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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 January, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-14, 16-17, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster et al. (US 9969057, "Eugster") in view of Neff (US 6120568).
1. Eugster teaches an abrasive article having a first direction of use, the abrasive article comprising:
abrasive particles (12h) attached to a backing (14h, see Eugster fig. 25), wherein the abrasive particles comprise monolithic ceramic particles (see Eugster 1:37-2:1), and wherein the abrasive particles are shaped abrasive particles (see Eugster 2:4-16);
wherein the shaped abrasive particles each comprise a first side surface, a second side surface substantially parallel to and opposed to the first side surface, a leading surface connected to the first side surface at a first edge and connected to the second side surface at a second edge (particle 14a has four sides, including a flat leading surface and parallel side surfaces, see Eugster fig. 36),
a rake angle between the backing and the leading surface (cutting surface 18a is depicted has having a rake angle of greater than 90 degrees relative to backing material which would adhere to base 20a, see Eugster fig. 36), and wherein a majority of the shaped abrasive particles are aligned such that the leading surfaces face the same direction (Eugster teaches that ideally at least 90% of the particles are aligned to have the same angle, see Eugster 2:16-20 and 2:16-20),
and wherein, under a set of testing conditions an amount of material removed from a workpiece in contact with the abrasive article is greater than an amount of material of the workpiece that is removed when the abrasive article is moved in a second direction different than the first direction of use, under the set of testing conditions (Eugster teaches that the abrasive particles may have a pyramidal shape aligned such that one side of each element has a neutral rake angle and the other side of the element has a negative rake angle, see Eugster fig. 5; because Eugster teaches an abrasive article with different rake angles based on a direction of travel, the article of Eugster would be capable of removing a greater amount of material from a workpiece in contact with the abrasive article when moved in the first direction of use than an amount of material of the workpiece that is removed when the abrasive article is moved in a second direction different than the first direction of use). Applicant is reminded that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Eugster does not explicitly teach that the particles have a rake angle between the backing and the leading surface in a range of from about 95 degrees to about 110 degrees.
However, Eugster does teach particles having a rake angle of 90 degrees (particle has a flat side formed with a 90-degree angle between the flat side and the base, see Eugster fig. 5) and having a rake angle greater than 90 degrees (particle has a flat side formed with an angle of less than 90 degrees between the flat side and the base, see Eugster fig. 8)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Eugster such that it included particles having a second side surface substantially parallel to and opposed to the first side surface and a rake angle between the backing and the leading surface in a range of 95 degrees to 110 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05(II) The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is rake angle which achieves the art-recognized result of changing the rate of material removal (see Neff 4:41-54), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
Regarding claims 2-3, the additional limitations do not appear to add additional structural limitations but instead are merely recitations with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. Because Eugster as modified teaches the structural limitations of claim 1, it teaches a device inherently capable of performing the claimed uses of claims 2-3.
Applicant is reminded that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Furthermore, under an alternative interpretation of claims 2 and 3, Eugster teaches the abrasive article of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that at least 50% (or 15%) more material is removed in the first direction of use. However, applicant has not indicated that the relative amount of material removed is critical to the invention and rake angle is known in the art as a result-effective variable affecting material removal rate (Eugster teaches that removal changes based on angle and direction of travel, see Eugster 2:47-3:4). As noted by MPEP 2144.05(II), “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also: In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”); and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the abrasive article of Eugster such that at least 50% more material was removed in the first direction of use, as doing so represents the routine optimization within the known prior art conditions of relative removal taught by Eugster.
5. Eugster as modified teaches an abrasive article having a direction of use, a y-axis, and a z-axis orthogonal to the y-axis and the direction of use, the abrasive article comprising:
a backing (12h); monolithic shaped abrasive particles (14h) attached to the backing (see Eugster fig. 25 and 1:37-47), wherein at least 5% of the shaped abrasive particles (see Eugster 2:16-20) independently comprise:
a first side surface having a triangular shape, a second side surface parallel to and opposed to the first side surface, a leading surface connected to the first side surface at a first edge and connected to the second side surface at a second edge (particle 14a has four sides, including a flat leading surface and parallel, triangular side surfaces, see Eugster fig. 36), a rake angle between the backing and the leading surface (cutting surface 18a is depicted has having a rake angle of greater than 90 degrees relative to backing material which would adhere to base 20a, see Eugster fig. 36), and
a z-direction rotational angle between a line intersecting the first edge and second edge and the direction of use of the abrasive article in a range of 10 degrees to 170 degrees (Eugster teaches a range of angles between a leading surface angle and a machining direction of 0º to 90º, specifying an embodiment with an angle of 70º, see Eugster 26:66-27:19 and fig. 1).
Eugster does not explicitly recite a rake angle between the backing and the leading surface in a range of from about 95 degrees to about 110 degrees. However, Eugster does teach embodiments having a rake angle of 90 degrees (particle has a flat side formed with a 90-degree angle between the flat side and the base, see Eugster fig. 5) and having a rake angle greater than 90 degrees (particle has a flat side formed with an angle of less than 90 degrees between the flat side and the base, see Eugster fig. 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Eugster such that it included a rake angle between the backing and the leading surface in a range of 95 degrees to 110 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05(II) The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is rake angle which achieves the art-recognized result of changing the rate of material removal (see Neff 4:41-54), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
6. Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 5, wherein at least one of the shaped abrasive particles is a ceramic shaped abrasive particle (abrasive particles are ceramic and shaped, see Eugster 1:37-2:1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 5, but does not specifically teach that the z-direction rotational angle of at least one of the shaped abrasive particles is in a range between 80 degrees and 100 degrees or that the z-direction rotational angle of at least one of the shaped abrasive particles is in a range between 85 degrees and 95 degrees. However, claim 5 defines the z-direction rotational angle in terms of "a line intersecting the first edge and second edge and the direction of use of the abrasive article." Applicant is reminded that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Although Eugster does specify an intended direction of use (machining direction, see Eugster 2:64-3:4), the article of Eugster is capable of being used in other directions. Consequently, the article of Eugster is capable of being used for abrading in a direction of use such that a z-direction rotational angle between a line intersecting the first edge and second edge of at least one abrasive particle and the direction of use of the abrasive article in a range between 80 and 100 degrees or in a range between 85 and 95 degrees.
Under an alternate theory of the claim, Eugster teaches that a z-directional rotation angle measured between a leading surface of the abrasive particle and a machining direction should be between 0º to 90º (see Eugster 1:37-47 and 26:66-27:19). Although Eugster does not specifically teach that the z-direction rotational angle of at least one of the shaped abrasive particles is in a range between 80 degrees and 100 degrees or that the z-direction rotational angle of at least one of the shaped abrasive particles is in a range between 85 degrees and 95 degrees, it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP § 2144.05, citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because Eugster teaches a range for rotation angle (0º-90º) that overlaps with the claimed ranges (80º-100º for claim 9 and 85º-95º for claim 10), modifying the article of Eugster such that the z-direction rotational angle of at least one of the shaped abrasive particles was in a range between 80 degrees and 100 degrees or in a range between 85 degrees and 95 degrees would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
11. Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 5, wherein a relief angle between the backing and a trailing surface or edge at a cutting tip of at least one of the shaped abrasive particles is in a range of 90 degrees to 180 degrees (an angle measured between the surface trailing the leading edge and the backing would be between 90º and 180º because an angle between a horizontal and some other line may be measured in either direction such that the sum of the two smallest angles measured in each direction is 180º, because the backing side is not shown as square, at least one of the angles is not 90º, which means that at least one of the angles is greater than 90º and therefore meets the claim limitation, see Eugster fig. 36).
12. Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 5, wherein an edge of at least one of the shaped abrasive particles is substantially aligned with the backing in an x-y plane (shaped particles are aligned on the backing, see Eugster 1:37-2:1; an arbitrary x-y plane may be drawn such that the particle and backing are aligned in a fashion defined by the plane).
13. Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 5, wherein the rake angle of 50% to 100% of the shaped abrasive particles is substantially the same (the particles have a substantially identical shape and at least 90% of the particles are aligned to form a single abrasive edge unit having a common angle, which would mean that the angle of contact between a point and a surface being abraded was consistent between substantially all of the at least 90% of particles that are aligned, see Eugster 1:27-47 and 2:4-56).
14. Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 5, wherein the z-direction rotational angle of 90% to 100% of the shaped abrasive particles is substantially the same (at least 90% of the particles have the same angle, see Eugster 2:16-20 and 2:16-20).
16. Eugster as modified teaches a method of using the abrasive article according to claim 5, the method comprising:
contacting the shaped abrasive particles with a workpiece; moving at least one of the abrasive article and the workpiece relative to each other in the direction of use; and removing a portion of material of the workpiece (moving the article relative to a workpiece in a defined machining direction and producing a machining pattern as a result of material removal, see Eugster 2:58-3:15).
17. Eugster as modified teaches the method of claim 16, wherein
when the steps of contacting, moving and removing are completed in a first direction of use, a portion of material is removed from the workpiece, and when the steps of contacting, moving and removing are completed in a second direction of use, a second portion of material is removed from the workpiece (moving the article relative to a workpiece in a defined machining direction removes material to produce a first machining pattern while moving it in a second, different direction removes material to produce a different machining pattern, see Eugster 2:58-3:15).
Eugster does not explicitly teach that the first portion is greater than the second portion. However, Eugster does teach that removing material in the first direction removes material in a shearing cut, while moving in other directions increases the likelihood of removing additional material due to breaking-off or tearing (Eugster 2:58-3:15). It has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would infer from the disclosure of Eugster regarding removal in different machining directions that the first portion and second portion would be different, such that one was greater than the other, due to the aforementioned additional tearing or breaking-off. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to modify the method of Eugster such that the first portion was greater than the second portion, as Eugster implicitly teaches such a modification.
19. Eugster as modified teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the direction of use is a linear direction or a rotational direction (linear machining direction 20a, see Eugster fig. 1).
21. Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 1, wherein the first side surface has a triangular shape (triangular side surfaces, see Eugster fig. 36).
22. Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 1, wherein the shaped abrasive particles are magnetically responsive (particles are magnetic, Eugster 39:52-40:11).
23. Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 1, wherein a majority of the shaped abrasive particles being aligned further comprises the plurality of shaped abrasive particles being oriented such that each of the first and second side surfaces are perpendicular to the backing (a majority of particles are oriented such that an abrasive tip or edge is positioned away from the backing, such an orientation would correspond to base 20a being positioned on the backing such that the side surfaces were perpendicular to the backing, see Eugster fig. 36 and 11:25-64).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster and Neff as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Louapre et al. (US PGPub 2015/0068130, "Louapre").
15. Eugster as modified teaches the abrasive article of claim 5, but does not teach that it further comprises crushed abrasive particles.
However, Louapre teaches the concept of providing an abrasive article (500) having a backing (501) and shaped and aligned abrasive particles (505) that additionally includes crushed abrasive particles (507, see Louapre fig. 5, [0118], and [0123]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the article of Eugster as taught by Louapre to include crushed abrasive particles as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (the abrasive article of Eugster with shaped and aligned particles with the additional crushed particles of Louapre) according to known prior art methods (taught by Louapre), and would lead to predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster and Neff as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Takata et al. (US 10919125, "Takata").
18. Eugster as modified teaches the method of claim 16, but does not teach that the article is moved in a second direction to finish the workpiece. However, Eugster as modified teaches a method of using single abrasive article to produce different machining patterns of material removal when used in different directions (see Eugster 2:58-3:15).
Furthermore, Takata teaches the concept of using a single abrasive article to grind in a first direction and finish in a second direction (see Takata 3:36-52). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of Eugster to incorporate the teachings of Takata of using a single stone for grinding and finishing based on direction of travel, as Eugster already teaches the use of a single article for different machining patterns (Eugster 2:58-3:15) and making such a modification represents the use of a known technique (polishing via reversal of grinding stone) to a known method (of performing multiple machining tasks with a single abrasive article as taught by Eugster), in a fashion that would produce predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster and Neff as applied to claim 16 above, as evidenced by Carter et al. (WO 2015179335, "Carter").
20. Eugster as modified teaches the method of claim 16, but does not teach that the workpiece comprises steel, aluminum, alloys thereof, wood, or mixtures thereof. However, the use of abrasive articles with a variety of workpieces and materials are well known in the grinding arts (see, e.g., Carter page 1 lines 9-10), and the use of a workpiece comprising steel, aluminum, alloys thereof, wood, or mixtures thereof in the method of Eugster would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 January, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the rejection improperly relies on multiple embodiments disclosed by Eugster. Applicant’s argument would be persuasive if the rejection had been made under 35 USC § 102, as Eugster does not anticipate the claimed invention. However, the rejection was made under 35 USC § 103. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Insofar as applicant’s argument relies on individually attacking the teachings of Neff and the cited embodiments of Eugster rather than the combination of references, they are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Specifically regarding the use of multiple individual embodiments taught by Eugster in the rejection, applicant is reminded that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Applicant further argues that the Eugster’s teaching that the particles are placed in an oriented manner fails to teach or suggest the claim limitation of “wherein a majority of the shaped abrasive particles are aligned such that the leading surfaces face the same direction”. However, Eugster specifically defines orienting as ensuring that the abrasive edges of individual particles are positioned in a common direction and having a shared inclination such that the particles are aligned to produce a common sort of cut (Eugster 2:9-63). As it was known in the art that different rake angle ranges lead to different sort of cuts (see, e.g. Neff 4:41-54), one of ordinary skill would understand that the particles needed to be aligned such that they had a common rake angle, which would require the leading faces to face the same direction. Applicant’s argument therefor rests on a difference in terms used to describe particle alignment rather than an actual difference in alignment.
Applicant then attempts to argue that the disclosed range of rake angles is critical to the invention and leads to unexpected results. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (differences in sedative and anticholinergic effects between prior art and claimed antidepressants were not unexpected). Further, “appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness.” Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
Applicant’s proffered evidence shows differences between particles having different rake angles, but those differences would be expected by one of prior art because the impact of positive, neutral, and negative rake angles on removal rate are known in the art. Because applicant’s arguments fail to adequately explain why the data provided shows that the result of using particles with the specific range of rake angles claimed differs from the generally known applications of different rake angles in an unpredictable fashion, they fail to establish that the properties of the claimed invention “differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected”. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091.
For these reasons, and because applicant's arguments are against the references individually, and even more specifically against certain specific embodiments rather than the teachings of the references as a whole, rather than the claimed combination, they fail to establish nonobviousness. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive and the rejection of the claims as obvious is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723