DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on April 6, 2026. Claims 1-4, 7 and 10-12 have been amended. Claims 5 and 14-15 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are now pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: calculating unit, storage unit, encounter situation calculating module, a sensing noise calculating module, a vessel motion calculating module, first input unit, second input unit and output unit in claim 1 and sailing control module in claim 11.
calculating unit is interpreted as Central Processing Unit (CPU), Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) or equivalent, per claim 2.
storage unit is interpreted as a Solid State Disk (SSD), Hard Disk Drive (HDD) or Random Access Memory (RAM) or equivalent, per claim 3.
encounter situation calculating module is interpreted as a software component stored within the storage unit, per Applicant disclosure [0006].
sensing noise calculating module is interpreted as a software component stored within the storage unit, per Applicant disclosure [0006].
vessel motion calculating module is interpreted as a software component stored within the storage unit, per Applicant disclosure [0006].
first input unit is interpreted as a keyboard, mouse, touch panel or equivalent, per claim 4.
second input unit is interpreted as network socket, serial port, wireless fidelity or equivalent per claim 5.
output unit is interpreted as a wireless fidelity or cable network output per claim 10.
sailing control module is interpreted as sailing control module 50, comprising direction control unit and a speed adjustment unit connected to control structures, per Applicant disclosure [0045]-[0046].
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN 103631148 B) herein Song, in view of Mansor et al. (US 20210125502 A1) herein Mansor and Dannenberg et al. (US 20200247518 A1) herein Dannenberg.
In regards to Claim 1, Song discloses the following:
1. A water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system, comprising:
a calculating unit; (see at least [0021] “data processing module”)
a storage unit, connected with the calculating unit; (see at least [0022] “file storage unit”)
wherein the storage unit comprises an encounter situation calculating module, (see at least [0014] “director monitoring software” and “target ship”, see also [0018], [0038] “electronic chart software… publishes the geographical environment information of the navigation area to the ship dynamic model solving software for collision detection calculation.”) a sensing noise calculating module, (see at least [0101] “Based on the radar image generation algorithm, the clutter generated by radar false echoes, radar co-channel interference, and abnormal atmospheric conditions on radar is simulated.”) a vessel motion calculating module, (see at least [0017] “ship dynamic model”) a vessel motion parameter model (see at least [0017] “ship dynamic model solving software is used to calculate and publish the motion information of the main ship”) and a wind-wave current parameter model; (see at least [0092] “Based on these parameters, the real-time calculation module performs hydrodynamic calculations for the main vessel, including propulsion, rudder force, wind force, wave force”)
wherein the encounter situation calculating module comprises:
a first input unit, providing a user to input a test situation and a test parameter; (see at least [0067] “simulation task editing module is responsible for editing the simulation subjects, the initial motion state of the main ship, the planned route, and the working status of the main ship's instruments and equipment.”, [0068] “simulation task control module plays a role in controlling the overall information. It can reset the status of the main ship's engines, rudder, anchor, cables, and navigation instruments and equipment”, [0069] “route traffic condition data includes time, target ship position, target ship heading, and target ship speed, etc.” and [0070] “simulation data display module provides windows and tables to display all simulation target attribute data, ship information, event reports, and other driving simulation data. Specifically, the attribute data of all simulated targets includes the main ship, target ship, tugboat, barge, floating target, helicopter, land target, training environment, etc.”)
Song is non-specific as to the specific method of data entry, and therefore does not explicitly disclose a keyboard, mouse or touch panel, as interpreted. However, this is known in the art, as taught by Mansor. (see at least [0114] “model can be tested as part of a simulator or sea trial.”, [0132] “vessel or remote/on-board operator to input the real-time data” and [0152] “user input device may comprise one or more of a keyboard, a keypad, a touchpad, a touchscreen display, and a computer mouse.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Mansor with the invention of Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving collision avoidance systems and methods for use on a water-based autonomous vessel which may have a limited number of crew, possibly zero, and which rely at least in part on autonomous navigation and control. (Mansor, [0010]-[0011])
Song discloses the following:
a second input unit, (see at least [0028] “network data processing module”) providing the user to load an information of a real water surface vehicle located on a real sea area; (see at least [0009] “actual meteorological and hydrological environmental information obtained from the navigation command system.” And [0015] “receive data from AIS devices… and send the target ship information together with the actual meteorological and hydrological environmental information obtained from the navigation command system to the director monitoring software”)
While Song discloses a network data processing module that is equivalent to the claimed second data input, Song is non-specific as to how information of a real water surface vehicle located on a real sea area is provided. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include network data input functionality such that the AIS data is received over the network connection of Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing data input time. Further, the results of this would have been predictable.
Song discloses the following:
wherein the calculating unit uses the vessel motion calculating module to calculate a real-time motion information via the test situation (see at least [0014] “The director monitoring software is used to issue simulation task information and simulation start and stop commands. It sends… the real-time motion status of the target ship… during the simulation process.”)
and the user inputs the test parameter; (see at least [0067] “simulation task editing module is responsible for editing the simulation subjects, the initial motion state of the main ship, the planned route, and the working status of the main ship's instruments and equipment.”)
wherein the calculating unit uses the vessel motion parameter model, the wind-wave current parameter model and the sensing noise calculating module uses the real-time motion information to generate obstacle information; (see at least [0018], [0038] “received motion information of the main ship, the motion information of the target ship, and the status information of the engine, rudder, anchor, cable, side thruster and tugboat in a two-dimensional visualization, and to monitor navigation. It also publishes the geographical environment information of the navigation area to the ship dynamic model solving software for collision detection calculation” and [0063] “electronic chart software… is used to plot the motion status of ships in a two-dimensional graphic format, accurately display the outline and trajectory of ships, automatically calculate the distance of the ship's deviation from the planned route during navigation, and reflect in real time whether the ship's current position has collided with other virtual objects”)
an output unit, connected with the calculating unit, (see at least [0028] “network data processing module”)
wherein the real water surface vehicle comprises a sailing control module; (see at least [0014] “The director monitoring software is used to issue simulation task information and simulation start and stop commands. It sends… the real-time motion status of the target ship… during the simulation process.”)
wherein the sailing control module controlling a heading and a ship speed of the real water surface vehicle; (see at least “[0022] “The simulation data recording module is used to record the ship's position, heading, speed, and personnel's operational actions and commands in real time.”)
The following is not explicitly disclosed by Song, but taught by Dannenberg:
wherein a sensor unit filters noise of the obstacle information. (see at least [0072] “sensor processor 70 may be configured to communicate filtered proximity data on the vessel network, such as a CAN bus or wireless network, such as the MIO dataset”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Dannenberg with the invention of Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of controlling propulsion of a marine vessel during docking, launch, or other situations in close proximity to an object. (Dannenberg, [0002])
In regards to Claim 2, Song discloses the following:
2. The water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the calculating unit is a Central Processing Unit (CPU), Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) or the combination thereof. (see at least [0021] “data processing module”)
In regards to Claim 3, Song discloses the following:
3. The water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the storage unit is a Solid State Disk (SSD), Hard Disk Drive (HDD) or Random Access Memory (RAM). (see at least [0022] “file storage unit”)
In regards to Claim 4, Song is silent, but Mansor teaches the following:
4. The water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first input unit is a keyboard, a mouse, a touch panel or the combination thereof. (see at least [0114] “model can be tested as part of a simulator or sea trial.”, [0132] “vessel or remote/on-board operator to input the real-time data” and [0152] “user input device may comprise one or more of a keyboard, a keypad, a touchpad, a touchscreen display, and a computer mouse.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Mansor with the invention of Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving collision avoidance systems and methods for use on a water-based autonomous vessel which may have a limited number of crew, possibly zero, and which rely at least in part on autonomous navigation and control. (Mansor, [0010]-[0011])
In regards to Claim 6, Song discloses the following:
6. The water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the real water surface vehicle is a vessel. (see at least [0004] “vessel”, [0019] “main vessel”)
In regards to Claim 7, Song is silent, but Mansor teaches the following:
7. The water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the test situation is a head-on situation, a crossing situation, a overtaking or the combination thereof. (see at least [0090] “head-on encounter”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Mansor with the invention of Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving collision avoidance systems and methods for use on a water-based autonomous vessel which may have a limited number of crew, possibly zero, and which rely at least in part on autonomous navigation and control. (Mansor, [0010]-[0011])
In regards to Claim 8, Song discloses the following:
8. The water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the test parameter is a collision time, relative ship speed and relative heading angle between the real water surface vehicle and at least one obstacle water surface vehicle. (see at least [0026] “reflects in real-time whether the ship's current position has collided with other virtual objects”, [0028] “plotting module calculates the CPA (closest distance), TCPA (time to closest point), true bearing, target distance, true heading, and true speed for any tracked target.”, [0069] “route traffic condition data includes time, target ship position, target ship heading, and target ship speed” and [0079] “attribute data of all simulated targets”)
In regards to Claim 9, Song discloses the following:
9. The water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the information of the real water surface vehicle is a position, a ship speed and a heading of the real water surface vehicle on the real sea area. (see at least previous citations, see also [0022] “simulation data recording module is used to record the ship's position, heading, speed,”)
In regards to Claim 10, Song discloses the following:
10. The water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the output unit is a cable network. (see at least [0028] “network data processing module”)
In regards to Claim 11, as best understood, Song discloses the following:
11. An operating method of a water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system, comprising the following steps:
(A) a user inputting a test situation and a test parameter via the first input unit; (see at least [0067] “simulation task editing module is responsible for editing the simulation subjects, the initial motion state of the main ship, the planned route, and the working status of the main ship's instruments and equipment.”)
See also Mansor, as previously cited. (see at least [0132] “vessel or remote/on-board operator to input the real-time data” and [0152] “user input device may comprise one or more of a keyboard, a keypad, a touchpad, a touchscreen display, and a computer mouse.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Mansor with the invention of Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving collision avoidance systems and methods for use on a water-based autonomous vessel which may have a limited number of crew, possibly zero, and which rely at least in part on autonomous navigation and control. (Mansor, [0010]-[0011])
Song discloses the following:
(B) the user inputting information of a real water surface vehicle on a real sea area via the second input unit; (see at least [0068] “the system continuously publishes information on the natural environmental conditions of the simulation area and the real-time motion status of the target ship, provided by the AIS integrated processing software.”)
(C) a calculating unit using a storage unit to generate obstacle information; (see at least [0067] “simulation task editing module is responsible for editing the simulation subjects, the initial motion state of the main ship, the planned route, and the working status of the main ship's instruments and equipment.”)
The following is not explicitly disclosed by Song, but taught by Dannenberg:
(D) an output unit sending the obstacle information to a sensor unit of the real water surface vehicle, the sensor unit filtering noise of the obstacle information to generate a filtered obstacle information; (see at least [0072] “sensor processor 70 may be configured to communicate filtered proximity data on the vessel network, such as a CAN bus or wireless network, such as the MIO dataset”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Dannenberg with the invention of Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of controlling propulsion of a marine vessel during docking, launch, or other situations in close proximity to an object. (Dannenberg, [0002])
Song, as modified by Dannenberg, discloses the following:
(E) the output unit sending the filtered obstacle information to a sailing control module of the real water surface vehicle; (see at least [0014] “The director monitoring software is used to issue simulation task information and simulation start and stop commands. It sends… the real-time motion status of the target ship… during the simulation process.”) and
(F) the sailing control module controlling a heading and a ship speed of the real water surface vehicle via the filtered obstacle information (see at least “[0022] “The simulation data recording module is used to record the ship's position, heading, speed, and personnel's operational actions and commands in real time.”) to carry out an obstacle collision avoidance test. (see at least [0026] “and reflects in real-time whether the ship's current position has collided with other virtual objects” and [0071] “Based on relevant maritime experience, an expert evaluation model is established, and the evaluation module automatically assesses the simulation results based on the data recorded during the simulation, thus increasing the objectivity of the evaluation work.”)
In regards to Claim 12, Song discloses the following:
12. The operating method of the water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the step (C) further comprises:
(C1) the calculating unit using the vessel motion calculating module to calculate a real-time motion information via the user inputting the test situation and the test parameter; and
(C2) the calculating unit using a vessel motion parameter model, a wind-wave current parameter model and a sensing noise calculating module to calculate the obstacle information via the real-time motion information. (see at least [0026] “reflects in real-time whether the ship's current position has collided with other virtual objects”, [0028] “plotting module calculates the CPA (closest distance), TCPA (time to closest point), true bearing, target distance, true heading, and true speed for any tracked target.”, [0069] “route traffic condition data includes time, target ship position, target ship heading, and target ship speed” and [0079] “attribute data of all simulated targets”)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Mansor and Dannenberg, as applied, in further view of Cheung et al. (US 20210295708 A1) herein Cheung.
In regards to Claim 13, Song discloses the following:
13. The operating method of the water surface vehicle sailing safety verification system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the step (F) further comprises:
(F1) the real water surface vehicle continuing to sail to a first obstacle water surface vehicle on a sailing lane, when the real water surface vehicle is getting closer and closer to the first obstacle water surface vehicle and a collision risk is less than a threshold, (see at least [0027] “The target alarm module provides visual warnings when a target enters a selected warning zone.” And [0104] “target alarm module provides visual/auditory alarm functions when a target enters the selected warning zone, and clearly marks the target that triggers the alarm on the display.”
Song does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Chung:
a collision avoidance mode is turned on; (see at least [0032] “When the DCPA is less than the safe range threshold, the collision avoidance mode is activated.”)
(F2) the sailing control module controlling the real water surface vehicle to sail in a first direction, the real water surface vehicle dodging the first obstacle water surface vehicle; (see at least [0032] “processor of the vessel determines whether to start avoiding the dynamic obstacle”, “the processor may calculate a path to avoid the dynamic obstacle based on the second artificial field potential method, and guide the vessel to avoid the dynamic obstacle”) and
(F3) when the collision risk being greater than the threshold, the sail control module controlling the real water surface vehicle to sail in a second direction, the real water surface vehicle returning to the sailing lane. (see at least [0026] “If the obstacle enters the collision avoidance the range of the vessel, performing the next step (S12). Otherwise, the vessel V remains the original navigation path.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Chung with the invention of Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing the difficulty of ship collision risk profile and collision avoidance. (Chung, [0003])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are accepted, and persuasive. The rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 101 are accepted, and rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to arguments on pages 9 and 10 of Applicant arguments that Song and Dannenberg teach away from the claimed invention, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP § 2141.02, VI. states a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
While it is admitted that Song does not explicitly disclose the noise filtering claimed, as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection above, there is no evidence that Song “teaches away” from the claimed invention, because the disclosure of Song does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage noise filtering. Further, Dannenberg teaches the cited limitations, and also clearly does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the noise filtering. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
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 Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
June 11, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights