DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in view of the amendments filed January 27th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Vossler ‘715 fails to teach or suggest a third rotor blade mold segment positioned between and connected to the first rotor blade mold segment and the second rotor blade mold segment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejections are based on a combination of De Waal Malefijt and Vossler, wherein De Waal Malefijt discloses at least a third rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segments S2’-S6’) positioned between and connected ([0145]; mold elements may be secured together using any suitable attachment means, e.g. bolting, adhesive, snap-fit connections, etc.) to the first rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segment S1’ is for making the blade root) and the second rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segment S7’ is for making the blade tip). Therefore, the cited prior art references address all of the limitations of the claims.
Applicant argues Vossler ‘715 fails to teach or suggest a third blade mold segment that is configured to be removed, and the first and second rotor blade mold segments connected together to thereby shorten the rotor blade mold. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejections are based on a combination of De Waal Malefijt and Vossler, wherein De Waal Malefijt discloses the number of mold segments required depends on the desired length of the blade ([0120-0121]). From this disclosure one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that removing one of the connected mold segments S2’-S6’, corresponding to the at least one third rotor blade mold segment, would shorten the rotor blade mold in the longitudinal direction. As these mold segments can be secured using detachable attachment means, such as bolting or snap-fit connections ([0145]), the mold segments, corresponding to the at least one third rotor blade mold segment, are capable of being removed to shorten the rotor blade mold.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Waal Malefijt et al. (US 20170274563 A1; hereafter De Waal Malefijt), in view of Vossler et al. (US 20140056715 A1; hereafter Vossler).
Regarding claim 15, De Waal Malefijt (Fig. 12-17) discloses a rotor blade mold (Fig. 12; [0127]; wind turbine blade mold) for the manufacture of a rotor blade of a wind energy installation, wherein the rotor blade comprises a blade root and a blade tip ([0101-0103]; wind turbine blade with blade root and blade tip), and wherein the rotor blade extends in a longitudinal direction from the blade root to the blade tip (Fig. 2), the rotor blade mold comprising:
a first rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segment S1’ is for making the blade root) configured for the manufacture of a portion of the rotor blade that comprises the blade root;
a second rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segment S7’ is for making the blade tip) configured for the manufacture of a portion of the rotor blade that comprises the blade tip;
and at least a third rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segments S2’-S6’) positioned between and connected ([0145]; mold elements may be secured together using any suitable attachment means, e.g. bolting, adhesive, snap-fit connections, etc.) to the first rotor blade mold segment and the second rotor blade mold segment;
wherein the at least one third rotor blade mold segment has a cross-sectional area extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 12-13; mold segment S5’ has a cross-sectional area extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction);
and wherein at least one of a shape or size of the cross-sectional area is substantially constant in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 12-13; [0121]; mold segment S5’ has shape and size relatively straight and unchanging in the longitudinal direction).
De Waal Malefijt further discloses the number of mold segments required depends on the desired length of the blade ([0120-0121]). From this disclosure one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that removing one of the connected mold segments S2’-S6’, corresponding to the at least one third rotor blade mold segment, would shorten the rotor blade mold in the longitudinal direction. As these mold segments can be secured using detachable attachment means, such as bolting or snap-fit connections ([0145]), the mold segments, corresponding to the at least one third rotor blade mold segment, are capable of being removed to shorten the rotor blade mold.
De Waal Malefijt differs from the instant claim in that it does not explicitly disclose oppositely facing end surface of the third rotor blade mold segment, in the longitudinal direction, are congruent.
However, Vossler (Fig. 2) teaches a rotor blade mold ([0020]; variable length blade tip mold 10) comprising a mold segment ([0021-0022]; variable length joint mold section 18) corresponding to an intermediate portion of a rotor blade ([0022]; mold section 18 forms portion of blade in between base assembly 150 and tip portion 115) to be manufactured, wherein a shape or size of the cross-sectional area of the mold segment is constant ([[0023]; mold section 18 has a constant cross-section for its entire length) in a longitudinal direction. As the cross-section of the first end 12 and second end 13 are the same, ends 12 and 13 are congruent. Vossler further teaches the mold segment corresponding to the intermediate portion of the rotor blade may be formed as a separate piece from mold segments corresponding to the blade root and standard blade tip ([0021]).
De Waal Malefijt and Vossler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of rotor blade molds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify De Waal Malefijt with the teachings of Vossler to provide oppositely facing end surface of the third rotor blade mold segment, in the longitudinal direction, are congruent. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of rotor blades with a greater variety of lengths (Vossler [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, modified De Waal Malefijt discloses the rotor blade mold of claim 15, wherein the at least one third rotor blade mold segment is provided in a region of the rotor blade mold that is between about 20 percent and about 80 percent of a blade mold length of the rotor blade mold in the longitudinal direction (De Waal Malefijt Fig. 12-13; mold segment S5’ is in a region between 20 percent and 80 percent).
Regarding claim 13, modified De Waal Malefijt discloses the rotor blade mold of claim 15, wherein the at least one third rotor blade mold segment is provided in a region of the rotor blade mold that is configured for the manufacture of a substantially cylindrical region of the blade root of the rotor blade (De Waal Malefijt Fig. 12-13; mold segments S2’ and S3’ shape substantially cylindrical region of the blade root).
Regarding claim 14, modified De Waal Malefijt discloses the rotor blade mold of claim 15, wherein the at least one third rotor blade mold segment has a segment length in the longitudinal direction which is not greater than about 20 percent of a blade mold length of the rotor blade mold in the longitudinal direction (De Waal Malefijt Fig. 12-13; mold segment S2’ has a segment length smaller than 20 percent of the length of the blade).
Regarding claim 16, modified De Waal Malefijt discloses the rotor blade mold of claim 15, wherein:
the at least one third rotor blade mold segment includes an upper base surface and a lower base surface (De Waal Malefijt Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segments S2’-S6’ comprise upper and lower base surfaces respectively at junctions between mold segments);
and at least one of the shape or size of the cross-sectional areas of the upper and lower base surfaces correspond to the cross-sectional areas of the respective ends of the first and second rotor blade mold segments that respectively face toward the third rotor blade mold segment (De Waal Malefijt Fig. 12-13; [0130]; the shape and size of upper and lower base surfaces of mold segments S2’-S6’ correspond to the ends of the mold segments S1’ and S7’ in order to form a continuous molding surface for the blade).
Regarding claim 17, modified De Waal Malefijt discloses the rotor blade mold of claim 15, wherein:
the at least one third rotor blade mold segment includes an upper base surface and a lower base surface (De Waal Malefijt Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segments S2’-S6’ comprise upper and lower base surfaces respectively at junctions between mold segments); and at least one of:
the upper base surface is twisted with respect to the lower base surface about a longitudinal axis running in the longitudinal direction, or the cross-sectional area of the at least one third rotor blade mold segment is twisted in the longitudinal direction (De Waal Malefijt [0038, 0130]; molding segments can have surfaces comprising a degree of twist around a spanwise or chordwise axis).
Regarding claim 18, modified De Waal Malefijt discloses the rotor blade mold of claim 17, wherein the at least one third rotor blade mold segment represents a cylinder that is twisted in the longitudinal direction (De Waal Malefijt Fig. 12-13; [0038, 0130]; mold segments S2’ and S3’ shape substantially cylindrical region of the blade root and can have surfaces comprising a degree of twist around a spanwise or chordwise axis).
Regarding claim 19, modified De Waal Malefijt discloses the rotor blade mold of claim 15, wherein:
the at least one third rotor blade mold segment includes an upper base surface and a lower base surface (De Waal Malefijt Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segments S2’-S6’ comprise upper and lower base surfaces respectively at junctions between mold segments); and at least one of:
the upper base surface is tilted with respect to the lower base surface about at least one tilt axis that extends perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, or a longitudinal axis of the at least one third rotor blade mold segment has a curvature perpendicular to a profile depth of the at least one third rotor blade mold segment, so that a finite angle or a tilt is obtained between the upper and lower base surfaces (De Waal Malefijt [0038, 0130]; molding segments can have surfaces comprising a degree of twist around a spanwise or chordwise axis).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Waal Malefijt et al. (US 20170274563 A1; hereafter De Waal Malefijt), in view of Vossler et al. (US 20140056715 A1; hereafter Vossler) and Stoer et al. (DE 102014001445 A1; hereafter Stoer; page numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 20, De Waal Malefijt (Fig. 12-17) discloses a method of manufacturing a rotor blade for a wind energy installation ([0109]; making a wind turbine blade), wherein the rotor blade comprises a blade root and a blade tip ([0101-0103]; wind turbine blade with blade root and blade tip), and wherein the rotor blade extends in a longitudinal direction from the blade root to the blade tip (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
obtaining a rotor blade mold (Fig. 12; [0127]; wind turbine blade mold), wherein the motor blade mold comprises:
a first rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segment S1’ is for making the blade root) configured for the manufacture of a portion of the rotor blade that comprises the blade root,
and a second rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segment S7’ is for making the blade tip) configured for the manufacture of a portion of the rotor blade that comprises the blade tip;
and at least a third rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segments S2’-S6’) between the first rotor blade mold segment and the second rotor blade mold segment;
wherein the at least one third rotor blade mold segment has across-sectional area extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 12-13; mold segment S5’ has a cross-sectional area extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction);
and wherein at least one of the shape or size of the cross-sectional area is substantially constant in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 12-13; mold segment S5’ has shape and size substantially constant in the longitudinal direction).
De Waal Malefijt further discloses the number of mold segments required depends on the desired length of the blade ([0120-0121]) and the mold segments may be secured together using any suitable attachment means, e.g. bolting, adhesive, snap-fit connections, etc. ([0145]).
De Waal Malefijt differs from the instant claim in that it does not explicitly disclose oppositely facing end surface of the third rotor blade mold segment, in the longitudinal direction, are congruent and integrating or removing the third rotor blade mold segment.
However, Vossler (Fig. 2) teaches a rotor blade mold ([0020]; variable length blade tip mold 10) comprising a mold segment ([0021-0022]; variable length joint mold section 18) corresponding to an intermediate portion of a rotor blade ([0022]; mold section 18 forms portion of blade in between base assembly 150 and tip portion 115) to be manufactured, wherein a shape or size of the cross-sectional area of the mold segment is constant ([[0023]; mold section 18 has a constant cross-section for its entire length) in a longitudinal direction. As the cross-section of the first end 12 and second end 13 are the same, ends 12 and 13 are congruent. Vossler further teaches the mold segment corresponding to the intermediate portion of the rotor blade may be formed as a separate piece from mold segments corresponding to the blade root and standard blade tip ([0021]).
De Waal Malefijt and Vossler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of rotor blade molds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify De Waal Malefijt with the teachings of Vossler to provide oppositely facing end surface of the third rotor blade mold segment, in the longitudinal direction, are congruent. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of rotor blades with a greater variety of lengths (Vossler [0006]).
De Waal Malefijt, in view of Vossler, does not explicitly disclose integrating or removing the third rotor blade mold segment.
However, Stoer teaches a rotor blade mold (Fig. 1; near bottom of Pg. 3; main body 1 is mold for rotor blade shell) comprising a first mold segment for a blade root (Fig. 1; mold section 3.2 is for a blade root), a second mold segment for a blade tip (Fig. 1; mold section 3.n is for a blade tip), and at least one third mold segment for an intermediate portion of a rotor blade (Fig. 1; mold section corresponding to element 4), wherein the at least one third mold segment can be integrated or removed to adjust a length (Fig. 1; near bottom of Pg. 3; any number of interchangeable mold sections 3.1-3.n can be assembled to produce rotor blade shells of different lengths, when shorter length is required the unnecessary sections can be filled with solid bodies) of the rotor blade to be molded.
De Waal Malefijt and Stoer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of rotor blade molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify De Waal Malefijt, in view of Vossler, with the teachings of Stoer to provide integrating or removing the third rotor blade mold segment. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of rotor blades with a greater variety of lengths and shapes (Stoer middle of Pg. 2).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Waal Malefijt et al. (US 20170274563 A1; hereafter De Waal Malefijt), in view of Vossler et al. (US 20140056715 A1; hereafter Vossler) and Stoer et al. (DE 102014001445 A1; hereafter Stoer; page numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation) and further in view of Baker et al. (US 20120082547 A1; hereafter Baker).
Regarding claim 21, modified De Waal Malefijt discloses a method of obtaining at least one rotor blade that has been manufactured according to the method of claim 20.
While De Waal Malefijt discloses the rotor blade can be mounted to a hub of wind turbine ([0101-0103]), De Waal Malefijt, in view of Vossler and Stoer, does not explicitly disclose a method of coupling the at least one rotor blade to a hub of a wind energy installation.
However, Baker teaches a method of manufacturing a rotor blade (claim 11) and coupling the rotor blade to a hub of a wind energy installation (claim 14).
De Waal Malefijt and Baker are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of making wind turbine blades. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified De Waal Malefijt with the teachings of Baker to provide a method of coupling the at least one rotor blade to a hub of a wind energy installation. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would provide large, efficient and lightweight wind turbine blades for wind turbine systems (Baker [0004]).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Waal Malefijt et al. (US 20170274563 A1; hereafter De Waal Malefijt), in view of Stoer et al. (DE 102014001445 A1; hereafter Stoer; page numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation) and Vossler et al. (US 20140056715 A1; hereafter Vossler).
Regarding claim 22, De Waal Malefijt (Fig. 12-17) discloses a rotor blade mold (Fig. 12; [0127]; wind turbine blade mold) for the manufacture of a rotor blade of a wind energy installation, wherein the rotor blade comprises a blade root and a blade tip ([0101-0103]; wind turbine blade with blade root and blade tip), and wherein the rotor blade extends in a longitudinal direction from the blade root to the blade tip (Fig. 2), the rotor blade mold comprising:
a plurality of rotor blade mold segments (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segments S1’-S7’), including a first rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segment S1’ is for making the blade root) configured for the manufacture of a portion of the rotor blade that comprises the blade root;
a second rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segment S7’ is for making the blade tip) configured for the manufacture of a portion of the rotor blade that comprises the blade tip;
and at least one third rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; one of mold segments S2’-S6’ is for making intermediate portion between blade root and blade tip) configured for the manufacture of an intermediate portion of the rotor blade between the blade root and the blade tip;
the plurality of rotor blade mold segments configured to define a first rotor blade mold arrangement comprising the first, second, and third rotor blade mold segments connected ([0145]; mold elements may be secured together using any suitable attachment means, e.g. bolting, adhesive, snap-fit connections, etc.) together such that the first rotor blade mold arrangement is configured to make a rotor blade having a first overall length (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; mold segments S1’-S7’ for blade with a given length) in the longitudinal direction;
wherein the at least one third rotor blade mold segment has a cross-sectional area extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 12-13; mold segment S5’ has a cross-sectional area extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction);
and wherein at least one of a shape or size of the cross-sectional area is substantially constant in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 12-13; [0121]; mold segment S5’ has shape and size relatively straight and unchanging in the longitudinal direction).
De Waal Malefijt does not explicitly disclose the plurality of rotor blade mold segments configured to define a second rotor blade mold arrangement comprising the first and second rotor blade mold segments connected together without the at least one third rotor blade mold segment such that the second rotor blade mold arrangement is configured to make a rotor blade having a second overall length shorter than the first overall length and oppositely facing end surface of the third rotor blade mold segment, in the longitudinal direction, are congruent.
However, Stoer teaches a rotor blade mold (Fig. 1; near bottom of Pg. 3; main body 1 is mold for rotor blade shell) comprising a first mold segment for a blade root (Fig. 1; mold section 3.2 is for a blade root), a second mold segment for a blade tip (Fig. 1; mold section 3.n is for a blade tip), and at least one third mold segment for an intermediate portion of a rotor blade (Fig. 1; mold section corresponding to element 4), wherein the at least one third mold segment can be integrated or removed to adjust a length (Fig. 1; near bottom of Pg. 3; any number of interchangeable mold sections 3.1-3.n can be assembled to produce rotor blade shells of different lengths, when shorter length is required the unnecessary sections can be filled with solid bodies) of the rotor blade to be molded.
De Waal Malefijt and Stoer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of rotor blade molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify De Waal Malefijt with the teachings of Stoer to provide the plurality of rotor blade mold segments configured to define a second rotor blade mold arrangement comprising the first and second rotor blade mold segments connected together without the third rotor blade mold segment such that the second rotor blade mold arrangement is configured to make a rotor blade having a second overall length shorter than the first overall length. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of rotor blades with a greater variety of lengths and shapes (Stoer middle of Pg. 2).
Furthermore, Vossler (Fig. 2) teaches a rotor blade mold ([0020]; variable length blade tip mold 10) comprising a mold segment ([0021-0022]; variable length joint mold section 18) corresponding to an intermediate portion of a rotor blade ([0022]; mold section 18 forms portion of blade in between base assembly 150 and tip portion 115) to be manufactured, wherein a shape or size of the cross-sectional area of the mold segment is constant ([[0023]; mold section 18 has a constant cross-section for its entire length) in a longitudinal direction. As the cross-section of the first end 12 and second end 13 are the same, ends 12 and 13 are congruent. Vossler further teaches the mold segment corresponding to the intermediate portion of the rotor blade may be formed as a separate piece from mold segments corresponding to the blade root and standard blade tip ([0021]).
De Waal Malefijt and Vossler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of rotor blade molds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify De Waal Malefijt with the teachings of Vossler to provide oppositely facing end surface of the third rotor blade mold segment, in the longitudinal direction, are congruent. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of rotor blades with a greater variety of lengths (Vossler [0006]).
Regarding claim 23, modified De Waal Malefijt discloses the rotor blade mold of claim 22, further comprising: a fourth rotor blade mold segment (Fig. 12-13; [0130]; one of mold segments S2’-S6’ is for making intermediate portion between blade root and blade tip) configured for the manufacture of the intermediate portion of the rotor blade between the blade root and the blade tip.
De Waal Malefijt does not explicitly disclose the plurality of rotor blade mold segments configured to define a third rotor blade mold arrangement comprising the first and second rotor blade mold segments assembled together without the at least one third rotor blade mold segment, and including the fourth rotor blade mold segment in place of the at least one third rotor blade mold segment, such that the third rotor blade mold arrangement is configured to make a rotor blade having a third overall length shorter than the first overall length.
However, Stoer teaches a rotor blade mold (Fig. 1; near bottom of Pg. 3; main body 1 is mold for rotor blade shell) comprising a first mold segment for a blade root (Fig. 1; mold section 3.2 is for a blade root), a second mold segment for a blade tip (Fig. 1; mold section 3.n is for a blade tip), and at least one third mold segment for an intermediate portion of a rotor blade (Fig. 1; mold section corresponding to element 4), wherein the at least one third mold segment can be integrated or removed to adjust a length (Fig. 1; near bottom of Pg. 3; any number of interchangeable mold sections 3.1-3.n can be assembled to produce rotor blade shells of different lengths, when shorter length is required the unnecessary sections can be filled with solid bodies) of the rotor blade to be molded.
De Waal Malefijt and Stoer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of rotor blade molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify De Waal Malefijt with the teachings of Stoer to provide the plurality of rotor blade mold segments configured to define a third rotor blade mold arrangement comprising the first and second rotor blade mold segments assembled together without the third rotor blade mold segment, and including the fourth rotor blade mold segment in place of the third rotor blade mold segment, such that the third rotor blade mold arrangement is configured to make a rotor blade having a third overall length shorter than the first overall length. Doing so would allow for the manufacture of rotor blades with a greater variety of lengths and shapes (Stoer middle of Pg. 2).
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754