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 Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on June 04, 2026. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are currently pending, with Claims 1, 8, 11-12, and 16 being amended, and Claim 10 being cancelled.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed June 04, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 04, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-16 under Nakabayashi, in view of Stanhope and Ellaboudy, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection of Claims 1-9 and 11-16 is made in view of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, Stanhope, Nakabayashi, and Ellaboudy.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “when the fourth condition is not satisfied …” and should read “when a fourth condition is not satisfied …”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0155794 A1, to Madsen, et al (hereinafter referred to as Madsen; newly of record), in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2020104617 A, to Kuroki (hereinafter referred to as Kuroki; newly of record).
As per Claim 1, Madsen discloses the features of a work vehicle to perform self-traveling among a plurality of crop rows (e.g. Paragraphs [0026], [0030]; where an agricultural vehicle or tractor may provide automatic steering for controlling vehicle (100) steering curvature, speed, etc.), the work vehicle comprising:
an exterior sensor to output sensor data indicating a distribution of geographic features around the work vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0044], [0057]; Figure 4; where the control system (108) may update and optimize a SLAM map of the field based on image data received from a 3D sensor and GNSS data received from GNSS sensor (104) as the vehicle (100) travels along a path (162)); and
a controller (e.g. Paragraph [0029]; where a control system (108) may transmit guidance data to the auto steering system (110)) configured or programmed to:
control self-traveling of the work vehicle in an inter-row travel mode of causing the work vehicle to travel along a target path between two adjacent crop rows that are detected based on the sensor data (e.g. Paragraphs [0044], [0057]; where the control system (108) may add up points in a point cloud map to create a histogram to identify the rows (154A, 154B), and the control system (108) locates a centerline (144) between lines (146A, 146b) that represents the A-B line or desired path (152) for the vehicle to travel in-between rows (154A, 154B)), and
in a turning travel mode of causing the work vehicle to turn in a headland before and after the inter-row travel mode (e.g. Paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0080]; Figures 4, 7, 14; where the vehicle (100) travels in turn-around sections (170) in headland sections of field (164) where the vehicle turns to travel next to another row in field (164));
in the turning travel mode, calculate an amount of positional deviation and an amount of directional deviation of the work vehicle with respect to a target path in a next instance of the inter- row travel mode based on the sensor data (e.g. Paragraphs [0073], [0101]-[0102]; where the control system (108) determines visual odometry (VO) error data when a difference between the visual odometry and GNSS measured position is determined; and calculates a cross track error (XTE) (500) between the desired path (554) and the vehicle pivot point position (552), which comprises the lateral distance between the desired path (554) and current vehicle position (552); and the control system (108) also determines a heading error (504) and a curvature error (508));
detect the two crop rows in the next instance of the inter-row travel mode based on the sensor data being consecutively output from the exterior sensor (e.g. Paragraph [0038], [0047]; where the image processor (105) processes the images from the camera to identify rows in a field);
set the target path in the next instance of the inter-row travel mode in between the two detected crop rows (e.g. Paragraphs [0055], [0100], [0103]; Figure 7; where the path generator (548) may select a turnaround path or derive the turnaround path based on the distance and location between the end of the current row and the start of a next row); and
calculate a curvature of the target path in the next instance of the inter-row travel mode having been set (e.g. Paragraphs [0091], [0102]; where the vehicle (100) generates curvature measurements (512) based on the steering angles of the wheels of the vehicle (100), and the control system derives a desired curvature (K)); and
switch from the turning travel mode to the inter-row travel mode (e.g. Paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; where the control system (108) may use the VO data to turn the vehicle around from a first position at the end of the row to a second position at the start of another row) ‘…’.
Madsen does not disclose the features of switch from the turning travel mode to the inter-row travel mode upon satisfying a plurality of conditions including: a first condition that the amount of positional deviation is smaller than a first threshold; a second condition that the amount of directional deviation is smaller than a second threshold; and a third condition that the curvature of the target path in the next instance of the inter-row travel mode is smaller than a third threshold.
However, Kuroki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for controlling a vehicle to travel a route, where when the positional deviation (d) between the traveling position (Q1) and the planned position is equal to or less than a threshold value, the first control part (41) maintains the steering angle set for the steering device (11), and when the positional deviation (d) is less than or equal to the first threshold value, and the azimuth deviation is equal to or less than the second threshold value, the second controller (42) does not brake the first and second wheels; and when the traveling direction of the traveling vehicle (3) can be made to coincide with the planned traveling route (R), braking of the wheels is not performed, and the control unit maintains the steering angle set for the turning device (11) (i.e., is going straight instead of turning, where the curvature of the path of the vehicle is less than a threshold) (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0050]-[0051], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, with the feature of determining conditions for continuing straight on the path in the system of Kuroki, in order to improve the accuracy of straight traveling of the work vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0005] of Kuroki).
As per Claim 2, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Madsen further discloses the features of wherein
in the inter-row travel mode, the controller is configured or programmed to: detect two crop rows located on opposite sides of the work vehicle based on the sensor data being consecutively output from the exterior sensor (e.g. Paragraph [0038], [0047]; Figures 4-6; where the image processor (105) processes the images from the camera to identify rows in a field); and
cause the work vehicle to travel along the target path while setting the target path in between the two detected crop rows (Paragraphs [0044], [0057]; where the control system (108) may add up points in a point cloud map to create a histogram to identify the rows (154A, 154B), and the control system (108) locates a centerline (144) between lines (146A, 146b) that represents the A-B line or desired path (152) for the vehicle to travel in-between rows (154A, 154B)).
As per Claim 3, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 2, and Madsen further discloses the features of wherein, in the inter-row travel mode, the controller is configured or programed to set the target path at a midpoint between the two detected crop rows (e.g. Paragraph [0047], [0049]; Figures 4, 11; where the control system (108) generates lines (146A, 146B), in 2-D image data to identify the location of rows (154A, 154B), and the control system (108) locates a centerline (144) and new centerline points (142) between lines (146A, 146B) that represents the A-B line or desired path (152) for the vehicle (100) to travel in-between rows).
As per Claim 4, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 3, and Madsen further discloses the features of wherein in the turning travel mode, the controller is configured or programed to:
calculate a first distance and a second distance based on the sensor data, the first distance and the second distance being respective distances between a point at which the work vehicle is located and two straight lines which are imaginary extensions of the two crop rows and in a next instance of the inter-row travel mode (e.g. Paragraph [0101]; Figure 19; where the lateral distance between the desired path (554) and the current vehicle position (552) is determined); and
calculate a difference between the first distance and the second distance as the amount of positional deviation (e.g. Paragraph [0101]; where the control system (108) calculates the cross-track error (XTE, 500) between the desired path (554) and the vehicle pivot point position (552)).
As per Claim 7, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Madsen further discloses the features of wherein, in the turning travel mode, while estimating its own position based on the sensor data being consecutively output from the exterior sensor, the controller is configured or programed to cause the work vehicle to turn along a turning path that has been set (e.g. Paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0080]; Figures 4, 7, 14; where the vehicle (100) travels in turn-around sections (170) in headland sections of field (164) where the vehicle turns to travel next to another row in field (164)).
As per Claim 15, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Madsen further discloses the features of wherein the exterior sensor includes one or more LiDAR sensors to output point cloud data as the sensor data (e.g. Paragraphs [0003], [0026]; where the 3-D sensors may include light detection and ranging (LIDAR)).
As per Claim 16, Madsen discloses the features of a control method for a work vehicle to perform self-traveling among a plurality of crop rows (e.g. Paragraphs [0026], [0030]; where an agricultural vehicle or tractor may provide automatic steering for controlling vehicle (100) steering curvature, speed, etc.), the control method comprising:
controlling self-traveling of the work vehicle in an inter-row travel mode of causing the work vehicle to travel along a target path between two adjacent crop rows (e.g. Paragraphs [0044], [0057]; where the control system (108) may add up points in a point cloud map to create a histogram to identify the rows (154A, 154B), and the control system (108) locates a centerline (144) between lines (146A, 146b) that represents the A-B line or desired path (152) for the vehicle to travel in-between rows (154A, 154B)) that
are detected based on sensor data indicating a distribution of geographic features around the work vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0044], [0057]; Figure 4; where the control system (108) may update and optimize a SLAM map of the field based on image data received from a 3D sensor and GNSS data received from GNSS sensor (104) as the vehicle (100) travels along a path (162)), and
in a turning travel mode of causing the work vehicle to turn in a headland before and after the inter-row travel mode (e.g. Paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0080]; Figures 4, 7, 14; where the vehicle (100) travels in turn-around sections (170) in headland sections of field (164) where the vehicle turns to travel next to another row in field (164));
in the turning travel mode: calculating an amount of positional deviation and an amount of directional deviation of the work vehicle with respect to a target path in a next instance of the inter- row travel mode based on the sensor data (e.g. Paragraphs [0073], [0101]-[0102]; where the control system (108) determines visual odometry (VO) error data when a difference between the visual odometry and GNSS measured position is determined; and calculates a cross track error (XTE) (500) between the desired path (554) and the vehicle pivot point position (552), which comprises the lateral distance between the desired path (554) and current vehicle position (552); and the control system (108) also determines a heading error (504) and a curvature error (508));
detecting the two crop rows in a next instance of the inter-row travel mode based on the sensor data (e.g. Paragraph [0038], [0047]; where the image processor (105) processes the images from the camera to identify rows in a field);
setting the target path in the next instance of the inter-row travel mode in between the two detected crop rows (e.g. Paragraphs [0055], [0100], [0103]; Figure 7; where the path generator (548) may select a turnaround path or derive the turnaround path based on the distance and location between the end of the current row and the start of a next row); and
calculating a curvature of the target path in the next instance of the inter- row travel mode having been set (e.g. Paragraphs [0091], [0102]; where the vehicle (100) generates curvature measurements (512) based on the steering angles of the wheels of the vehicle (100), and the control system derives a desired curvature (K)); and
switching from the turning travel mode to the inter-row travel mode (e.g. Paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; where the control system (108) may use the VO data to turn the vehicle around from a first position at the end of the row to a second position at the start of another row) ‘…’.
Madsen does not disclose the features of switching from the turning travel mode to the inter-row travel mode upon satisfying a plurality of conditions including: a first condition that the amount of positional deviation is smaller than a first threshold; and a second condition that the amount of directional deviation is smaller than a second threshold; and a third condition that the curvature of the target path in the next instance of the inter-row travel mode is smaller than a third threshold.
However, Kuroki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for controlling a vehicle to travel a route, where when the positional deviation (d) between the traveling position (Q1) and the planned position is equal to or less than a threshold value, the first control part (41) maintains the steering angle set for the steering device (11), and when the positional deviation (d) is less than or equal to the first threshold value, and the azimuth deviation is equal to or less than the second threshold value, the second controller (42) does not brake the first and second wheels; and when the traveling direction of the traveling vehicle (3) can be made to coincide with the planned traveling route (R), braking of the wheels is not performed, and the control unit maintains the steering angle set for the turning device (11) (i.e., is going straight instead of turning, where the curvature of the path of the vehicle is less than a threshold) (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0050]-[0051], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, with the feature of determining conditions for continuing straight on the path in the system of Kuroki, in order to improve the accuracy of straight traveling of the work vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0005] of Kuroki).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Madsen, in view of Kuroki, as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0059199 A1, to Stanhope (hereinafter referred to as Stanhope; previously of record).
As per Claim 5, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 2, but Madsen, in view of Kuroki, fails to teach every feature of wherein, in the inter-row travel mode, the controller is configured or programed to set the target path at a position that is offset from a midpoint between the two detected crop rows.
However, Stanhope, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for guiding an agricultural system for traversing a field, where the center line (30) of each strip (26) is determined, and the implement on the vehicle traverses the field with row unit (32) on the implement are aligned with tracking lines extend which extend through the center of each strip (i.e. the target path is at a midpoint between rows); and where the tracking line may be offset from the center line (30) (e.g. Paragraphs [0018], [0032]; Figures 1, 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, with the feature of offsetting the target path in the system of Stanhope, in order better align the implement along the track (see at least Paragraphs [0036] of Stanhope).
As per Claim 6, Madsen, in view of Kuroki and Stanhope, teaches the features of Claim 5, and Stanhope further teaches the features of wherein, in the inter-row travel mode, the controller is configured or programed to set an amount of offset from the midpoint between the two crop rows based on a content of work to be performed by the work vehicle during travel and/or a type of an implement that is linked to the work vehicle.
Stanhope teaches a method for guiding an agricultural system for traversing a field, where the center line (30) of each strip (26) is determined, and the implement on the vehicle traverses the field with row unit (32) on the implement are aligned with tracking lines extend which extend through the center of each strip (i.e. the target path is at a midpoint between rows); and where the tracking line may be offset from the center line (30) based on the type of the implement (e.g. Paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0032]; Figures 1, 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, with the feature of offsetting the target path in the system of Stanhope, in order better align the implement along the track (see at least Paragraphs [0036] of Stanhope).
Claims 8-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Madsen, in view of Kuroki, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of WIPO Patent Publication No. 2020/111102 A1, to Nakabayashi, et al (hereinafter referred to as Nakabayashi; previously of record).
As per Claim 8, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 1, but the combination of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, fails to teach every feature of wherein in the turning travel mode, the controller is configured or programmed to: suspend the turning travel mode to halt the work vehicle or cause the work vehicle to travel backward when at least one of the first condition and the second condition fails to be satisfied and the work vehicle has reached a region between the two crop rows in the next instance of the inter-row travel mode.
However, Nakabayashi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an automatic travel control system, where when the combine makes a turn and enters the work target area (CA) from the outer peripheral area (SA), if the lateral deviation exceeds the second threshold value (d2), the combine controller does not perform travel and may be configured to stop (e.g. Page 20, Paragraph beginning with “Further, the retry determination unit …”; Page 25, Paragraph beginning with “In the present embodiment …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, with the feature of suspending travel of the vehicle when a condition is not satisfied in the system of Nakabayashi, in order to avoid entering an area when there is a large deviation until the deviation element is reduced (see at least Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “According to this configuration ..”).
As per Claim 9, Madsen, in view of Kuroki and Nakabayashi, teaches the features of Claim 8, and Nakabayashi further teaches the features of wherein, after causing the work vehicle to travel backward, the controller is configured or programed to restart a control of self-traveling of the work vehicle in the turning travel mode.
Nakabayashi teaches an automatic travel control system, where the retry condition is a condition for causing the combine to perform a retry of running, when the vehicle reverses, and tries to perform traveling (e.g. Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “Further, in the present invention …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, with the feature restarting travel in the system of Nakabayashi, in order to provide improved steering control when turning into an area (see at least Page 11, Paragraph beginning with “It is a figure which 1st embodiment ...”).
As per Claim 11, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 1, but the combination of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, fails to teach every feature of wherein, in the turning travel mode, the controller is configured or programed to halt the work vehicle when the third condition is not satisfied.
However, Nakabayashi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an automatic travel control system, where when the combine makes a turn and enters the work target area (CA) from the outer peripheral area (SA), if the lateral deviation exceeds the second threshold value (d2) relating to the value of the turn, the combine controller may be configured to stop, or does not perform retry traveling (e.g. Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “Further, in the present invention …”; Page 25, Paragraph beginning with “In the present embodiment …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, with the feature of suspending travel of the vehicle when a condition is not satisfied in the system of Nakabayashi, in order to avoid entering an area when there is a large deviation until the deviation element is reduced (see at least Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “According to this configuration ..”).
As per Claim 14, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 1, but the combination of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, fails to teach every feature of wherein, in the inter-row travel mode and in the turning travel mode, the controller is configured or programed to halt the work vehicle in any of the following: when an obstacle is detected based on the sensor data; when a fuel of the work vehicle is smaller than a predetermined amount; when an amount of material possessed by the work vehicle is smaller than a predetermined amount; when a problem of the work vehicle is detected; when an instruction to halt is received from a user; when an angle of tilt of the work vehicle is larger than a predetermined value; and when work to be performed by the work vehicle is finished.
However, Nakabayashi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an automatic travel control system, where the stop position (PP) is set at a position near the transport vehicle in the outer peripheral area (SA) and the work vehicle stops to discharge grains, change directions, or when the harvest traveling vehicle is finished (e.g. Page 31, Paragraph beginning with “[1] Means for solving the problem …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, with the feature of stopping travel of the vehicle when a condition is not satisfied in the system of Nakabayashi, in order perform operations outside the working area (see at least Page 31, Paragraph beginning with “The outer peripheral area (SA) ...”).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Madsen, in view of Kuroki, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0000006 A1, to Ellaboudy (hereinafter referred to as Ellaboudy; previously of record).
As per Claim 12, Madsen, in view of Kuroki, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Madsen further discloses the features of calculate a distance between the two detected crop rows in the next instance of the inter-row travel mode (e.g. Paragraph [0101]; Figure 19; where the lateral distance between the desired path (554) and the current vehicle position (552) is determined); ‘…’.
The combination of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, fails to teach every feature of wherein, in the inter-row travel mode, the controller is configured or programed to set the target path at a position that is offset from a midpoint between the two detected crop rows.
However, Ellaboudy, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an agricultural lane following system, where the lidar point cloud data may be clustered based on distance and intensity to determine the location of trees and create virtual lanes which the vehicle can navigate between, and the center line of the lane may be defined to facilitate maintaining a consistent distance between the vehicle and the row; and the lateral position of the vehicle may be a distance between the centroid of the vehicle and the composite line for the lane bounded by the left and right crop rows (i.e. distance between the rows); and the sensing algorithm may calculate the width of the row and the route to travel (e.g. Paragraphs [0082], [0173], [0220], [0231]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, with the feature of determining the width of the row in the system of Ellaboudy, in order to improve efficiency of the agricultural system by modifying the behavior of the implement (see at least Paragraph [0126] of Ellaboudy).
As per Claim 13, Madsen, in view of Kuroki and Ellaboudy, teaches the features of Claim 12, and Ellaboudy further teaches the features of wherein, in the turning travel mode, the controller is configured or programed to halt the work vehicle when the fourth condition is not satisfied.
Ellaboudy teaches an agricultural lane following system, where the vehicle may determine the width of the route to travel, validate the width of the vehicle to the route width, and determine if the vehicle width is enough to get through the row; and when the width is insufficient, the vehicle may stop to wait for human help (e.g. Paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle control system of Madsen, in view of Kuroki, with the feature of determining if the width of the implement can fit in a row in the system of Ellaboudy, in order to improve efficiency of the agricultural system by modifying the behavior of the implement (see at least Paragraph [0126] of Ellaboudy).
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 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 MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights