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
Applicant’s amendment filed August 24, 2012 amends claims 1-20. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1:
Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim is a method claim.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of detecting actuation force profile for closure element. This limitation, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “detecting actuation force profile,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “detecting actuation force profile for closure element” language, the claim encompasses a user simply for closure element in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic using detecting force profile does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements: recognizing actuation event performs the detection step. The detection step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere detecting or manipulations, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recognizing actuation event that performs the recognizing step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the recognizing step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the recognizing actuation perform operations for detected actuation force profile).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the recognizing step). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determination step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the recognizing step is anything other than a generic, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere detecting actuation force profile and recognizing step is a well understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the determining step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible
Claim 2:
Similar analysis applied as detecting temperature of the handle element.
Claim 3:
Similar analysis applied as detecting first actuation and second actuation with sensor.
Claim 4:
Similar analysis applied as determining actuation force and direction based on force profile.
Claim 5:
Similar analysis applied as detecting actuation force profile and using sampling rate.
Claim 6:
Similar analysis applied as recognizing actuation event and calculating probability .
Claim 7:
Similar analysis applied as calculating steps for probabilities.
Claim 8:
Similar analysis applied as detecting speed of the motor.
Claim 9:
Similar analysis applied as detecting actuation force.
Claim 10:
Similar analysis applied as determining force offset and detect threshold.
Claim 11:
Similar analysis applied as detecting offset.
Claim 12:
Similar analysis applied as recognizing actuation closure element and evaluating actuation force profile.
Claim 13:
Similar analysis applied as using strain gauge as force sensor.
Claim 14:
Similar analysis applied as suing sensors for detecting force profile.
Claim 15:
Similar analysis applied as using analog to digital converter for force detection offset.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HERMAN et al. (US 20220243521 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
6. 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 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over HERMAN et al. (US 20220243521 A1) in view of HOHLFELD (WO 2020193264 A1) (hereinafter HOHLFELD).
Regarding claim 1, HERMAN discloses a method for recognizing an actuation of a closure element of a motor vehicle (FIG. 1, an example motor vehicle 10, closure member 12, actuation system 20, actuator 22, passenger door 12, para 111, recognize power closure member actuation system associated with closure member, para 113, FIG. 2, power closure member actuation system 20 includes actuator mechanism 22 having a motor and geartrain assembly 34 connectable to vehicle door 12), wherein the method comprises at least the following steps:
measuring, by at least one force sensor, an actuation force profile acting on the closure element, in particular on a handle element of the closure element (para 75, FIG. 41, adjustments to force profiles related to a force of the closure member, para 135, actuator output force acting on closure member to move closure member in response to receiving motion input 56, force command 88 has a specified force profiles, closure member actuation system 20 includes closure member sensor 64 for determining position and speed of closure member, sensor 86 determine angle or inclination of closure member and actuation system 20 assist by force, para 216, FIG. 41, force profiles to force experienced by closure member, force provided by actuator 22 range of motion of closure member until force increases to assist opening, para 135, actuator output force acting on closure member to move closure member in response to receiving motion input 56 and force command 88 has a specified force profile, movement sensor 104 is coupled closure member actuation system 20 ),
recognizing an actuation event in dependency of the detected actuation force profile (para 111, power closure member actuation system 20 recognize power closure member actuation system associated with closure member of vehicle 10, para 13, detect motion in response generate a force commands movement of closure member by actuator receiving force command to vary actuator output force to move closure member, para 135, controller 50 generate force command 88 to control an actuator output force acting on closure member to move closure member, actuator output force acting on closure member to move closure member in response to receiving force command 88 has a specified force profile detect change position of closure member, para 190, FIG. 41 adjustments to a force profile related to force experienced by closure member and actuator 22 throughout range of motion of closure member assist force, para 94, FIG. 60A, door check force profile, para 230, actuator 22 to check door force, to movement of the door 12, based on door position and door check force profile above power assisted force, using force profiles, door check force move door, FIG. 60A, door check for force profile, powered closure member actuation system 20 detecting actuating event based on force profiles, actuator 20 to apply force during door motion).
HERMAN fails to disclose wherein the actuation force profile comprises the actuation force measured at least two different points in time.
In analogous art, HOHLFELD discloses the actuation force profile comprises the actuation force measured at least two different points in time (page 2, lines 15-20, The actuation of the force transmission device then also begins at time T1, it being possible for the switching of the force transmission device to release the vehicle door to take a certain amount of time. The time window can start, for example, at time T1 and can be between 0.1 seconds and 0.5 seconds long, for example. The time window can, for example, correspond to the length of time that is required to switch a coupling device from a coupling, first state to a decoupling, second state, page 12, lines 27-30, Fig. 10 sensor signal with the profile of a statistical parameter associated threshold value profile and profile of a parameter derived from sensor signal, page 11, lines 25-28, actuator 210, produces a power flow between the gearbox 25 and the shaft 26 in its coupling state, so that in the coupling state of the coupling device 21 an adjusting force or locking force from the drive motor 22 to the shaft 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of controller detects the motion input and in response generates a force command using the at least one stored motion control parameter disclosed by HERMAN to use sensor device to generate a sensor signal that indicates movement of the vehicle door as taught by HOHLFELD to use control device is designed to evaluate sensor signal for ascertaining a parameter and to compare the parameter thus ascertained with a threshold value in order to detect, on the basis of the comparison of the parameter with the threshold value, an adjustment request from a user, wherein control designed to determine the threshold value on the basis of the sensor signal [HOHLFELD, Abstract ].
Regarding claim 2, HERMAN discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises a step of detecting a temperature of the handle element with an integrated temperature sensor of a control device (para 129, FIG. 5A power closure member actuation system 20, control module 52 communication with environmental sensor 80, 81 which is temperature sensor 80 and connected to body control module 52, para 155, determining whether an environmental temperature in response to attitude of the vehicle 10, para 156, adjusting force command 88 based on environmental temperature, para 185, adjusting force command 88 based on sensed environmental condition (i.e. detecting temperature), controller 50 generate a motion command 62 as a function of environmental condition), and
wherein at least one of detecting the actuation force profile and recognizing the actuation event is conducted in dependency of the detected temperature of the handle element (para 191, FIG. 42, method of controlling the movement of closure member 12 based on at least one environmental condition of the vehicle 10, step of 602 detecting at environmental condition of vehicle 10 using an environmental sensor, para 216, FIG. 40, adjustments to a motion profile related to motion of the closure member, speed of closure member increased or decreased as a function of temperature, para 237, controller 50 determining or detecting motion of the door based on verifying temperature of the vehicle or door).
Regarding claim 3, HERMAN discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein detecting the actuation force profile comprises detecting a first actuation force profile with a first sensor and detecting a second actuation force profile with a second sensor (para 135, controller 50 varies an actuator output force acting on the closure member to move closure member in response to receiving the motion input 56 and force command 88 has a specified force profile, movement sensor 104 is coupled to controller 50 and closure member actuation system 20 includes feedback sensor 64 for determining position and speed of the closure member)
wherein the first and the second sensor are spatially spaced apart from one another (para 119-120, Fig. 4, feedback sensor 64, actuation system 20 includes obstacle detection sensor 66).
Regarding claim 4, HERMAN discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises a step of determining an application point of an actuation force and/or determining a direction of an actuation force based on the detected first and second actuation force profile (para 61, FIG. 21 shows adjustments to force profiles related to a force of the closure member for each of a plurality of closure member, para 230, controller 50 controlling the actuator 22 to increase door force, or resistance to movement of the door 12, based on door position and door check force profiles and, using force profiles and determining or detecting if the door position is at a predetermined position or distance from the stop position).
Regarding claim 5, HERMAN discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein detecting the actuation force profile is conducted at a reduced sampling rate after a specific time period without a recognized actuation event (para 21, actuator to reduce speed of the closure member during approach without exceeding a maximum predetermined rate, para 230, actuator 22 check door force based on door position and door check force profile and using force profiles, determining or detecting if the door position is at a predetermined position or distance and actuator 22 to resist door movement using profile or normal response force and specific time, para 225, controller 50 configured to after a time out period of time, such as 15 minutes, control actuator 22 to move door to fully opened position or to fully closed position, para 146, movement or motion profile adjusted and change a maximum deceleration rate which allow change velocities of closure member, para 225, controller 50 configured to after a time out period of time, actuator 22 to move the door to one of the fully opened position or to the fully closed position).
Regarding claim 6, HERMAN discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of recognizing the actuation event comprises calculating an actuation probability, wherein the actuation event is recognized if the calculated actuation probability is greater than a first threshold value, in particular wherein the first threshold value is determined in dependency of detected actuation force profile (para 26, controlling movement of closure member by actuator to resist movement of the closure member in response to determining speed of the closure member greater than predetermined maximum speed threshold, para 169, controller 50 control actuator 22 by determining speed of closure member 12 is greater than predetermined maximum speed threshold in response to speed of closure member 12 greater than predetermined maximum speed threshold).
HERMAN fails to disclose recognizing the actuation event comprises calculating an actuation probability, wherein calculated actuation probability is greater than a first threshold value.
In analogous art, HOHLFELD discloses recognizing the actuation event comprises calculating an actuation probability, wherein calculated actuation probability is greater than a first threshold value (page 4, lines 3-31, To set threshold value, sensor signal is evaluated statistically and determine a statistical parameter variance, a maximum value, a minimum value on the basis of statistical parameter, recognized characteristic value obtained from sensor signal in all probability exceed the threshold value, page4, lines 30-35,The threshold value set, on the basis of heuristically determined empirical values, Page 7, lines 1-4, statistical evaluation for calculating variance of sensor signal corresponding to standard deviation of the values, Page 9, lines 1-3, Fig. 10 sensor signal with the profile of a statistical parameter associated threshold value profile and profile of a parameter derived from sensor signal, page 4, lines 23-26, on the other hand, statistical parameter indicates threshold value is set so that and threshold value is exceeded by characteristic value and is thus recognized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of controller detects the motion input and in response generates a force command using the at least one stored motion control parameter disclosed by HERMAN to use sensor device to generate a sensor signal that indicates movement of the vehicle door as taught by HOHLFELD to recognize an adjustment request, the control device determines a characteristic value from the sensor signal, which control device compares with a suitable threshold value, with an adjustment request being recognized, for example, when the characteristic value exceeds threshold value [HOHLFELD, page 3, lines 10-15 ].
Regarding claim 7, HERMAN discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the actuation force profile comprises a level, a slope and a standard deviation as properties, wherein calculating the actuation probability comprises calculating individual probabilities an actuation (para 26, controlling movement of closure member by actuator to resist movement of the closure member in response to determining speed of the closure member greater than predetermined maximum speed threshold, para 169, controller 50 control actuator 22 by determining speed of closure member 12 is greater than predetermined maximum speed threshold in response to speed of closure member 12 greater than predetermined maximum speed threshold),
wherein the individual probabilities for an actuation are each calculated only in dependence of one of the properties, and wherein the actuation probability is calculated based on at least one of the calculated individual probabilities (para 149, controller 50 is configured to determine the force command 88 based on the motion input 56 and the at least one of the position and speed of the closure member using the force command algorithm 100 in a force command calculator module 119 of the force command generator 98 and the closure member model 102).
In analogous art, HOHLFELD discloses calculating the actuation probability comprises calculating individual probabilities an actuation; wherein the individual probabilities for an actuation are each calculated only in dependence of one of the properties, and wherein the actuation probability is calculated based on at least one of the calculated individual probabilities (page 7, lines 1-4, statistical evaluation for calculating the variance of the sensor signal within the time window is also conceivable (corresponding to the square of the standard deviation of the values of the sensor signal in the time window), page 4, lines 3-31, To set threshold value, sensor signal is evaluated statistically and determine a statistical parameter variance, a maximum value, a minimum value on the basis of statistical parameter, recognized characteristic value obtained from sensor signal in all probability exceed the threshold value, page4, lines 30-35,The threshold value set, on the basis of heuristically determined empirical values, Page 7, lines 1-4, statistical evaluation for calculating variance of sensor signal corresponding to standard deviation of the values, Page 9, lines 1-3, Fig. 10 sensor signal with the profile of a statistical parameter associated threshold value profile and profile of a parameter derived from sensor signal, page 4, lines 23-26, on the other hand, statistical parameter indicates threshold value is set so that and threshold value is exceeded by characteristic value and is thus recognized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of controller detects the motion input and in response generates a force command using the at least one stored motion control parameter disclosed by HERMAN to use sensor device to generate a sensor signal that indicates movement of the vehicle door as taught by HOHLFELD to set threshold value, sensor signal is evaluated statistically and determine a statistical parameter variance, a maximum value, a minimum value on the basis of statistical parameter, recognized characteristic value obtained from sensor signal in all probability exceed the threshold value [HOHLFELD, page 4, lines 3-31].
Regarding claim 8, HERMAN discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises a step of detecting a speed of the motor vehicle and recognizing the actuation event is deactivated if the detected speed is greater than a threshold speed (para 225, control actuator 22 to move the door to fully opened position or to fully closed position and the actuator 22 depowered or deactivated, para 226, If the controller 50 in step 1546 determines an object , the controller 50 deactivating the cinch actuator 99, para 230, controller 50 determining or detecting if the door position is at a predetermined position from stop position, method proceeds at step 1816 to deactivate door check function, and actuator 22 to resist the door movement.).
Regarding claim 9, HERMAN discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a force detection offset is taken into account when detecting the actuation force profile (para 178, based on a detected deviation from a reference speed profile beyond speed thresholds, method 401 providing a reference speed profile 403 and determining a difference between, reference speed profile with actual detected speed 407 of door 12 to determine deviations , or errors, from speed profile, determining if deviation greater than threshold speed level and deviation exceeds predetermined threshold, controller 50 transitioning to power assist mode).
Regarding claim 10, HERMAN discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the force detection offset is determined in dependency of the detected actuation force profile, wherein the determination of the force detection offset is suspended if a change in the detected actuation force profile is greater than a change threshold (para 178, comparing, or determining difference between, reference speed profile with actual detected speed 407 of door 12 to determine any deviations, or errors, of the door motion from reference speed profile, then next determining if the deviation is greater than a threshold speed level in step 409,. If at step 409 the controller 50 does determine the deviation exceeds the predetermined threshold, and controller 50 will determine speed of the door is zero, or in other words if the door is stationary).
9. Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over HERMAN et al. (US 20220243521 A1) in view of HOHLFELD (WO 2020193264 A1) (hereinafter HOHLFELD) and further in view of MAGDA (EP 4513759 A1) (hereinafter MAGDA ).
Regarding claim 11, HERMAN and HOHLFELD fails to discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the force detection offset is taken into account via an analog compensation.
In analogous art, MAGDA discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the force detection offset is taken into account via an analog compensation (para 35, evaluation device 4 is coupled to the strain gauges 5 and 6, which receives signals of strain gauges and evaluates signal characteristics. The electrical resistances are evaluated as a measure of deformation of strain gauges (i.e offset), conversion of resistance change into a measured value can be done, by a Wheatstone bridge circuit, but any other circuits used to detect resistance change (i.e. offset detection by analog compensation), para 036, depending on the force applied, strain gauges 5 and 6 generate different signal patterns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of controller detects the motion input and in response generates a force command using the at least one stored motion control parameter disclosed by HERMAN and HOHLFELD to use evaluation device detects a user actuation on the basis of these sensor signals as taught by MAGDA to include sensor arrangement comprising strain gauge which is fixed to actuation element in order to detect deformations and evaluation device designed to detect time sequences of sensor signals of strain gauge and to evaluate time-related signal patterns in the time sequences of sensor signals [MAGDA , Abstract].
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 12-15 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.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed August 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 rejection not withdrawn.
On page 9, lines 1-5, the applicant argues that the reference(s) do not teach or even suggest each and every limitation as claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the HERMAN et al. teaches as in FIG. 1, an example motor vehicle 10, closure member 12, actuation system 20, actuator 22, passenger door 12, and system recognize power closure member actuation system associated with closure member [0111] and, as in FIG. 2, power closure member actuation system 20 includes actuator mechanism 22 having a motor and geartrain assembly 34 connectable to vehicle door 12 [0113] and as in FIG. 41, adjustments to force profiles related to a force of the closure member [075] and , actuator output force acting on closure member to move closure member in response to receiving motion input 56, force command 88 has a specified force profiles, closure member actuation system 20 includes closure member sensor 64 for determining position and speed of closure member, sensor 86 determine angle or inclination of closure member and actuation system 20 assist by force [0135] and, as in, FIG. 41, force profiles to force experienced by closure member, force provided by actuator 22 range of motion of closure member until force increases to assist opening [0216] and, controller 50 generate force command 88 to control an actuator output force acting on closure member to move closure member, actuator output force acting on closure member to move closure member in response to force command 88 has a specified force profile detect change position of closure member [0135] and, as in FIG. 41 adjustments to a force profile related to force experienced by closure member and actuator 22 throughout range of motion of closure member force [0190] and, FIG. 60A, door check force profile [094] and, actuator 22 to check door force, to movement of door 12, based on door position and door check force profile above power assisted force, using force profiles, door check force move door [0230], and
HOHLFELD teaches actuation of the force transmission device then begins at time T1, it being possible for the switching of the force transmission device to release the vehicle door to take a certain amount of time. The time window start, for example, at time T1 and can be between 0.1 seconds and 0.5 seconds long, for example. The time window can, for example, correspond to the length of time that is required to switch a coupling device from a coupling, first state to a decoupling, second state [page 2, lines 15-20] and, as in Fig. 10 sensor signal with profile of a statistical parameter associated threshold value profile and profile of a parameter derived from sensor signal [page 12, lines 27-30] and, actuator 210, produces a power flow between the gearbox 25 and shaft 26 in coupling state, so that in coupling state of the coupling device 21 an adjusting force or locking force from drive motor 22 [page 11, lines 25-28].
Thus, HERMAN et al. (US 20220243521 A1) and HOHLFELD (WO 2020193264 A1) and MAGDA (EP 4513759 A1) (hereinafter MAGDA ). disclose the applicant’s whole invention.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mirza Alam whose telephone number is (469) 295-9286. The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-6:00PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for Published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIRZA F ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights