DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 13, 2026. Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 15 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and claim 16 has been added. Thus, claims 1 – 16 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination references used in the current rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “operating lever” in claim 14 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Koch publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0323637 A1 to Eguchi et al. (herein after "Eguchi et al. publication") and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0139118 A1 to Zhang et al. (herein after "Zhang et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 8, 15 and 16,
the Koch publication discloses a work machine (100) comprising:
a work device (102, 104, 104 a-d) configured to change a shape of an object in a work range of the work machine;
a display (116); and
a hardware processor (202) configured to visually recommend, on the display, a target work location where the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on information about a current shape of the object (see ¶17, where “[c]ontrol system 200 may include a controller 202 operably connected to and in communication with . . . monitor 116”, and ¶18, where “controller 202 may include a single microprocessor or multiple microprocessors for controlling operations or functions of control system 200 and/or machine 100. Numerous commercially available microprocessors may be configured to perform the functions of controller 202. Further, the microprocessors may be general-purpose or specially-constructed for a specific purpose. It should be appreciated that controller 202 may readily embody a computer capable of controlling numerous machine functions”; see also FIGS. 4A-D and ¶38, where “controller 202 may plan and recommend, by way of monitor 116, a sequence of excavation passes 400a-d at each of recommended machine positions 312a-d, respectively, to [change the shape of or] remove material from excavation site 114”). (Emphasis added.)
The Koch publication, however, does not specifically disclose
using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is associated with the shape of the object and that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with a higher level of expertise than a predetermined criterion.
Using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is associated with the shape of the object is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Eguchi et al. publication who discloses an “obstacle detection unit 213 [that] extracts the feature amount from each captured image acquired by the acquisition unit 211. The obstacle detection unit 213 detects an obstacle from the captured image based on the extracted feature amount and the obstacle dictionary data. Exemplary examples of an obstacle detection method include pattern matching, object detection processing based on machine learning, or the like.”
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication to use a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data associated with the shape of the object, as suggested by the Eguchi et al. publication, in order to facilitate identifying objects in the environment.
The modified Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with a higher level of expertise than a predetermined criterion.
Using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with a higher level of expertise is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Zhang et al. publication who discloses that “device 190 may train the machine learning model using a supervised training procedure that includes receiving input to the machine learning model from a subject matter expert (e.g., one or more operators associated with machine 105 and/or the one or more machines), which may reduce an amount of time, an amount of processing resources, and/or the like to train the machine learning model relative to an unsupervised training procedure.” (See ¶66.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication to use a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with a higher level of expertise than a predetermined criterion, as suggested by the Zhang et al. publication, in order to facilitate identifying objects in the environment.
As to claim 2,
the Koch publication discloses the hardware processor (202) being further configured to distinguishably display, on the display (116), a location of relatively high recommendability and a location of relatively low recommendability as potential target work locations in the work range of the work machine. (See FIGS. 4A – 4D; see also ¶17 – ¶18 and ¶35 – ¶34 et seq.)
As to claim 3,
the Koch publication discloses the hardware processor (202) being further configured to display, on the display (116), a difference between the high recommendability and the low recommendability using different colors or different numerical values. (see FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶38, where “controller 202 may graphically indicate regions to be swept out (excavated) by the sequences 400a-d by displaying appropriately-positioned, shaded, cross-hatched, and/or colored strips on monitor 116.”)
As to claim 4,
the modified Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the hardware processor (202) being further configured to display, on the display, the difference between the high recommendability and the low recommendability by using a heat map.
The Koch publication discloses that “controller 202 may receive a current location of machine 100 on excavation site 114. Signals from terrain map 206 may indicate plan lines 308 delineating a 30 feet long by 20 feet wide by 10 feet deep rectangular foundation to be dug at a certain location on site 114. Additionally, the signals from terrain map 206 may indicate that the targeted work surface terrain 304 is relatively flat. Further, signals from pre-existing map 216 may indicate that an underground water pipe 118a, 1 foot in diameter and 6 feet below the work surface 304, extends across a first side of site 114.” (See ¶17 – ¶18 and ¶51.) Such use of terrain map 206 suggests the display device being further configured to display difference between the high recommendability and the low recommendability by using a heat map.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Koch publication with a heat map to display, on the display, the difference between the high recommendability and the low recommendability, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
As to claim 5,
the Koch publication discloses the hardware processor (202) being further configured to display a location in the work range of the work machine where recommendability shows a maximal value. (see FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34 et seq.)
As to claim 7,
the Koch publication discloses the high recommendability and the low recommendability are defined in association with job efficiency or safety of the work machine. (see FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34 et seq.)
As to claim 9,
the modified Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the hardware processor (202) being further configured to visually recommend, on the display (116), a plurality of potential target work locations in a time sequence based on the information about the current shape of the object in the work range of the work machine.
The Koch publication discloses that “[c]ontroller 202 may also provide real-time updates to terrain map 206, including changes made to the terrain at site 114 as excavation takes place. In other words, as implement 102 removes material from a location on site 114, terrain map 206 may be updated, based on the positions of implement 102, to show a reduced elevation thereof accordingly.” (See ¶23.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the hardware processor being further configured to visually recommend, on the display, a plurality of potential target work locations in a time sequence based on the information about the current shape of the object in the work range of the work machine.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that the hardware processor is further configured to visually recommend, on the display, a plurality of potential target work locations in a time sequence based on the information about the current shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
As to claim 10,
the modified Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the hardware processor (202) being further configured to visually recommend, on the display, the target work location in the work range of the work machine, and a path that a working part of the work device follows when the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on the information about the current shape of the object.
The Koch publication discloses that “[c]ontroller 202 may show an image or icon of machine 100 traversing a determined path, or otherwise moving from a given position to a recommended position 312a-d, on monitor 116.” (See ¶23.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure of machine 100 traversing a determined path, or otherwise moving from a given position to a recommended position suggests the hardware processor being further configured to visually recommend, on the display, the target work location in the work range of the work machine, and a path that a working part of the work device follows when the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on the information about the current shape of the object.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that hardware processor is further configured to visually recommend, on the display, the target work location in the work range of the work machine, and a path that a working part of the work device follows when the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on the information about the current shape of the object, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
As to claim 11,
the modified Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the hardware processor being further configured to display, on the display, an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by overlaying the image of the recommended work location over an image showing the current shape of the object.
The Koch publication discloses that “[c]ontroller 202 may determine and recommend to the operator, by way of monitor 116, one or more optimum machine placement positions 312a-d from which excavation may be efficiently accomplished; see ¶35, where “Controller 202 may determine and recommend positions 312a-d based on the received location of obstacles 118, received machine position, received information regarding the predetermined task, received information regarding terrain of the excavation site 114, and known kinematics and geometry of implement 102 and/or linkage system 104.” (See FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34 et seq.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the display device being further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by overlaying the image of the recommended work location over an image showing the current shape of the object.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display, an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by overlaying the image of the recommended work location over an image showing the current shape of the object, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
As to claim 12,
the modified Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the hardware processor being further configured to display, on the display, an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine, within a field of view of a user of the work machine who is viewing the work range of the work machine from a cockpit of the work machine.
The Koch publication discloses that “[m]achine 100 may further include an operator cabin 108.” (See ¶13.) The Koch publication discloses that the “[o]perator cabin 108 may be an enclosure that houses a machine operator interface. The operator interface may include a seat and one or more operator control devices located in proximity to the seat. An operator may use the operator control devices to control functions of machine 100, such as, for example, to position and orient implement 102, and control driven traction device 110, and/or steerable traction device 112 to remove earthen material from excavation site 114. Operator cabin 108 may or may not be substantially sealed from environmental conditions in which work machine 100 operates. Operator cabin 108 may further include a monitor 116 configured to responsively and actively display a location of machine 100, a location of implement 102 and/or linkage system 104, and/or excavation site 114. Monitor 114 [sic] may be configured to display other information relevant to machine functionality or operation to the operator.” (See ¶14 – ¶15.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the hardware processor being further configured to display, on the display, an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine, within a field of view of a user of the work machine who is viewing the work range of the work machine from a cockpit of the work machine.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Koch publication so that hardware processor is further configured to display, on the display, an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine, within a field of view of a user of the work machine who is viewing the work range of the work machine from a cockpit of the work machine, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Koch publication in view of the Eguchi et al. publication and the Zhang et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0224980 A1 to Krabach et al. (herein after “Krabach et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 6,
the modified Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the hardware processor being further configured to display, on the display, an indication that no work location is recommendable when no work location in the work range of the work machine shows relatively high recommendability with respect to another predetermined criterion.
The Krabach et al. publication discloses “[a] machine cognition workflow engine and a recommendation subsystem are provided in a computing system. The workflow engine receives a plurality of prompts, extracts a message and a context of each of the plurality of prompts, for each prompt, generates a workflow instance according to a recommended workflow definition that specifies a plurality of calls to one or more components, and for each prompt, executes the generated workflow instance to perform the calls to the one or more components to thereby generate responses for the plurality of prompts. The recommendation subsystem evaluates the responses to generate a score for each response generated by the workflow instances, receives a request from the machine cognition workflow engine for the recommended workflow definition for a current prompt, and outputs the recommended workflow definition to the machine cognition workflow engine based on the scores of responses generated by the workflow instances.” (See Abstract.)(Emphasis added.) “Turning to FIG. 2, a detailed view of the processes performed by the machine cognition workflow engine 24 and the machine cognition workflow evaluation and recommendation subsystem 42 is illustrated. A task prediction module 56 of the workflow engine 24 receives a prompt 30 including the extracted message 32 and the extracted context 34 as input, and generates a predicted task 60, which is received by a workflow definition requester 58 of the workflow engine 24. The task prediction module 56 is configured to generate the predicted task 60 which is to be accomplished by the prompt 30. The workflow definition requester 58 sends the predicted task 60 to a performance database 64 of the workflow recommendation module 50 as a request for a recommended workflow definition 44 for the predicted task 60, and receives a workflow identifier 62 as a response. Based on the workflow identifier 62, the workflow recommendation module 50 determines the recommended workflow definition 44 for the predicted task 60 among a plurality of workflow definitions 70. The performance database 64 may be configured to respond by returning the workflow identifier 62 for the recommended workflow definition 44 or with an indication that no recommendation is able to be made.” (See 25.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the display device being further configured to display an indication that no work location is recommendable when no work location in the work range of the work machine shows relatively high recommendability with respect to a predetermined criterion.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Koch publication so that display device is further configured to display an indication that no work location is recommendable when no work location in the work range of the work machine shows relatively high recommendability with respect to a predetermined criterion, as suggested by the Krabach et al. publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Koch publication in view of the Eguchi et al. publication and the Zhang et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0238828 A1 to Takahama et al. (herein after “Takahama et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 13,
the modified Koch publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the hardware processor being further configured to display, on the display, an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by projecting the image of the recommended target work location over the work range of the work machine.
The Takahama et al. publication discloses “[a] captured image acquisition unit acquires an image captured by an imaging device provided at a place of a work machine where a bucket is included in an imaging range. A posture acquisition unit acquires posture information of the bucket. A topography acquisition unit acquires topographical information indicating a three-dimensional shape of a construction target of the work machine. A projected image generation unit generates, based on the posture information of the bucket and the topographical information, a projected image obtained by projecting teeth of the bucket on the construction target. A display control unit outputs a display signal for displaying by superimposing the projected image on a place where at least the bucket appears, in the captured image.” (See Abstract.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the display device being further configured to display an
image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine
by projecting the image of the recommended target work location over the work range
of the work machine.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Koch publication so that hardware processor is further configured to display an image of a recommended target work location in the work range of the work machine by projecting the image of the recommended target work location over the work range of the work machine, as suggested by the Takahama et al. publication, in order to facilitate providing machine placement recommendations.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0175244 A1 to Bhupatiraju (herein after “Bhupatiraju publication”) in view of the Koch publication, the Eguchi et al. publication and the Zhang et al. publication.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 14,
the Bhupatiraju publication discloses a remote operation assisting device (48)(see FIG. 1 and ¶67 – ¶68) comprising:
an operating part including an operating lever (“shift lever” or “joystick”) and configured to allow a user to remotely operate a work machine (24) having a work device (“functional tool”) for changing a shape of an object in a work range of the work machine (see generally FIG. 1 and ¶67 – ¶69);
a communication interface circuit (46) configured to transmit information about an operating state of the operating part to the work machine (see FIG. 1 and ¶67, where “the transmitter 46 communicates with a remote controller 48”); and
a display (44)(see FIG. 1 and ¶67 – ¶68).
The Bhupatiraju publication, however, does not disclose
a hardware processor (202) configured to visually recommend, on the display, a target work location where the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on information about a current shape of the object (see FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34, where “controller 202 may determine and recommend to the operator, by way of monitor 116, one or more optimum machine placement positions 312a-d from which excavation may be efficiently accomplished; see ¶35, where “Controller 202 may determine and recommend positions 312a-d based on the received location of obstacles 118, received machine position, received information regarding the predetermined task, received information regarding terrain of the excavation site 114, and known kinematics and geometry of implement 102 and/or linkage system 104”). (Emphasis added.)
The Bhupatiraju publication, however, does not disclose
a hardware processor configured to visually recommend, on the display, a target work location where the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on information about a current shape of the object, using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is associated with the shape of the object and that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with a higher level of expertise than a predetermined criterion.
The Koch publication, on the other hand, discloses that “controller 202 may determine and recommend to the operator, by way of monitor 116, one or more optimum machine placement positions 312a-d from which excavation may be efficiently accomplished. (See FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34.) The Koch publication also discloses that “[c]ontroller 202 may determine and recommend positions 312a-d based on the received location of obstacles 118, received machine position, received information regarding the predetermined task, received information regarding terrain of the excavation site 114, and known kinematics and geometry of implement 102 and/or linkage system 104”. (See FIGS. 4A-4D and ¶34.)(Emphasis added.) The Koch publication further discloses that “controller 202 may plan and recommend, by way of monitor 116, a sequence of excavation passes 400a-d at each of recommended machine positions 312a-d, respectively, to [change the shape of or] remove material from excavation site 114”). (See ¶38.)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosures suggest a hardware processor configured to visually recommend, on the display, a target work location where the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on information about a current shape of the object.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Bhupatiraju publication with a hardware processor configured to visually recommend, on the display, a target work location where the work device changes the shape of the object in the work range of the work machine, based on information about a current shape of the object, as suggested by the Koch publication, in order to provide an excavation control system that provides machine placement recommendations.
The modified Bhupatiraju publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is associated with the shape of the object.
Using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is associated with the shape of the object is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Eguchi et al. publication who discloses an “obstacle detection unit 213 [that] extracts the feature amount from each captured image acquired by the acquisition unit 211. The obstacle detection unit 213 detects an obstacle from the captured image based on the extracted feature amount and the obstacle dictionary data. Exemplary examples of an obstacle detection method include pattern matching, object detection processing based on machine learning, or the like.”
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Bhupatiraju publication to use a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data associated with the shape of the object, as suggested by the Eguchi et al. publication, in order to facilitate identifying objects in the environment.
The modified Bhupatiraju publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with a higher level of expertise than a predetermined criterion.
Using a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with a higher level of expertise is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Zhang et al. publication who discloses that “device 190 may train the machine learning model using a supervised training procedure that includes receiving input to the machine learning model from a subject matter expert (e.g., one or more operators associated with machine 105 and/or the one or more machines), which may reduce an amount of time, an amount of processing resources, and/or the like to train the machine learning model relative to an unsupervised training procedure.” (See ¶66.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Bhupatiraju publication to use a trained model that has been machine-learned using training data that is modeled on operation of the work machine by an operator with a higher level of expertise than a predetermined criterion, as suggested by the Zhang et al. publication, in order to facilitate identifying objects in the environment.
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.
Examiner's Note: The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: 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 & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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 the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application' s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights