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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation, the previous 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation is maintained in light of Applicant’s remarks and claim language.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light of the present claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection, the previous 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn in light of the present claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 102 rejection, Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The previous 35 USC 102 rejection is withdrawn in light of the present claim amendments. A new ground of rejection is made in view of US 2025/0000003 (DiBiase) necessitated by amendment.
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: determination processing unit that determines…; notification processing unit that notifies…; selection restraint processing unit that controls… in claims 12-13.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240177494 (“Bhupatiraju”) in view of US 20250000003 (“DiBiase”).
As per claim(s) 1, Bhupatiraju discloses a method for controlling a work vehicle, the method comprising:
determining a match or mismatch between first information about a first work machine detachably attached to the work vehicle at a first time point prior to a current time point and second information about a second work machine detachably attached to the work vehicle at the current time point (see at least [0065]: controller 40 determines a candidate implement contour 142, [0066]: controller 40 compares the determined candidate implement contour 142 with one or more stored implement contours (SICs), [0069]: system 20 may comprise a store or library 50 containing the contours of different implements previously identified from images captured by camera 28, [0071]: Library 50 may reside locally on tractor 24 or may be remote from tractor 24, [0072]: candidate implement contour (CIC) identified or determined in block 114 may not match any of the current SICs contained in library 50, [0073]: control signals may be output in response to the particular CIC not matching or not sufficiently matching any prior SICs in library 50. In some implementations, the control signals may be output in response to the CIC of implement 70 matching or sufficiently matching a particular SIC in library 50);
notifying a result of the determining (see at least [0038]: comparison of the candidate implement contour to a previously stored implement contour may result in an operator of the tractor being provided with a notification, warning or recommendation…notification may inform the operator of the type/version/state of the implement currently attached to the tractor, [0073]: control signals may be output in response to the particular CIC not matching or not sufficiently matching any prior SICs in library 50. In some implementations, the control signals may be output in response to the CIC of implement 70 matching or sufficiently matching a particular SIC in library 50, [0105]: controller 40 may notify the operator of the particular identified type of implement currently attached tractor 24, may provide the operator with the current width other dimensions of implement 24 or may provide the operator with information based upon the identified type/version/state of the implement attached tractor 24).
Bhupatiraju does not explicitly disclose controlling a start of autonomous travel of the work vehicle based on the result.
However, DiBiase teaches controlling a start of autonomous travel of the work vehicle based on the result (see at least [0026]: machine 1 is provided with an RFID unit 6 (of a known type) stably mounted on the tool 5 and configured to carry out a data exchange with a reading unit 7 (of a known type) when the tool 5 is correctly arranged on the connection and support device 4, [0036]: machine compatibility code obtained from a reference to which the control unit analyses the compatibility between the tool 5 and the machine 1 in order to ensure user safety, [0043]: activate the safety or stopping of the machine 1 and/or of the tool 5 if a dangerous situation occurs, [0048] stop the tool 5, [0049] stop the machine 1, [0068]: Operational operation of the machine 1 is therefore enabled at the end of the step and a step of machine use is started. The machine therefore adjusts the settings of its operating units 9 fully automatically and therefore quickly and safely, [0069]: An incorrect manual setting of operating units 9 of the machine 1 is therefore prevented (for example, too high a rotational speed of a motor, too high a pressure generated by a pump) can damage the tool 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Bhupatiraju by incorporating the teachings of DiBiase with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure user safety (see at least [0036]). The combination would yield predictable results.
Claims 11-12 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim(s) 2, Bhupatiraju discloses wherein the determining is performed for each type of the work machine (see at least [0030]: recognize or identify the particular type/version/state of implement by comparing a contour of a candidate implement to the stored or saved contours of previously identified implements, [0055]: Implement 70 may be one of multiple possible different implements that may be releasably connected or attached to tractor 24. Each of such different implements…).
As per claim(s) 3, Bhupatiraju discloses identifying a type of the work machine (see at least [0030]: recognize or identify the particular type/version/state of implement by comparing a contour of a candidate implement to the stored or saved contours of previously identified implements).
As per claim(s) 4, Bhupatiraju discloses wherein the first information and the second information are identified at timing at which a specific condition related to an action of the work vehicle is satisfied (see at least [0095]: controller 40 determines whether the implement recognition mode has been entered. Controller 40 determines whether or not an operator has requested recognition of an implement currently attached to the tractor, [0096]: if the implement recognition mode has been entered, controller 40 awaits motion of the implement).
As per claim(s) 5, Bhupatiraju discloses wherein the result of the determining is notified by display on a display screen (see at least [0054]: Operator interface 34…a device that outputs information, such as a notification…a speaker for auditory output, a monitor or screen for outputting images and/or text, and/or one or more lights), and
the display screen includes at least information about the second work machine (see at least [0038]: notification may inform the operator of the type/version/state of the implement currently attached to the tractor).
As per claim(s) 6, Bhupatiraju discloses wherein, as the result of the determining, notifying at least a match between the first information and the second information is possible (see at least [0038]: comparison of the candidate implement contour to a previously stored implement contour may result in an operator of the tractor being provided with a notification, warning or recommendation…notification may inform the operator of the type/version/state of the implement currently attached to the tractor).
As per claim(s) 13, Bhupatiraju discloses a work vehicle comprising:
the work vehicle control system according to claim 12 (see at least [0050]: automatic implement recognition system 20 facilitates automatic recognition of an implement attached to a tractor…System 20 comprises tractor 24, camera 28, and controller 40. Tractor 24 comprises configured to push, pull or carry an implement (sometimes also referred to as an attachment) using a connection 69, [0051]: Operation component 32 comprises a component of tractor 20 that carries out an operation which may alter the state of tractor 24);
a machine body to which the work machine is detachably attached (see at least [0037]: automatic recognition may facilitate faster implement hook up and/or disconnection, [0050]: automatic implement recognition system 20 facilitates automatic recognition of an implement attached to a tractor, [0055]: Implement 70 may be one of multiple possible different implements that may be releasably connected or attached to tractor 24).
Claim(s) 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhupatiraju and DiBiase, and further in view of US 20230292663 (“Hodson”).
As per claim(s) 7, Bhupatiraju discloses notifying setting information related to a setting of at least one of the work vehicle and the work machine in addition to notification of the result of the determining (see at least [0038]: notification may inform the operator of the type/version/state of the implement currently attached to the tractor, [0039]: notification may be in the form of a recommendation recommending that the operator manually provide input or commands to adjust the operation of the tractor and/are the implement to recommended operational settings or states) but does not explicitly disclose when the first information and the second information do not match with each other, notifying setting information related to a setting of at least one of the work vehicle and the work machine in addition to notification of the result of the determining.
However, Hodson teaches when the first information and the second information do not match with each other, notifying setting information related to a setting of at least one of the work vehicle and the work machine in addition to notification of the result of the determining (see at least [0073]: if there are no matching combination records 190, then this is indicated to data selection system 230 and surfacing logic 256 illustratively surfaces any available options for operator 100. This is indicated by block 324…showing the last settings used by operator 100 on any type of machine, if those are available…settings that may have been used by other, high performing operators using other machines or implements, [0074]: operator can provide an input accepting, but modifying the settings as indicated by block 338, [0076]: outputs the update to update the corresponding machine/implement/operator combination record 210 in data store 206 on implement 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Bhupatiraju by incorporating the teachings of Hodson with a reasonable expectation of success in order that the machine and implement may have the most up to date settings data corresponding to the combination and to provide improved machine and implement operation (see at least [0007]). The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 10, Bhupatiraju discloses notifying information about at least one of timing and content of work performed by the work vehicle at the first time point (see at least [0030]: sufficient match of the contour of the candidate implement to a particular one of the previously identified implements may result in the candidate implement being identified as being of the same type/version/state of the particular previously identified implement, [0032]: store or library of previously identified implements may have a first stored contour for the implement when its portion is in an extended state and a second stored contour for the same implement when its portion is in a retracted state; instant specification, [0038]: notification may inform the operator of the type/version/state of the implement currently attached to the tractor, [0168]: "content of the work" described here includes at least one of the type of work (spreading work, inter-plant weeding, inter-row weeding, or the like), the range (location) in which the work was performed, the worker (operator), and the like).
Bhupatiraju discloses the state of a the particular previously identified implement wherein the state may be an extended or retracted state. Should it be found Bhupatiraju does not explicitly disclose notifying information about at least one of timing and content of work,
Hodson teaches notifying information about at least one of timing and content of work (see at least [0073]: if there are no matching combination records 190, then this is indicated to data selection system 230 and surfacing logic 256 illustratively surfaces any available options for operator 100. This is indicated by block 324. This can include such things as data showing the last settings used by operator 100 on any type of machine, if those are available…It can include the settings that may have been used by other, high performing operators using other machines or implements.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Bhupatiraju by incorporating the teachings of Hodson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide available options for an operator and to provide improved work machine and work implement operation. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhupatiraju and DiBiase, and further in view of US 20180266082 (“Tanishige”).
As per claim(s) 8, Bhupatiraju discloses wherein a sensor is attachable to the work vehicle in accordance with a type of the work machine (see at least [0081]: parameter 204 associated with the matched SIC or its identifier may call for controller 40 to monitor particular components of tractor 24 or of implement 70 or states/conditions of tractor 24 implement 70, [0137]: parameter may indicate what components and such or conditions of implement 800-1 should be monitored with one or more sensors provided on implement 800-1 and in communication with controller 540), but does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising notifying an attachment state of the sensor corresponding to the type of the work machine.
However, Tanishige teaches wherein a sensor is attachable to the work vehicle in accordance with a type of the work machine (see at least abstract: determination unit determines whether or not an attachment has a sensor based on information on an attachment, [0093]: Determination unit 522 determines whether or not a currently attached attachment is an attachment having a sensor based on information on the attachment stored in monitor controller 531 and information on the attachment currently attached to work implement 104, [0101]: When the item “Auto-Tilt bucket” is selected from among the three items shown in FIG. 9, it is determined that an attachment with a sensor has been selected), and
the method further comprising notifying an attachment state of the sensor corresponding to the type of the work machine (see at least [0102]: When it is determined that an attachment with a sensor has been selected (YES in step S2), the process proceeds to step S3 and whether or not a sensor signal has been received is determined, [0103]: When it is determined that a sensor signal has not been received (NO in step S3), the process proceeds to step S4 and it is determined that an abnormal condition such as a failure of the sensor itself or break has occurred. A notification about the abnormal condition is then given in step S5. When the attachment has a plurality of sensors, a notification about in which of the plurality of sensors the abnormal condition has occurred is given).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Bhupatiraju by incorporating the teachings of Tanishige with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily and quickly sense an abnormal condition of a sensor provided in a work implement and to provide improved control of a work vehicle. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhupatiraju, DiBiase, and Tanishige, and further in view of Hodson and US 20230255137 (“McMahan”).
As per claim(s) 9, Bhupatiraju does not explicitly disclose notifying sensor setting information related to a setting of the sensor in addition to notification of the attachment state of the sensor when the attachment state of the sensor does not correspond to the type of the work machine.
However, Tanishige teaches notifying sensor information related to the sensor in addition to notification of the attachment state of the sensor when the attachment state of the sensor does not correspond to the type of the work machine (see at least [0102]: When it is determined that an attachment with a sensor has been selected (YES in step S2), the process proceeds to step S3 and whether or not a sensor signal has been received is determined, [0103]: When it is determined that a sensor signal has not been received (NO in step S3), the process proceeds to step S4 and it is determined that an abnormal condition such as a failure of the sensor itself or break has occurred. A notification about the abnormal condition is then given in step S5. When the attachment has a plurality of sensors, a notification about in which of the plurality of sensors the abnormal condition has occurred is given, Fig. 11: abnormal condition of sensor…do inspection and maintenance after operation ends…, instant specification [0164]: the notification processing unit 75 notifies the sensor setting information related to the setting of the sensor in addition to the notification of the attachment state of the sensor. For example, when the rear contact sensor 628 remains detached in a state where the spreader 401 is attached as the work machine 400, the notification processing unit 75 displays the message such as "Please attach the rear bumper" indicating the sensor setting 20 information related to the setting of the rear contact sensor 628 on the sensor check screen Dp2, [1065]: "Attached attachment is different from that during the previous work" or "Please remember to perform initial settings of the attachment and the sensor" prompting the settings of the work machine 400 (attachment) and (a sensor of) the work vehicle 1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Bhupatiraju by incorporating the teachings of Tanishige with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily and quickly sense an abnormal condition of a sensor provided in a work implement and to provide improved control of a work vehicle. The combination would yield predictable results.
However, Hodson teaches notifying setting information related to a setting (see at least [0073]: if there are no matching combination records 190, then this is indicated to data selection system 230 and surfacing logic 256 illustratively surfaces any available options for operator 100. This is indicated by block 324…showing the last settings used by operator 100 on any type of machine, if those are available…settings that may have been used by other, high performing operators using other machines or implements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Bhupatiraju by incorporating the teachings of Hodson with a reasonable expectation of success in order that the machine and implement may have the most up to date settings data and to provide improved machine and implement operation. The combination would yield predictable results.
Further, McMahan teaches sensor setting information related to a setting of the sensor (see at least abstract: display unit is operationally connected to an agricultural implement to provide inputs and operational controls, as well as status and set up, of the implement, [0207]: may utilize the implement control system…setting up and configuring cameras to be used with an agricultural implement wherein camera data captured by the cameras can be displayed to a user via a display unit…ability to configure cameras by naming them and determining in what manner their captured camera data appears on a display unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Bhupatiraju by incorporating the teachings of McMahan with a reasonable expectation of success in order to configure cameras to be used with an agricultural implement and provide an improved interactive graphical user interface showing operations related to one or more agricultural implements and providing data and feedback information. The combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20040145241 (see at least abstract, [0593]: incorrect operations such as operating an attachment in an improper manner can be prevented by start-up locking the construction machine).
US 20250129579 (see at least abstract, [0050]: a baseline or initial weight and/or weight wear profile of the coupled work tool can be provided to the information processing system 50, for instance, to the storage unit 54, by manual entry from the operator, by download via the communication system 48 or the communication unit 53, automatically via work cycle monitoring, and/or via a service test, [0055]: different type of work tool may alternatively correspond to a decrease in weight of the newly coupled work tool compared to the previous work tool, [0068]: controller 25 can determine that the weight of the portion(s) of the front linkage 4, such as the weight of the work tool 7, 127, has decreased or increased, and that such decrease or increase corresponds to unsuitable wear of the portion(s) of the front linkage 4, damage to the portion(s) of the front linkage 4, a change in configuration to the front linkage 4 (e.g., a replacement of the work tool 7 or the work tool 127), or payload remaining in or on the work tool 7 or the work tool 127, [0069]: a notification of can be output and indicative of either excessive wear of the portion(s) of the front linkage 4 or a tool change, [0070]: a notification of can be output and indicative of either carryback or a change of the work tool).
US 20210125123 (see at least [0067]: “MISSING TOOL OR PART” (e.g., for identifying that the machine lacks the correct work tool to perform the assigned task and/or that the machine is missing a part), [0087]: if the person at the worksite verifies at 1034 that the machine is in a suitable condition for performing the assigned task, the example process 900 may include communicating an availability signal to worksite controller indicative of validation of availability of the machine to perform the assigned task. For example, the person at the worksite may use the mobile device, in response to the machine condition prompt, to enter an indication that the machine is in a suitable condition to perform the assigned task, thereby generating a signal indicative that the machine is in a suitable condition, which may be communicated to the worksite controller).
US 12114587 (see at least Fig. 8 (806): controller 604 determines, based on the sensor input provided in block 804, whether movement of each of the ground engagement tools 130 is detected by the sensors 30…If the controller 604 determines in block 806 that movement of each of the tools 130 is detected by the sensors 302, the method 800 subsequently proceeds to block 808 or block 814, column 22 lines 19-28: event notification may indicate that (i) the movement of all tools 130 are outside of, and/or inconsistent with, the performance history data associated therewith (i.e., as determined in block 822), (ii) the settings of the tools 130 have not been changed (i.e., as determined in block 824), and (iii) the external environment has not changed (i.e., as determined in block 828). In addition, in block 830, the controller 604 generates a log or flag associated with the event, which may be displayed on the dashboard 638 and/or stored in a database accessible by the controller 604).
US 8521371 (see at least column 5 lines 37-40: implement selector 160 may include or embody an electronic tool identification sensor 161 that detects a corresponding electronic identification tag (such as an RFID tag) attached to, or embedded within, work tool 114, column 11 lines 20-25: Once the current work tool has been identified, the current work tool is compared with the first work tool to determine whether a transformation of the first input control signals needs to be performed (Step 530). According to one embodiment, the "default" work tool may be specified as a particular work tool (e.g., a bucket)).
US 20210105940 (see at least [0064]: Connection detector 220 then detects that machine 104 is connected to an implement—in this example, implement 110. Detecting connection to an implement is indicated by block 274 in the flow diagram of FIG. 4, [0065]: data synchronization system 226 synchronizes previously unknown combination records 190 between the two machines. Thus, records 210 that were previously unknown by machine 104 are synchronized from implement 110. Records 190 that were previously unknown on implement 110 are synchronized from machine 104. This is indicated by block 277. Operator data component 240 identifies combination records 190 that are to be synchronized based upon the operator identification (e.g., a new combination for this operator), [0086]: displaying the configuration/settings data).
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 ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights