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 action is in reply to the Application Number 19/029,698 filed on 01/17/2025.
• Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the Remarks filed on 05/28/2026.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/059, 222, filed on 11/26/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2026, 08/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the abstract has more than 150 words.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control unit in claims 1, 8, 10, and collision mechanism in claims 3-5, and rolling devices, sliding device , displacement device in claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALIK (US20140086714A1) in view of Rottinghaus (US20120267404A1), and in further view of KUNIO (JPS60191855A).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 10:
MALIK teaches:
A remotely operated delivery vehicle for transport of at least one storage container in an automated storage and retrieval system which is configured to store a plurality of stacks of storage containers in a grid, the remotely operated delivery vehicle comprising: (See MALIK, para[0006],” the dynamically automated warehousing system also includes a plurality of three-axis palletized load transporters, each arranged to displace palletized loads along three mutually perpendicular axes”, para[151], “the dynamically configurable automated warehousing system preferably includes a warehouse controller 700, typically in communication with one or more computers 702, which may be remotely located” and para [0005],” each of the plurality of horizontal storage levels defining a grid of mutually adjacent palletized load storage/travel locations”)
a vehicle body comprising a motor for driving a plurality of rolling devices for moving the remotely operated delivery vehicle in a horizontal plane; (See MALIK, Para [0062],” The transporter 200 preferably comprises a generally planar, generally square chassis 202 onto which are mounted four X-axis driving assemblies 204. Each X-axis driving assembly 204 preferably includes an electric step motor 206, mounted on chassis 202 for selectably driving a wheel 216.”)
a control unit for controlling the remotely operated delivery vehicle; (See MALIK, Para[0066], “A transporter controller 290 preferably governs operation of the various electric motors and is associated with a transporter wireless communicator 292 for control and status feedback communication with other parts of the automated warehousing system”, para[151], “the dynamically configurable automated warehousing system preferably includes a warehouse controller 700, typically in communication with one or more computers 702, which may be remotely located)
MALIK does not explicitly teach, but Rottinghaus teaches:
and a container carrier displaceably mounted to the vehicle body, wherein the container carrier is configured to receive a storage container; (See Rottinghaus, Fig.2 and Para [0035], “The storage system 10 of the present invention includes a sub-frame 16 (See FIG. 2) that is securely mounted to the rear of the chassis of vehicle 12…. the sub-frame 16 is configured to support a number of modular storage containers 18.”, and para [40], “the mounting brackets 52 may be mounted to the subframes 22 a, 22 b, 22 c and 22 d, and movable to varying positions”) Examiner note: Rottinghaus teaches that the sub-frame 16 and body portion 20 are configured as a container carrier in order to receive a storage contain within the container carrier. Rottinghaus also teaches that the container carrier is movable (displaceable) along the mounting brackets 52 in order to accommodate different positions of the chassis members.
PNG
media_image1.png
709
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MALIK with these above teachings from Rottinghaus in order to include a container carrier displaceably mounted to the vehicle body, wherein the container carrier is configured to receive a storage container. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate MALIK’s dynamically automated warehousing system with Rottinghaus’ modular vehicular storage system as “securely holding any number of items for transport by the vehicle.” (Rottinghaus, BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION)
MALIK does not explicitly teach, but KUNIO teaches:
wherein the remotely operated delivery vehicle comprises a safety feature arranged to cause the control unit to perform an action of operating the remotely operated delivery vehicle, (See KUNIO, para[0001], “It is equipped with a collision detection device to ensure safety by slowing down and suddenly stopping” and “As a result, the control circuit outputs a signal such as a brake command necessary for operation, and also issues an alarm command to deal with the vehicle collision.”)
in an event that a collision is detected in which a force acting on the container carrier causes displacement of the container carrier, relative to the vehicle body, from an undisplaced position relative to the vehicle body to a displaced position relative to the vehicle body. (See KUNIO, Fig. 2 and para[0001],” and “if the transport vehicle collides with an obstacle during movement, the bumper 6 contacts the obstacle, moves toward the vehicle body 1 against the biasing force of the spring 7, and contacts the detection sensor 8, or the proximity activates the detection sensor 8 .”) Examiner note: KUNIO teaches a container carries equipped with a displaceable spring bumper in Fig.2. In an event that a collision is detected in which a force acting on the container carrier spring bumper to cause displacement of the spring, from an undisplaced position a displaced position relative to the vehicle body to contact the detection sensor 8, or the proximity activates the detection sensor 8. As a result, the control circuit outputs a signal such as a brake command necessary for operation, and also issues an alarm command to deal with the vehicle collision.
PNG
media_image2.png
281
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MALIK with these above teachings from KUNIO in order to include wherein the remotely operated delivery vehicle comprises a safety feature arranged to cause the control unit to perform an action of operating the remotely operated delivery vehicle, in an event that a collision is detected in which a force acting on the container carrier causes displacement of the container carrier, relative to the vehicle body, from an undisplaced position relative to the vehicle body to a displaced position relative to the vehicle body. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate MALIK’s dynamically automated warehousing system with KUNIO’s collision detecting device in unmanned carrier vehicle as “to ensure safety by slowing down and suddenly stopping.” (KUNIO, BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION)
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 11:
MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 10. MALIK does not explicitly teach, but KUNIO teaches:
The remotely operated delivery vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the action of operating the remotely operated delivery vehicle comprises at least one of shutting off the motor, reversing a moving direction of the rolling devices, and reducing a speed of the rolling devices. (See KUNIO, para[0001], “It is equipped with a collision detection device to ensure safety by slowing down and suddenly stopping” and “When the detection sensor 8 operates, the traveling control electric circuit is cut off, and an alarm such as a separately provided alarm is issued.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MALIK with these above teachings from KUNIO in order to include wherein the action of operating the remotely operated delivery vehicle is at least one of shutting off the motor, reversing a moving direction of the rolling devices, or reducing a speed of the rolling devices. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate MALIK’s dynamically automated warehousing system with KUNIO’s collision detecting device in unmanned carrier vehicle as “to ensure safety by slowing down and suddenly stopping.” (KUNIO, BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION)
Regarding Claim 3:
MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. MALIK does not explicitly teach, but KUNIO teaches:
The remotely operated delivery vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the safety feature comprises a collision mechanism comprising a container carrier displacement device arranged to sense said displacement of the container carrier. (See KUNIO, para[0001], “if the transport vehicle collides with an obstacle during movement, the bumper 6 contacts the obstacle, moves toward the vehicle body 1 against the biasing force of the spring 7, and contacts the detection sensor 8, or the proximity activates the detection sensor 8 .”)
PNG
media_image2.png
281
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MALIK with these above teachings from KUNIO in order to include wherein the safety feature comprises a collision mechanism comprising a container carrier displacement device arranged to sense said displacement of the container carrier. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate MALIK’s dynamically automated warehousing system with KUNIO’s collision detecting device in unmanned carrier vehicle as “to ensure safety by slowing down and suddenly stopping.” (KUNIO, BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION)
Regarding Claim 4:
MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. MALIK does not explicitly teach, but KUNIO teaches:
The remotely operated delivery vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the collision mechanism is a pressure sensor. (See KUNIO, para[0001],” a pressure sensor to detect a collision of the vehicle body”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MALIK with these above teachings from KUNIO in order to include wherein the collision mechanism is a pressure sensor. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate MALIK’s dynamically automated warehousing system with KUNIO’s collision detecting device in unmanned carrier vehicle as “to ensure safety by slowing down and suddenly stopping.” (KUNIO, BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALIK (US20140086714A1) in view of Rottinghaus (US20120267404A1), and in further view of KUNIO (JPS60191855A) and Jiang (CN106625618A).
Regarding Claim 5:
MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. MALIK does not explicitly teach, but Jiang teaches:
The remotely operated delivery vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the collision mechanism is a sliding device connected to the container carrier which sliding device causes the safety feature to detect the collision when the sliding device slides from a first position to a second position. (See Jiang, Fig. 5 and Fig.8 and para [0074], “the collision sensing switch 30 includes a front sliding rod 31 ; when the collision component 10 is relatively displaced by an external collision force, the collision component 10 enters the contact area of the front sliding rod 31 and The front sliding rod 31 is driven to undergo relative displacement, so that the front sliding rod 31 triggers the collision sensing switch 30”) Examiner note: Jiang discloses a plural of slide rods arranged on the robot body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO with these above teachings from Jiang in order to include wherein the collision mechanism is a sliding device connected to the container carrier which sliding device causes the safety feature to detect the collision when the sliding device slides from a first position to a second position. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO’s dynamically automated warehousing system with Jiang’s anti-collision structure of robot as “provide an anti-collision structure and a robot to reduce the impact on the robot when a collision occurs and extend the service life of the robot” (Jiang, Background Technique)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALIK (US20140086714A1) in view of Rottinghaus (US20120267404A1), and in further view of KUNIO (JPS60191855A) and Tahira (US 20010014057 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. MALIK does not explicitly teach, but Tahira teaches:
The remotely operated delivery vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the container carrier displacement device comprises a first sliding part moveable in a first direction, and a second sliding part moveable in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction. (See Tahira, para [0056], “the sliding part 63 in a direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the slider 92”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO with these above teachings from Tahira in order to include wherein the container carrier displacement device comprises a first sliding part moveable in a first direction, and a second sliding part moveable in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO’s dynamically automated warehousing system with Tahira’s sliding system design in order to detect the collision during the operation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALIK (US20140086714A1) in view of Rottinghaus (US20120267404A1), and in further view of KUNIO (JPS60191855A) and Tahira (US 20010014057 A1), Jiang (CN106625618A).
Regarding Claim 7:
MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO, Tahira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6 . MALIK does not explicitly teach, but Jiang teaches:
The remotely operated delivery vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the second sliding part is arranged on a second track provided on the vehicle body for movement in the second direction, and a first plate is arranged on a first track provided on the second sliding part, for movement in the first direction. (See Jiang, Fig. 5 and Fig.8 and para [0074], “the collision sensing switch 30 includes a front sliding rod 31 ; when the collision component 10 is relatively displaced by an external collision force, the collision component 10 enters the contact area of the front sliding rod 31 and The front sliding rod 31 is driven to undergo relative displacement, so that the front sliding rod 31 triggers the collision sensing switch 30”, and Fig. 3-4 and para [0067], “the limiting component includes a positioning post 40 and a pressure plate 41 provided on the positioning post 40”) Examiner note: Jiang discloses a plural of slide rods arranged on the robot body which is able to move in the second direction. Jiang also discloses a plural of pressure plates is arranged on a track (the positioning post). One of the plates is able to move in the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO, Tahira with these above teachings from Jiang in order to include wherein the second sliding part is arranged on a second track provided on the vehicle body for movement in the second direction, and a first plate is arranged on a first track provided on the second sliding part, for movement in the first direction. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate MALIK in view of Rottinghaus, KUNIO’s dynamically automated warehousing system with Jiang’s anti-collision structure of robot as “provide an anti-collision structure and a robot to reduce the impact on the robot when a collision occurs and extend the service life of the robot” (Jiang, Background Technique)
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 10. Applicants argues that MALIK reference discloses a delivery vehicle, but lacks disclosure of a container carrier displaceably mounted to the vehicle body; Rottinghaus discloses such a displaceably mounted container carrier, but lacks the "safety feature", Kunio reference does not detect collisions by detecting the displacement of a container carrier relative to a vehicle body, as recited in claim 1.The Applicant further argues that the cited art of record would not have taught the skilled person in the art to create the quoted subject matter, alone or in combination with the other recitations of the independent claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the detailed 35 U.S.C. 103 analysis, MALIK teaches a remotely operated delivery vehicle for an automated storage and retrieval system having a vehicle body with motor-driven rolling devices. Rottinghaus teaches a container carrier/sub-frame mounted to the vehicle chassis that support modular storge container and is movable along mounting backets, thus providing a container carrier displaceably mounted to the vehicle body and configured to receive a storage container. KUNIO teaches a collision detection device in which a collision-induced displacement of a spring-based element toward the vehicle body actuates a detection sensor and causes the control circuitry to output a brake or stopping command, thereby providing a safety feature that causes the control circuit to perform an action of operating the vehicle when a collision is detected. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claimed limitation of “container carrier displacement ” safety feature encompasses structures where a container carrier assembly having associated collision detection element mounted is displaced relative to the vehicle body and this displacement is sensed to trigger a control action. In the proposed combination, MALIK’s warehouse vehicle and controller, Rottinghaus’ movable container carrier for storage containers, and KUNIO’s collision-induced displacement sensing and braking device are combined so that the movable carrier assembly carries the storage container and includes a spring-based collision detection mechanism element whose displacement toward the vehicle body in response to a collision is occurred and trigger the controller to perform a brake action. The Office action articulated a rational motivation to combine MALIK’s warehouse vehicle and controller, Rottinghaus’ movable container carrier for storage containers, and KUNIO’s collision-induced displacement sensing and braking device to ensure safety by slowing down or stopping the vehicle upon collision in an automated storage and retrieval environment. This rationale is supported by explicit teaching in the cited references regarding collision safety. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments concerning the lack of suggestion or motivation to combined MALIK, Rottinghaus and KUNIO are not persuasive, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 8 and 10 are maintained.
Dependent claims 2-4, 9 and 11.Applicant argues that claims 2-4, 9 and 11 are in condition for allowance because they depend from claim 1, 8 and 10 and therefore incorporate the limitation that allegedly distinguish the independent claims from the cited references. As explained above, the arguments directed to independent claims 1, 8 and 10 are not persuasive; the combination of MALIK, Rottinghaus and KUNIO continues to render these claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. Moreover, the Office action identified additional teaching in KUNIO corresponding to the dependent limitations and provided a rationale for including these features in the combined system to ensure safe operation. Because applicant’s arguments for dependent claims simply rely on the patentability of the independent claims without addressing additional teachings, they do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2-4, 9 and 11, which are therefore maintained.
Dependent claims 5-7. Applicant argues that there is “ no clear way to combine Jiang with KUNIO’s bumper”, then concludes that claims 5-7 are allowable because they depend from claim 1. As explained above, the arguments directed to independent claims 1, 8 and 10 are not persuasive; the combination of MALIK, Rottinghaus and KUNIO continues to render these claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. For claim 5, Jiang teaches a sliding rod that is driven to undergo relative displacement when a collision component is displaced y an external collision force, and this displacement triggers a collision sensing switch; this structure is used in the Office action as a ”sliding device”. For claims 6 and 7, Tahira teaches sliding parts moving in orthogonal directions, and Jiang teaches sliding rods and pressure plates arranged on track, which together correspond to the claimed first and second sliding parts and plates arranged on tracks for movement in orthogonal directions, with rationale provided for combined these features into the automated warehouse vehicle to detect collisions and reduce their impact. Because the base rejection of claim 1 is maintained and the additional limitations of claims 5-7 are taught or suggested by Jiang and Tahira with articulated motivation to combined. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of dependent claims 5-7 are maintained.
Objection to the abstract. Applicant has not provided a specific reason why the current abstract cannot reasonably be shortened less than 150 words while still accurately and concisely characterizing the invention. Accordingly, the objection to the abstract is maintained, and applicant is again required to amended the abstract to conform to 37 C.F.R. 172.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights