby optimizing the fuel efficiency” (Para. 0046. Jun). This would create a more robust and efficient Hybrid Electric Vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Jun. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 16,
Zhao, Kurihashi, and Jun discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao and Kurihashi further in view of Yamamoto US20140371963A1.
Regarding claim 8,
Zhao and Kurihashi discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Zhao further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: obtain information for minimizing fuel corresponding to at least one section in which the vehicle is located among the plurality of sections and consumed while the vehicle is traveling along the route, using the reference power; and determine the at least one of the EV mode or the HEV mode, or the any combination thereof in the at least one section, using the information. (See at least Column 13 lines 37-58, which discloses that information for minimizing fuel corresponding to at least one section in which the vehicle is located among the plurality of sections and an EV or HEV mode is determined using the information.)
Zhao does not specifically state wherein the information that is obtained is ratio information.
However, Yamamoto Teaches:
the obtained information is ratio information (See at least Para. 0010, where the obtained information includes a proportion of a time of the engine operation to the total time.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to include the bolded limitation as recited above in order to “facilitate the selection of the EV mode” (Para. 0006, Yamamoto), which would create a more robust EV system and specifically in a vehicle power management system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Yamamoto. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10,
Zhao does not specifically state wherein the ratio information indicates a ratio between a transit time when the vehicle passes through the at least one section and an HEV time when the vehicle is controlled based on the HEV mode in the at least one section.
However, Yamamoto teaches:
wherein the ratio information indicates a ratio between a transit time when the vehicle passes through the at least one section and an HEV time when the vehicle is controlled based on the HEV mode in the at least one section.(See at least Para. 0010, where the obtained information includes a proportion of a time of the engine operation to the total time (i.e. a ratio between a total transit time to an HEV time).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto to include the bolded limitation as recited above in order to “facilitate the selection of the EV mode” (Para. 0006, Yamamoto) in a hybrid system (Para. 0010, Yamamoto), which would create a more robust HEV system and specifically in a vehicle power management system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Zhao and Yamamoto. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 18,
Zhao, Kurihashi, and Yamamoto discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 20,
Zhao, Kurihashi, and Yamamoto discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 10 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 is dependent to claim 8, wherein claim 9 recites “obtain the ratio information, in a first layer including a dispersion model for obtaining the power information; and determine the at least one of the EV mode or the HEV mode, or the any combination thereof in the at least one section, using the ratio information, in a second layer including at least one of an acceleration prediction model for controlling the vehicle, a vehicle required power model for controlling the vehicle, or a vehicle control model for controlling the vehicle, or any combination thereof”. The primary reference Zhao US9067589B1 discloses the limitations of claim 8 such as “obtain information for minimizing fuel corresponding to at least one section in which the vehicle is located among the plurality of sections and consumed while the vehicle is traveling along the route, using the reference power; and determine the at least one of the EV mode or the HEV mode, or the any combination thereof in the at least one section, using the information”, but does not specifically state obtaining ratio information. The ratio information is present in the secondary reference Yamamoto US20140371963A1, but claim 9 requires more regarding the ratio information. Claim 9 requires that the ratio information is obtained in a first layer including a dispersion model for obtaining the power information and furthermore, the EV or HEV mode is determined using the ratio information in a second layer that also includes at least one of an acceleration prediction model for controlling the vehicle, a vehicle required power model for controlling the vehicle, or a vehicle control model for controlling the vehicle. These limitations, and in combination with the other elements in the claim are not anticipated nor made obvious by the prior art on record. The same rational applies to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada et al. US20110022255A1 discloses the drive control device specifies a present position of the vehicle. The drive control device defines a schedule of the accelerator operation for each of a plurality of sections in a route from an origin to a destination in order to achieve an enhanced fuel efficient running of the vehicle. The drive control device displays a recommended accelerator operation for a present section of the plurality of sections, in which section the vehicle is presently located, in accordance with the schedule of the accelerator operation and the present position of the vehicle. (See abstract)
Ogawa US20150066271A1 discloses a route detecting unit configured to detect a route to a destination, a travel load calculating unit configured to calculate travel load information of the route, and a travel plan calculating unit configured to calculate a travel plan including a drive mode of each section of the route based on the route and the travel load information of the route, wherein the travel load calculating unit changes a level of detail of the section which is used for calculating the travel load information according to a distance from a present location to the destination. (See abstract).
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 GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights