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 Amendments
The Amendment filed 10/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 19-34 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Justis (US20060207772A1).
Regarding claim 19:
Justis teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
510
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A hoof boot comprising: (Figures and Abstract)
a hoof boot shell (Figure 35, Reference 900)
wherein the hoof boot shell further comprises a skeleton serving to provide structural support and attachment and retention of the hoof boot to the hoof (claim 1, para 0102, para90-0091)
including an upper (Figure 35, Reference A)
and a core, (Figures 21-26, Reference 600, usable with hoof boot of figure 35)
PNG
media_image2.png
252
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the core having a tread side (Figure 26, Reference B)
and an insole side; (Figure 26, Reference C)
and a casing, (Figure 26, Reference D “outer shoe portion”, para0090-0091)
the casing including a tread (Figure 26, Reference F)
and an insole; (Figure 26, Reference E)
wherein the skeleton is constructed of a first polymer with a first hardness and the casing is constructed of a second polymer with a second hardness, (para0131, skeleton which comprises a core 600 which comprises the first polymer and the casing D is constructed of a second polymer)
wherein the second hardness is less than the first hardness and wherein the casing absorbs and dissipates energy from impact related shock of the hoof boot striking the ground; (para00131, 0090, 0091, 0094, 0098, 0099)
wherein when the hoof boot is placed on the animal, the casing is in contact with the bottom of the hoof and the ground (Figure 35, see how when the hoot boot is placed on the animal, the casing is in contact with the bottom of the hoof of the animal)
and encapsulates the core. (Figure 26, see how the casing D encapsulates the core 600, para0095)
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 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justis (US20060207772A1).
Regarding claim 20:
Justis, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 19. Justis doesn’t teach:
wherein the core has a thickness between 1/32 inch (0.08cm) and ¼ inch (0.64cm).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the core to have a thickness between 1/32 inch and ¼ inch because increasing the dimensions above the range would increase the weight of the hoof boot causing a hazard during use and reducing the dimensions would decrease the weight such that there isn’t sufficient hard structure to stabilize the hoof boot.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 20. Justis further teaches:
PNG
media_image3.png
385
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the core comprises holes wherein the holes allow a mechanical coupling of the first and second polymers. (Figure 22, Reference 660, para0091)
Regarding claim 22:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Justis further teaches:
wherein the holes create a range of open space on the core between 50% -70%. (Figure 22, see how the holes 660 create a range of open space on the core that is at least 50%)
However, if not, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the holes to create a range of open space on the core between 50% -70%, to allow for increased flexibility and maneuverability of the horse shoe. It has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justis, as applied to claims 19- 22 above, and in view of Tovim (US 4265314 A).
Regarding claim 23:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 22. However, Justis as modified doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein the first polymer of the skeleton has a hardness of 50-70 shore D, and wherein the second polymer of the casing has a hardness of 40-90 shore A.
Tovim teaches:
PNG
media_image4.png
287
1089
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the first polymer of the skeleton has a hardness of 50-70 shore D, (col 4 ln 33-52 “substantially 97 for the shoe”)
and wherein the second polymer of the casing has a hardness of 40-90 shore A. (col 4 ln 33-52 “substantially 85 for the strip”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Justis such that the first polymer of the skeleton has a hardness of 50-70 shore D and wherein the second polymer of the casing has a harness of 40-90A as taught by Tovim to cushion the hoof and leg and reduces the extreme concussive force on the legs that exist with metal and hard bottom shoes. The softer lower section also gives the shoe better ground grip. The hard top holds the softer bottom together, stabilizes the structural integrity and provides dimensional integrity and prevents the softer section from spreading laterally and distorting when in use.
Regarding claim 24:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 23.
Justis further teaches:
wherein the insole is a compressible polymer material (E is made of polyurethane, para0091)
However, Justis as modified doesn’t teach:
wherein the insole is no more than 3/8 inch (0.95 cm)
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the insole no more than 3/8inch to create an insole that is bulky and increases the total weight of the hoof boot. Furthermore, these sizes are small enough to be incorporated into the polymer of the structure and large enough to not unduly increase viscosity of the polymer mixture during molding. If the particles are too large the result is a kind of permanent set reducing the flexibility and compressibility of the molded piece. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 25:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 24. However, Justis as modified doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein the tread has a thickness greater than ¼ inch (0.64cm).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tread to have a thickness greater than 1/4inch to increase the durability of the hoof boot by reducing wear-and-tear caused by the animal when the boot is worn. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 26:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 25. Justis further teaches:
wherein the hoof boot is selected from the group comprising: a. strap on boot; and b. a glue on boot. (para0123)
Claims 27,29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justis and in view of Tovim.
Regarding claim 27, Justis teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
510
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A hoof boot comprising: (Figures and Abstract)
a hoof boot shell (Figure 35, Reference 900)
wherein the hoof boot shell further comprises a skeleton serving to provide structural support and attachment and retention of the hoof boot to the hoof (claim 1, para 0102, para90-0091)
including an upper (Figure 35, Reference A)
and a core, (Figures 21-26, Reference 600, usable with hoof boot of figure 35)
PNG
media_image2.png
252
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the core having a tread side (Figure 26, Reference B)
and an insole side; (Figure 26, Reference C)
and a casing, (Figure 26, Reference D “outer shoe portion”, para0090-0091)
the casing including a tread (Figure 26, Reference F)
and an insole; (Figure 26, Reference E)
wherein the skeleton is constructed of a first polymer with a first hardness and the casing is constructed of a second polymer with a second hardness, (para0131, skeleton which comprises a core 600 which comprises the first polymer and the casing D is constructed of a second polymer)
wherein the second hardness is less than the first hardness and wherein the casing absorbs and dissipates energy from impact related shock of the hoof boot striking the ground; (para00131, 0090, 0091, 0094, 0098, 0099)
wherein when the hoof boot is placed on the animal, the casing is in contact with the bottom of the hoof and the ground (Figure 35, see how when the hoot boot is placed on the animal, the casing is in contact with the bottom of the hoof of the animal)
and encapsulates the core. (Figure 26, see how the casing D encapsulates the core 600, para0095)
However, Justis doesn’t explicitly teach:
a first polymer with a first hardness of 50-70 shore D, and a second polymer with a second hardness of 40-90 shore A.
Tovim teaches:
PNG
media_image4.png
287
1089
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a first polymer with a first hardness of 50-70 shore D, (col 4 ln 33-52 “substantially 97 for the shoe”)
a second polymer with a second hardness of 40-90 shore A. (col 4 ln 33-52 “substantially 85 for the strip”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Justis such that the first polymer of the skeleton has a hardness of 50-70 shore D and wherein the second polymer of the casing has a harness of 40-90A as taught by Tovim to cushion the hoof and leg and reduces the extreme concussive force on the legs that exist with metal and hard bottom shoes. The softer lower section also gives the shoe better ground grip. The hard top holds the softer bottom together, stabilizes the structural integrity and provides dimensional integrity and prevents the softer section from spreading laterally and distorting when in use.
Regarding claim 29:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Justis further teaches:
wherein the hoof boot is a glue on boot (para0123)
Regarding claim 30:
Justis, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Justis doesn’t teach:
wherein the core has a thickness between 1/32 inch (0.08cm) and ¼ inch (0.64cm).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the core to have a thickness between 1/32 inch and ¼ in because increasing the dimensions above the range would increase the weight of the hoof boot causing a hazard during use and reducing the dimensions would decrease the weight such that there isn’t sufficient hard structure to stabilize the hoof boot.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 31:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Justis further teaches:
PNG
media_image3.png
385
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the core comprises holes wherein the holes allow a mechanical coupling of the first and second polymers. (Figure 22, Reference 660, para0091)
Regarding claim 32:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Justis further teaches:
wherein the holes create a range of open space on the core between 50% -70%. (Figure 28, see how the holes 660 create a range of open space on the core that is at least 50%)
However, if not, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the holes to create a range of open space on the core between 50% -70%, to allow for increased flexibility and maneuverability of the horse shoe. It has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 33:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Justis further teaches:
wherein the insole is a compressible polymer material (E is made of polyurethane, para0091)
However, Justis as modified doesn’t teach:
wherein the insole is no more than 3/8 inch (0.95 cm)
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the insole no more than 3/8inch to create an insole that is bulky and increases the total weight of the hoof boot. Furthermore, these sizes are small enough to be incorporated into the polymer of the structure and large enough to not unduly increase viscosity of the polymer mixture during molding. If the particles are too large the result is a kind of permanent set reducing the flexibility and compressibility of the molded piece. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 34:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 27. However, Justis as modified doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein the tread has a thickness greater than ¼ inch (0.64cm).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tread to have a thickness greater than 1/4inch to increase the durability of the hoof boot by reducing wear-and-tear caused by the animal when the boot is worn. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justis in view of Tovim, as applied to claim 27 above, and in view of Lander (US 20070113524 A1).
Regarding claim 28:
Justis as modified, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Justis as modified doesn’t teach:
wherein the hoof boot is a strap on boot.
Lander teaches:
wherein the hoof boot is a strap on boot. (40+104, fig 1+4, para0038)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hoof boot of Justis as modified such that it was a strap on boot as disclosed by Lander to provide for an easily removable hoof boot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that applicant’s core is improperly equated to the structural stabilizer of Justis. (see pgs 2-7)
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but not found persuasive. Applicant argues that the Applicant’s disclosure discloses the opposite of the Justis’ disclosure and would not function if the casing including the upper, which comes into contact with the hoof walls, was softer. It is respectfully noted that applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the claim language. It is noted that claim 19 recites a skeleton comprising an upper and a core then further recites that the skeleton comprises the harder polymer therefore any part of the skeleton that discloses a harder polymer reads on the claimed limitation. Applicant argues that the instant invention discloses that the skeleton including the upper and core are made of a harder polymer and are formed of a unitary structure, however, that is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. Justis in fact discloses that at least core 600 of the skeleton is constructed of a harder polymer material (see para0131) while the casing is formed of a softer material (see para0098,0131) formed around the core. The limitations met and the rejection maintained.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 20. (pg 9-10)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any specific criticality for using such dimensions since the specification includes a general statement about the dimensions that is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Again, there is no specific criticality as to why the selected dimensions are not obvious to try or obvious to modify. Thus, it would have been obvious to create the core with such dimensions because increasing the dimensions above the range would increase the weight of the hoof boot causing a hazard during use and reducing the dimensions would decrease the weight such that there isn’t sufficient hard structure to stabilize the hoof boot. It is well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a thickness of the core that will enhance the function of the shoe and add to its ability in supporting the hoof.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 21. (pg 11-14)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that the stabilizer apertures 660 must accommodate and cooperate with the aperture of the outer shoe which pass through the entirety of the outer shoe. However, this is not found persuasive because in Para0085 Justis discloses the use of the stabilizer apertures 660 without an aperture formed in the outer shoe (i.e. at least at the hoof-facing surface) and therefore not passing through the entirely of the shoe as argued. Thus, the core 600 comprises holes 660 that allow the mechanical coupling of the first polymer (of the core and upper-harder polymer) and second polymer (of the casing-softer polymer) when used without apertures in the outer shoe as taught in para0085.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 22. (pg 15-20)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. As argued above with respect to claim 21, Justis discloses the use of the holes of the core without apertures in the outer shoe (see para0084). Furthermore, Justis’ core comprises holes, that create a range of open space on the core between 50-70% that allow for the mechanical coupling of the first and second polymers, as claimed. Justis discloses in Fig 22 that the holes create a range of open space that is at least 50% based on the mere visual dimensions of the holes and remaining core. Furthermore, applicant’s specification does not disclose criticality anywhere in the specification for having a range between 50-70%. Applicant points to para0032 of the instant specification, however in neither this embodiment or another embodiment is the criticality of the range specifically disclosed. The specification explicitly states “these holes can be of any shape or configuration” negating any argued criticality. Thus, there is no specific criticality as to why the selected range is not obvious to try or obvious to modify when Justis discloses the general working conditions of the apertures and general range of open spaced resulting from them.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the reason for the range of the open space of the
core is different from the motivation replied upon in the rejection. See MPEP 2144: IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below).
As shown above, applicant’s specification fails to disclose any specific criticality for using such ranges. Thus, it would have been obvious to create the core with such dimensions to allow for increased flexibility and maneuverability of the horse shoe since the core will directly impact the flexibility and maneuverability of the shoe.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 23. (pg 20-26)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive because as shown above in the rejections, Justis alone discloses the elements of a skeleton, core, casing, first polymer, and second polymer. Justis further discloses that the first polymer is harder than the second polymer, however Justis does not disclose the shore dimension as claimed. Tovim discloses the principal of an “upper” that comprises a harder polymer than that of a “casing” located below the upper that comprises a softer polymer. Tovim not relied upon in the rejections to disclose the skeleton or casing. Tovim is only relied upon to disclose the feature of a hard top and a softer lower bottom comprising the specific shore hardnesses. Since the polymer softness is already disclosed by Justis, i.e. the first polymer is harder than the second polymer, it would have been obvious to modify with the principal teaching of Tovim to cushion the hoof and leg and reduces the extreme concussive force on the legs that exist with metal and hard bottom shoes. The softer lower section also gives the shoe better ground grip. The hard top holds the softer bottom together, stabilizes the structural integrity and provides dimensional integrity and prevents the softer section from spreading laterally and distorting when in use.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 24. (pg 24-26)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive because it is respectfully submitted that the prior art does not teach away from “making the hoof bulky and heavy” even if the instant specification does. What is relied upon in the rejection of claim 24, is the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and what is disclosed by the prior art. Justis discloses an insole but does not specifically address the that it is no more than 0.95 cm as claimed. However, since the specification fails to disclose any criticality for the size of the insole, it is obvious to try or obvious to modify the size of the insole when the general working conditions of the insole’s thickness during manufacture and the resulting product is generally known.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 25. (pg 26-30)
In response to applicant’s arguments that the reason for the thickness of the tread in applicant’s disclosure is different from the motivation replied upon in the rejection. See MPEP 2144: IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below).
Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any specific criticality for using such dimensions since the specification includes a general statement about the dimensions that is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Again, there is no specific criticality as to why the selected dimensions are not obvious to try or obvious to modify. Thus, it would have been obvious to create the tread with such thickness to increase the durability of the hoof boot by reducing wear-and-tear caused by the animal when the boot is worn which is generally known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 26. (pg 30)
Applicant argues that claim 19 is not obvious or anticipated and thus claim 26 should be allowed. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the reasons found above.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 27. (pg 30)
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the same reasons found above with respect to claims 19 and 23.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 28. (pg 30-31)
Applicant argues that claim 28 is not obvious or anticipated and thus claim 28 should be allowed. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the same reasons found above with respect to claims 19, 23 and 26.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 29. (pg 31)
Applicant argues that claim 27 is not obvious or anticipated and thus claim 29 should be allowed. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the reasons found above.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 30. (pg 31)
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the same reasons found above with respect to claims 19,20, and 23.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 31. (pg 31)
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the same reasons found above with respect to claims 19,21, and 23.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 32. (pg 32)
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the same reasons found above with respect to claims 19,22, and 23.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 33. (pg 32)
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the same reasons found above with respect to claims 19,23, and 24.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Justis as modified does not disclose claim 34. (pg 32)
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the same reasons found above with respect to claims 19,23, and 25.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm EST).
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, Peter Poon can be reached on 571-272-6891. 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.
/SHADA ALGHAILANI/
Examiner
Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643