DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1, 5, 6, 8-19, 25, and 26 are rejected and claims 2-4, 7, 20-24, and 27-30 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 7 that Williamson does not disclose functional members 12 are being connected to each other, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitation “at least one connecting element connecting and retaining the connecting body and the lug component to each other” is a broad limitation that does not require direct connection between each component (ex., connecting to each other is broader than being directly connected to each other).
In response to applicants arguments on page 7 that Williams fails to disclose that a loosening of the connection is only possible through partial destruction, the examiner respectfully disagrees as while does disclose that the body can be made of elastomers that can be heated to soften the material, Williams also discloses the coupling can be made of Silicone Rubber, which is a thermoset rubber (ex., cross-linked elastomer) which would only be possible to remove the lug/connecting body via cutting (ex, 7:55-61, which explicitly discloses silicone rubber for coupling member 8; 7:31-34, which states heating or cutting, where cutting would be required if silicone rubber is used). In addition, while Williams does disclose that thermoplastics are used and can be softened to release the lug/connector body from the connecting element, it is unclear how applicants invention which also uses a thermoplastic, POM, for the connecting body would also meet the idea of loosening only through partial destruction thereof.
In response to applicants arguments on page 9 that Nicholas does not disclose a pre-tension in the axial direction, the examiner respectfully disagrees because a stop is inherently used to be pressed against the pipe flanges (ex., otherwise a stop wouldn’t need to be provided). In addition, modifying the stop to be formed as a gasket based on the teachings of Williamson would meet the limitation of the claim as there would be sealing directly therebetween the flanges of Nicholas. Lastly, Nicholas explicitly discloses the use of sealing means directly between the flanges of the pipes (ex., see fig. 6, where seals can be provided directly between 9 and 10 and directly between 35 and 37 as discussed on page 2, lines 84-90).
In response to applicants arguments on page 9 that Nicholas does not disclose any radial pre-tension force, the examiner respectfully disagrees as it can be shown in all embodiments that the flanges of the pipe ends directly contact the inner surface of the sleeve.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-19, 25, 26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 19, the limitation “wherein a loosening of the connection is only possible through at least partial mechanical destruction of the connecting element” is unclear to the examiner as to how a connecting element formed from a thermoplastic material, polyoxymethylene (POM), can only be loosened through partial destruction of the connecting element when thermoplastics are known to deform when heat is applied (ex., if heat is applied to the thermoplastic connecting element, it appears the connecting element can be softened to remove the lug/connecting body; ex., see paragraph 2, page 27 of the specification, where polyoxymethylene is used as the material for the base body; ex., Williamson explicitly discloses using a thermoplastic material to soften a sleeve to remove flanged pipes similar to the present invention, as discussed in arguments above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson (U.S. Patent No. 4,803,053) in view of Krause (DE-4010234).
In regards to claim 19, as best understood, Williamson discloses:
A connecting element (see annotated fig. 8 below) for a plug connector arrangement having at least one connecting body and at least one lug component (see annotated fig. 8),
the connecting element comprising:
an element (see annotated fig. 8) connecting and retaining the connecting body and the lug component to each other,
the element having an elastic deformability (ex., every material has some elastic deformability) and including a first portion (see annotated fig. 8) engaging the connecting body in a first positive-locking snap-in connection and a second portion (see annotated fig. 8) engaging the lug component in a second positive-locking snap-in connection,
wherein the first positive-locking snap-in connection is a permanent connection and the second positive-locking snap-in connection is a permanent connection (7:28-34, where the connection is permanent at room temperature and removal is via heating or cutting the sleeve),
wherein the first portion includes a first perimeter defining an axially facing closed perimeter and the second portion includes a second perimeter also defining an axially facing closed perimeter (ex., see fig. 2, where portion is circumferentially continuous and axially facing),
further comprising an elastic compensating element (163),
wherein the compensating element in the mounted state is arranged in an axial direction (see annotated fig. 8), at least partly between the connecting body and the lug component to create a pre- tension in the axial direction between the connecting body and the lug component (see annotated fig. 8, where the seal directly abuts against both ends of the pipes and therefore would meet the limitation of the claim), and
wherein the compensating element is produced from a different material than the remainder of the connecting element (6:30-32, where the gasket is made from a different material than the sleeve),
wherein a loosening of the connection is only possible through at least partial mechanical destruction of the connecting element (7:55-61, which explicitly discloses silicone rubber for coupling member 8; 7:31-34, which states heating or cutting, where cutting would be required if silicone rubber is used as you cannot heat up a thermoset material),
wherein the connecting element is held at least in part by a radial tensioning force against at least one of the connecting body or the lug component (see fig. 8),
but does not disclose:
wherein the compensating element is made of a material that is more elastic than the material of the remainder of the connecting element.
In regards to the sealing material, Krause discloses:
wherein a compensating element is made of rubber (see paragraph 0028, line 263 of the previously provided translated document).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a rubber material for the compensating element of Williamson such that the rubber material is made of a material that is more elastic than the silicone rubber material of the connecting element because Williamson does not disclose the compensating element can only be PTFE, Krause discloses that it is known to use a rubber compensating element (see paragraph 0028, line 263) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16-19 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas (GB-2158172) in view of Williamson (U.S. Patent No. 4,803,053) and in further view of Adrian (U.S. Patent No. 8,727,382).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood, Nicholas discloses:
A plug connector (see fig. 6) arrangement for media lines, the arrangement comprising:
at least one connecting body (37) and at least one lug component (35),
the connecting body having at least one receiving opening for at least partial accommodating of the lug component and defining a fluid channel (see fig. 6),
the lug component being in connection with the fluid channel,
at least one connecting element (8) connecting and retaining the connecting body and the lug component to each other,
the connecting element having an elastic deformability (ex., every material has some elastic deformability) and including having a first portion (see near 11) engaging the connecting body in a first positive-locking snap-in connection and the connecting element having a second portion (see near 12) engaging the lug component in a second positive-locking snap-in connection,
wherein the perimeter of the first portion of the connecting element forming the first snap-in connection is an axially facing perimeter (see near 11) and the perimeter of the second portion of the connecting element forming the second snap-in connection is an axially facing perimeter (see near 12),
further comprising an elastic compensating element (15),
wherein the compensating element is arranged in an axial direction (see fig. 6), at least partly between the connecting body and the lug component to create a pre-tension in the axial direction between the connecting body the lug component (see fig. 6), and
wherein the plug connector arrangement further comprises a gasket (see page 2, lines 84-89, where a gasket can be placed in multiple locations between both pipes),
wherein the connecting element is held at least in part by a radial tensioning force against at least one of the connecting body or the lug component (ex., see fig. 6, where the annular flanges of each pipe is directly contacting the inner surface of the connection body, therefore, there is radially tensioning forces),
but does not disclose:
wherein the perimeter of the first portion is an axially facing closed perimeter and the perimeter of the second portion is an axially facing closed perimeter (ex., there was nothing found in the disclosure that states it is a circumferentially continuous or not continuous projection 11,12),
wherein the compensating element is made of a material that is more elastic than the material of the remainder of the connecting element,
wherein the compensating element is produced from a different material than the remainder of the connecting element,
wherein the first positive-locking snap-in connection is a permanent connection and the second positive-locking snap-in connection is a permanent connection,
wherein a loosening of the connection is only possible through at least partial mechanical destruction of the connecting element,
In regards to being an axially facing closed perimeter, Williamson discloses a similar snap-in device comprising axially facing closed perimeters to prevent separation of the pipes from the device such that accidental disengagement is almost impossible (7:11-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Nicholas such that the perimeter of the first portion is an axially facing closed perimeter and the perimeter of the second portion is an axially facing closed perimeter to further prevent the separation of the connecting body and lug component, as taught by Williamson (7:11-19).
In regards to the material of the compensating element, Williamson discloses that it is known for the compensating element to be either the same material as the sleeve (see figs. 2 or 9; ex., 6:17-23, where 60 is a central gasket in fig. 2) or a different material and separate from the sleeve (see fig. 8) such that the compensating element can be made from PTFE (6:30-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the compensating element of Nicholas in view of Williamson such that the compensating element is separate from and produced from a different material than the remainder of the connecting element to meet the limitation of claim 1 because Williamson discloses that there a finite number of identified solutions of having an integral compensating element or a separate compensating element made of a different material (6:30-34). A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying the compensating element of Nicholas in view of Williamson such that the compensating element is separate and made of a different material is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results.
In regards to the compensating and connecting element material, Nicholas discloses that gaskets are known to be comprised of a rubber material (ex., see cross-hatching of gasket 18 in fig. 3) and connecting elements are known to be comprised of plastic (ex., see cross-hatching of connecting element 8 in fig. 3),
wherein the seals can be placed at least directly between the flanges of the pipes (ex., see fig. 6, where seals can be provided directly between 9 and 10 or directly between 35 and 37 as discussed on page 2, lines 84-90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a rubber material for the compensating element and a plastic material for connecting element of Nicholas in view of Williamson because Nicholas discloses that gaskets are known to be comprised of a rubber material (ex., see cross-hatching of gasket 18 in fig. 3) and connecting elements are known to be comprised of plastic (ex., see cross-hatching of connecting element 8 in fig. 3) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to the permanent connections via breaking points, Adrian discloses a similar device where a non-releasable connection is created to reduce the risk of manipulations and of the latching becoming released (2:21-25) by altering the material of a sleeve (see fig. 3) and connection pieces (2 and 3, fig. 2) to each other in such a manner that an elastic deformation resulting in the latching becoming released is not possible (2:30-34),
wherein it is also advantageous to have the sleeve comprise at least one predetermined breaking point which allows a systematic destruction of the sleeve to allow a possibility to release the latched connection in such a manner that only the sleeve is destroyed so that in particular damage to the connecting pieces can be prevented (2:35-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the connecting element of Nicholas in view of Williamson with the provision of at least two pre-determined breaking points to allow a possibility to release the latched connection only through destruction of the connecting element such that the plastic material of the connecting element is adapted to prevent releasing of the latched connection unless the sleeve is destroyed via the breaking points so that damage to the connecting pieces can be prevented, as taught by Adrian (2:30-34, 2:35-44).
In regards to claim 5, Nicholas further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element includes a first snap-in section and a second snap-in section (ex., the sections that are engaged with the flanges of the pipes), at least one of the first and second snap-in sections defining a snap-in setback (see fig. 6, where the portions engaged and snapped with the flanges of the piped are sloped, and therefore meets the idea of a “setback”).
In regards to claim 6, Nicholas further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the connecting element and an inner perimeter of the connecting element is of a circular ring shape (see fig. 6).
In regards to claim 9, Nicholas in view of Williamson, and Adrian further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the compensating element has in an axial cross section one of a polygonal shape (see fig. 6 of Nicholas; see fig. 8 of Williamson).
In regards to claim 10, Nicholas further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the compensating element is arranged one of centrally or offset in the axial direction relative to the connecting element (see fig. 6 of Nicholas; see fig. 8 of Williamson).
In regards to claim 12, Nicholas in view of Williamson, and Adrian further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1,
wherein the connecting element includes at least two set fracture sites configured to irreversibly separate in one of a radial or axial direction (ex., see fig. 3 of Adrian).
In regards to claim 16, Nicholas further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element is retained by a radial pre-tensioning force applied against one of a first ring collar on the connecting body or a second ring collar on the lug component (ex., see 9 and 10 in fig. 6).
In regards to claim 17, Nicholas further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the connecting body includes at least one contact surface engaged with the connecting element (ex., see fig. 6, where the pipes are directly touching the inner surface of the sleeve).
In regards to claim 18, Nicholas further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the connecting body includes a retaining area (ex., near 9) having at least one retaining surface configured to receive radially insertable retaining arms of an assembly tool (structurally, there is nothing preventing a tool from being placed onto the pipe 37).
In regards to claim 19, as best understood, Nicholas discloses:
A connecting element (see fig. 6) for a plug connector arrangement having at least one connecting body (37) and at least one lug component (35),
the connecting element comprising:
an element (8) connecting and retaining the connecting body and the lug component to each other,
the element having an elastic deformability (ex., every material has some elastic deformability) including a first portion (see near 11) engaging the connecting body in a first positive-locking snap-in connection and a second portion (see near 12) engaging the lug component in a second positive-locking snap-in connection,
wherein the perimeter of the first portion of the connecting element forming the first snap-in connection is an axially facing perimeter (see near 11) and the perimeter of the second portion of the connecting element forming the second snap-in connection is an axially facing perimeter (see near 12),
further comprising an elastic compensating element (15),
wherein the compensating element in the mounted state is arranged in an axial direction (see annotated fig. 8), at least partly between the connecting body and the lug component to create a pre-tension in the axial direction between the connecting body and the lug component (see annotated fig. 8, where the seal directly abuts against both ends of the pipes and therefore would meet the limitation of the claim),
but does not disclose:
wherein the perimeter of the first portion is an axially facing closed perimeter and the perimeter of the second portion is an axially facing closed perimeter (ex., there was nothing found in the disclosure that states it is a circumferentially continuous or not continuous projection 11,12),
wherein the compensating element is produced from a different material than the remainder of the connecting element,
the element having an elastic deformability of between 1% and 15%, and
wherein the first positive-locking snap-in connection is a permanent connection and the second positive-locking snap-in connection is a permanent connection.
In regards to being an axially facing closed perimeter, Williamson discloses a similar snap-in device comprising axially facing closed perimeters to prevent separation of the pipes from the device such that accidental disengagement is almost impossible (7:11-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Nicholas such that the perimeter of the first portion is an axially facing closed perimeter and the perimeter of the second portion is an axially facing closed perimeter to further prevent the separation of the connecting body and lug component, as taught by Williamson (7:11-19).
In regards to the material of the compensating element, Williamson discloses that it is known for the compensating element to be either the same material as the sleeve (see fig. 8) or a different material and separate from the sleeve (see fig. 9) such that its made from PTFE (6:30-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the compensating element of Nicholas in view of Williamson such that the compensating element is separate from and produced from a different material than the remainder of the connecting element to meet the limitation of claim 1 because Williamson discloses that there a finite number of identified solutions of having an integral compensating element or a separate compensating element made of a different material (6:30-34). A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying the compensating element of Nicholas in view of Williamson such that the compensating element is separate and made of a different material is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results.
In regards to the compensating and connecting element material, Nicholas discloses that gaskets are known to be comprised of a rubber material (ex., see cross-hatching of gasket 18 in fig. 3) and connecting elements are known to be comprised of plastic (ex., see cross-hatching of connecting element 8 in fig. 3),
wherein the seals can be placed at least directly between the flanges of the pipes (ex., see fig. 6, where seals can be provided directly between 9 and 10 or directly between 35 and 37 as discussed on page 2, lines 84-90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a rubber material for the compensating element and a plastic material for connecting element of Nicholas in view of Williamson because Nicholas discloses that gaskets are known to be comprised of a rubber material (ex., see cross-hatching of gasket 18 in fig. 3) and connecting elements are known to be comprised of plastic (ex., see cross-hatching of connecting element 8 in fig. 3) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to the permanent connections via breaking points, Adrian discloses a similar device where a non-releasable connection is created to reduce the risk of manipulations and of the latching becoming released (2:21-25) by altering the material of a sleeve (see fig. 3) and connection pieces (2 and 3, fig. 2) to each other in such a manner that an elastic deformation resulting in the latching becoming released is not possible (2:30-34),
wherein it is also advantageous to have the sleeve comprise at least one predetermined breaking point which allows a systematic destruction of the sleeve to allow a possibility to release the latched connection in such a manner that only the sleeve is destroyed so that in particular damage to the connecting pieces can be prevented (2:35-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the connecting element of Nicholas in view of Williamson with the provision of at least two pre-determined breaking points to allow a possibility to release the latched connection only through destruction of the connecting element such that the plastic material of the connecting element is adapted to prevent releasing of the latched connection unless the sleeve is destroyed via the breaking points so that damage to the connecting pieces can be prevented, as taught by Adrian (2:30-34, 2:35-44).
In regards to claim 25, Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first and second snap-in connections being permanent connections only disconnected by at least partial destruction thereof (see rejection of claim 1 above).
In regards to claim 26, Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian further discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the perimeter of the first portion and the perimeter of the second portion are circumferentially continuous and uninterrupted (ex., see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Krause.
In regards to claim 8, Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the gaskets are known to be comprised of a rubber material (ex., see cross-hatching of gasket 18 in fig. 3 of Nicholas) and connecting elements are known to be comprised of plastic (ex., see cross-hatching of connecting element 8 in fig. 3 of Nicholas) such that the base body is made of resilient plastic (page 2, lines 3-5 of Nicholas),
wherein the compensating element has a modulus of elasticity that is smaller than a modulus of elasticity of a base body of the connecting element (ex., it is inherent that rubber would have a smaller modulus of elasticity than the connecting element),
but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the modulus of elasticity of the compensating element being in the range between 0.0004 GPa and 0.1 GPa,
the modulus of elasticity of the base body of the connecting element being in the range between 1 GPa and 10 GPa.
In regards to the sealing and connecting element material, Krause discloses:
wherein a compensating element is made of rubber (see paragraph 0028, line 263 of the previously provided translated document), and
wherein a connecting element is made of PVC (see paragraph 0015, lines 153-158),
wherein the compensating element has a modulus of elasticity that is smaller than a modulus of elasticity of a base body of the connecting element,
wherein the modulus of elasticity of the base body of the connecting element being in the range between 1 GPa and 10 GPa (ex., PVC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a PVC material for connecting element and a rubber material for the compensating element of Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian to meet the limitation of the claim because Nicholas discloses that it is known to use rubber for the compensating element and plastic for the connecting body (ex., see the material cross-hatching of fig. 3), Krause discloses that it is known to use a rubber compensating element (see paragraph 0028, line 263) and a PVC connecting element (see paragraph 0015, lines 153-158), and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Hi-Tech Seals (NPL, 2018) .
In regards to claim 11, Nicholas in view of Williamson discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 1,
but does not disclose:
one of the connecting elements and the compensating element is provided at least in part with a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating.
In regards to the PTFE coating, Hi-Tech Seals discloses that PTFE coated compensating elements are well known to increase the ease of installation and reducing wear (see NPL previously provided herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to provide a PTFE coating to at least the compensating element of Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian to increase the ease of installation and reducing wear, as taught by Hi-Tech Seals (see NPL previously provided).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian as applied to claim 12 above.
In regards to claim 13, Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian discloses:
The plug connector arrangement according to claim 12, wherein the set fracture sites include at least one tool engagement groove on an outer perimeter of the connecting element,
but does not disclose:
wherein the set fracture sites include at least one collar defined on an outer perimeter of the connecting element.
In regards to the collar, Adrian discloses a collar (see fig. 9 for illustrative purposes, where a collar is used to cover the groove) defined on an outer perimeter of the connecting element (see Col. 9, lines 60-67, where the collar 25 is used to cover the fracture site) to protects the connecting element against damage (see col. 9, lines 31-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the connecting element of Nicholas in view of Williamson and Adrian with the provision of a collar to protect the connecting element against damage, as taught by Adrian (see Col. 9, lines 31-34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 would be allowable if the base claim is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action (ex., see 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights