DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's application filed March 22, 2025. Claims 1-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings (Fig. 1-8) are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. The unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels” [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note]. Therefore, descripted text labels must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 INTERPRETATION
5. 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: “a comfortable braking determination unit”, “a hydraulic regeneration determination unit”, and “a comfortable braking control unit”, in claim 10.
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.
The examiner notes that the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function presented in the limitation is shown in at least fig 1 and specification “The control system 110 may request the target hydraulic braking force from the hydraulic brake unit 130, and the hydraulic brake unit 130 may send the actual hydraulic braking force to the control system 110”.
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.
Judicial Exception Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “A method for comfortable braking, comprising: determining a comfortable braking force based on an opening degree of a brake pedal of a vehicle; determining a hydraulic braking force and a regenerative braking force based on the comfortable braking force; and performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force”.
The limitations of claim 1 presented above, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a brake pedal” nothing in the claims elements precludes the steps from practically being performed as part of human activities. For example, “determining a comfortable braking force based on an opening degree of a brake pedal”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind where a person is mentally or physically able to control the brake pedal to generate a comfortable braking. Further, “determining a hydraulic braking force”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind where a person is mentally or physically able to control the force of a brake pedal. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, “performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force” is not a practical application because it is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic elements. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim lack of additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. The independent claims 2-9, 11-12 are also rejected for their dependency upon claim 1. Further, claim 10 is also rejected because they amount no more than the same mere instructions of the method of claim 1 in a system which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
10. Independent claim 1 recites “performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force” It is unclear how to determine a comfortable braking force. The specification dated 03/22/2025 does not define how this feature is determined. As a result of this ambiguity, the precise boundary of the claim cannot be determined. Therefore, the claims are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
11. Claims 2-9, 11-12 depend from claim 1 and therefore include the same limitation as claim 1 so they are rejected for the same reason.
12. Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 1 so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
14. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US 2022/0063417, in view of Ko et al. US 2022/0134888, hereinafter referred to as Lee and Ko, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method for comfortable braking, comprising:
determining a comfortable braking force based on an opening degree of a brake pedal of a vehicle (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 38, 37, “In connection with the exemplary embodiment, the hybrid control unit 110 may include as input information a brake pedal operation amount or a brake request from another controller”);
determining a hydraulic braking force and a regenerative braking force based on the comfortable braking force (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 46, 38, 37, “the hybrid control unit 110 can have the hydraulic braking command transmitted to the braking control unit 120 and the regenerative braking torque command transmitted to the motor control unit 130 as output values”); and
performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 46, 38, 37, “the regenerative braking is performed at the beginning of braking according to the braking situation, but the hydraulic braking is intervened at the end of braking and the regenerative braking is released. The intervention/release process between the regenerative braking and the hydraulic braking according to such braking progress may be referred to as "braking transition".”).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force.
However, Ko teaches performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force (See at least fig 1-9, ¶ 31, 44, 55, 64, 69, 73, 80, 86, 89, 91, 93, 95, 10, “The electric control unit is configured to variably control, in a regenerative braking mode and in a hydraulic braking mode, a ratio of increase to decrease of the pedal feel force (F RD) formed by the reaction disk for a pedal stroke to the pedal and a ratio of increase to a decrease of the pedal feel force (Fspring) formed by the pedal spring for a pedal stroke on the pedal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee and include performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force as taught by Ko because it would allow that when regenerative braking is performed, the hydraulic pressure is adjusted by the electric booster to correspond to the braking compensation amount by the regenerative braking (Ko ¶ 130).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the comfortable braking force comprises: determining a requested target braking force based on the opening degree of the brake pedal; and determining the comfortable braking force based on the target braking force, and the vehicle's speed, deceleration and slope value (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 46, 38, 37, 32, “satisfying a target complete vehicle speed of braking transition based on a maximum response slope of the hydraulic brake, and starting the braking transition at the determined start vehicle speed, so that more regenerative braking energy may be obtained”).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising: responding upon detecting that the regenerative braking force drops to zero; and increasing the hydraulic braking force to be equal to the target braking force (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 38, 37, 32, 46, “increase amount of braking torque per hour at which the hydraulic brake 140 can stably follow the control of the braking control unit 120, and may be a predetermined value by hardware specifications and tests of the hydraulic brake 140”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force comprises: acquiring a current hydraulic braking force of the vehicle;
determining a target regenerative braking force based on the comfortable braking force and the current hydraulic braking force (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 37, 32, 46, 38, “control the hydraulic brake 140 so that the hydraulic braking amount is executed in the hydraulic brake 140 according to the hydraulic braking command of the hybrid controller 110”);
determining the regenerative braking force based on the target regenerative braking force and the vehicle's speed and motor power (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 37, 32, 46, 38, 45, “The allowable amount of the regenerative braking may be determined based on the motor state information transmitted from the motor control unit 130,”); and
determining the hydraulic braking force based on the comfortable braking force and the regenerative braking force (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 37, 32, 46, 38, 45, 53, “the hybrid control unit 110 may output a braking amount command so that the hydraulic braking amount increases and the regenerative braking amount decreases along the maximum response slope”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein determining the regenerative braking force comprises: determining a maximum regenerative braking force based on the speed and the motor power of the vehicle; responding when the maximum regenerative braking force is greater than the target regenerative braking force, and using the target regenerative braking force as the regenerative braking force; and responding when the maximum regenerative braking force is less than or equal to the target regenerative braking force, and using the maximum regenerative braking force as the regenerative braking force (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 37, 32, 46, 38, 45, 53, 7, “tReferring to FIG. 1, in an initial braking period, an allowable amount of regenerative braking is used to the maximum. When the braking transition starts as a vehicle speed decreases, the regenerative braking amount decreases and the hydraulic braking amount increases within the range in which the sum of the regenerative braking amount and the hydraulic braking amount satisfies the required braking amount”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the method according to claim 5, further comprising: responding when the current hydraulic braking force is less than the minimum value of the comfortable braking force, triggering full-performance comfortable braking; responding when the current hydraulic braking force is greater than the minimum value of the comfortable braking force and less than the requested target braking force, triggering reduced- performance comfortable braking; and sending a performance indicator indicating comfortable braking performance to a vehicle control unit (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 37, 32, 46, 38, 45, 53, 7, 50, “braking deceleration may be determined by the hybrid control unit 110 based on a required braking amount, vehicle specification, and road surface condition (S430). The braking deceleration is the sum of the deceleration by the execution of the required braking amount and the friction deceleration by the friction between a road surface and a wheel (i.e., tire). The deceleration by the execution of the required braking amount may be obtained by dividing the required braking amount by a vehicle mass, and the friction deceleration may be obtained by dividing a normal force on the road surface of a vehicle by the vehicle mass”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the method according to claim 5, further comprising: responding when deceleration of the vehicle is less than a first deceleration threshold and greater than a second deceleration threshold, triggering reduced-performance comfortable braking; responding when the deceleration is less than the second deceleration threshold, triggering full-performance comfortable braking; and sending a performance indicator indicating comfortable braking performance to a vehicle control unit (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 37, 32, 46, 38, 45, 53, 7, 50, 53, “the hybrid control unit 110 can transmit a corresponding
braking amount command to each of the braking control unit 120 and the motor control unit 130 so that the braking transition is performed as the end vehicle speed of braking transition is reached after the regenerative braking starts (S460). At this time, the hybrid control unit 110 may output a braking amount command so that the hydraulic braking amount increases and the regenerative braking amount decreases along the maximum response slope”).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1.
Lee fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: monitoring actual regenerative braking force of the vehicle; responding when the actual regenerative braking force is less than the regenerative braking force, and determining the braking force difference between the actual regenerative braking force and the regenerative braking force; and adjusting the hydraulic braking force based on the braking force difference Lee fails to explicitly disclose performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force.
However, Ko teaches further comprising: monitoring actual regenerative braking force of the vehicle; responding when the actual regenerative braking force is less than the regenerative braking force, and determining the braking force difference between the actual regenerative braking force and the regenerative braking force; and adjusting the hydraulic braking force based on the braking force difference Lee fails to explicitly disclose performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force (See at least fig 1-9, ¶ 13, 31, 44, 55, 62, 64, 69, 72, 73, 80, 86, 89, 91, 93, 95, 10, 12, 73, “Here, total required braking force F,total is the sum of regenerative braking force F reg and hydraulic braking force F hyd· In this embodiment, the operation of the brake system 1 in the first regenerative braking mode will be described with reference to FIGS. 3A and 3B, and the operation of the brake system 1 in the second regenerative braking mode will be described with reference to FIG. 3C.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee and include further comprising: monitoring actual regenerative braking force of the vehicle; responding when the actual regenerative braking force is less than the regenerative braking force, and determining the braking force difference between the actual regenerative braking force and the regenerative braking force; and adjusting the hydraulic braking force based on the braking force difference Lee fails to explicitly disclose performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force as taught by Ko because it would allow that when regenerative braking is performed, the hydraulic pressure is adjusted by the electric booster to correspond to the braking compensation amount by the regenerative braking (Ko ¶ 130).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a braking force offset of the vehicle; and responding to an emergency braking request of the vehicle, braking the vehicle using the braking force offset, the regenerative braking force and the hydraulic braking force (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 32, 46, 38, 45, 53, 7, 50, 53, 37, “the hybrid control unit 110 may include as input information a brake pedal operation amount or a brake request from another controller ( e.g., advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), autonomous driving controller, etc.), a vehicle speed, state information of the drive motor 150, and road surface information”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a device for comfortable braking, comprising: a comfortable braking determination unit configured to determine a comfortable braking force based on an opening degree of a brake pedal of a vehicle (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 38, 37, “In connection with the exemplary embodiment, the hybrid control unit 110 may include as input information a brake pedal operation amount or a brake request from another controller”);
a hydraulic regeneration determination unit configured to determine a hydraulic braking force and a regenerative braking force based on the comfortable braking force (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 46, 38, 37, “the hybrid control unit 110 can have the hydraulic braking command transmitted to the braking control unit 120 and the regenerative braking torque command transmitted to the motor control unit 130 as output values”); and
a comfortable braking control unit configured to perform comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 46, 38, 37, “the regenerative braking is performed at the beginning of braking according to the braking situation, but the hydraulic braking is intervened at the end of braking and the regenerative braking is released. The intervention/release process between the regenerative braking and the hydraulic braking according to such braking progress may be referred to as "braking transition".”).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose perform comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force.
However, Ko teaches perform comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force (See at least fig 1-9, ¶ 31, 44, 55, 64, 69, 73, 80, 86, 89, 91, 93, 95, 10, “The electric control unit is configured to variably control, in a regenerative braking mode and in a hydraulic braking mode, a ratio of increase to decrease of the pedal feel force (F RD) formed by the reaction disk for a pedal stroke to the pedal and a ratio of increase to a decrease of the pedal feel force (Fspring) formed by the pedal spring for a pedal stroke on the pedal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee and include perform comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force as taught by Ko because it would allow that when regenerative braking is performed, the hydraulic pressure is adjusted by the electric booster to correspond to the braking compensation amount by the regenerative braking (Ko ¶ 130).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a controller, comprising: at least one processor, and a memory, coupled to the at least one processor, and having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to perform the method according to claim 1 (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 32, 46, 38, 45, 53, 7, 50, 53, 37, 56, “In addition, the term related to a control device such as "controller", "control unit", "control device" or "control module", etc refers to a hardware device including a memory and a processor configured to execute one or more steps interpreted as an algorithm structure. The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method in accordance with various exemplary embodiments of the present invention.”).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a computer program product, tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, wherein the machine-executable instructions are used to perform the method according to claim 1 (See at least fig 1-4, ¶ 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 32, 44, 32, 46, 38, 45, 53, 7, 50, 53, 37, 56, “The control device according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention may be implemented
through a nonvolatile memory configured to store algorithms for controlling operation of various components of a vehicle or data about software commands for executing the algorithms, and a processor configured to perform operation to be described above using the data stored in the memory”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. 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.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights