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 .
This action is in response to the 12/12/2025 amendment. Claims 1-15 are pending in this action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim is provided below for convenience.
Claim 1 (currently amended) A system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to:
access a record specifying an identification of a parameter to be monitored during three-dimensional (3D) fabrication of a part, wherein monitoring of the parameter includes measuring values of the parameter, the values indicative of whether the part that has been fabricated has specified physical attributes that are not identifiable via visual inspection of the part alone, such that knowledqe of the values permits determination as to whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes, where the determination cannot be made via visual inspection alone;
cause the 3D fabrication of the part;
cause, during the 3D fabrication of the part, monitoring of the parameter, such that the values of the parameter are measured; and cause recording of data including the measured values in a blockchain ledger,
wherein when the measured values of the parameter are outside a predefined range, whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes cannot be guaranteed,
wherein recording the data in the blockchain ledger inhibits tampering of the data, permitting the data to be used in a guaranteed manner to verify whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes, and
wherein the parameter comprises one or multiple of: temperature around build material particles during fabrication of the part, air pressure and/or air flow within a build chamber in which the part is being fabricated; and humidity within the build chamber during fabrication.
Claims 1-15 are interpreted as follows.
The limitation, as recited in claims 1, 7 and 12, “the part alone, such that knowledqe of the values permits determination as to whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes, where the determination cannot be made via visual inspection alone; “ does not add anything or does not further limit the step of “access a record specifying an identification of a parameter to be monitored during three-dimensional (3D) fabrication of a part, wherein monitoring of the parameter includes measuring values of the parameter..”
Applicants disclosure shows,
“[0009] The quality, such as, physical attributes and/or appearance attributes, of 3D fabricated parts may be affected by various parameters that may exist during the fabrication of the parts. For instance, if build materials fail to reach certain temperatures during fabrication of the parts, the build materials may not sufficiently fuse together and the parts may have inadequate strengths. As another example, if the humidity level inside of a build chamber of a 3D fabrication system exceeds certain levels, the build materials may also not sufficiently fuse together properly. These physical attributes of the fabricated parts may not be readily identifiable through a visual inspection of the parts.
In view of par. [0009] above, the “physical attribute” is the strength of building materials that are fused together. The parameter is “temperature.” The applicants are referring to measuring the values of temperature and the measuring provides the “knowledge” about the strength. However, the strength is not measured, maybe because it is not “visible.” This limitation, at best, is a condition that does not further limit the claim, therefore, may not be given patentable weight.
See MPEP 2111.04.II.Contingent Limitations. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
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 1-15 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.
It is unclear as to what the limitation, as recited in claims 1, 7 and 12, “the part alone, such that knowledqe of the values permits determination as to whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes, where the determination cannot be made via visual inspection alone; “means. The term, “knowledge in this limitation is unclear because in the context of claims 1, 7, and 12, refers to the observation that fused building materials should withstand temperature. See applicant’s disclosure, par. [0009]. The limitation does not add anything or does not further limit the step of “access a record specifying an identification of a parameter to be monitored during three-dimensional (3D) fabrication of a part, wherein monitoring of the parameter includes measuring values of the parameter..” in the claims. Claims 2-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of their respective base independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang [WO 2018080506 published 03-May- 2018] in view of Chen [US PG PUB 20200006101 published 02-January-2020], and further in view of Bischoff [US PG PUB 20220043434 published 10-February-2022, and further in view of Srivastava [US PG PUB 20200327651 published 15-October-2020].
With respect to claim 1, Huang teaches a 3D parts fabrication system (Huang, Fig 4) comprising: a processor (Huang, Fig 4, 402); and a memory(Huang, Fig 4, 410) storing instructions executable by the processor to:
access a record specifying an identification of a parameter to be monitored during three-dimensional (3D) fabrication of a part (Huang, [0032] “ the processor 404 may access the data for the production 3D part from the data store 404. The processor 402 ….. execute the instructions 414 to determine attributes of the production 3D part from the accessed data), wherein monitoring of the parameter includes measuring values of the parameter (Huang, [0048], “[0048] The 3D fabricating device 600 may also include a plurality of warming devices 620 arranged in an array above the build area platform 602. Each of the warming devices 620 may be a lamp or other heat source that is to apply heat onto spread layers of the build material particles 606, for instance, to maintain the build material particles 606 within a predetermined temperature range; heat that is being applied to the particle layer is considered monitoring), the values indicative of whether the part that has been fabricated has specified physical attributes that are not identifiable (Huang, [0048] The 3D fabricating device 600 may also include a plurality of warming devices 620 …. that is to apply heat onto spread layers of the build material particles 606…. to maintain the build material particles 606 within a predetermined temperature range.) [0024] “Additionally, or as another example, properties of the 3D fabricating device itself may be inferred from the determined properties of the 3D indicator object 200. For instance, if a block of the 3D indicator object 200 has a color that is darker than intended, a determination may be made that the 3D fabricating device applied too much heat during the fabrication process, e.g., the heating process may be malfunctioning or may require tuning”) via visual inspection of the part alone, such that knowledqe of the values permits determination as to whether the part that has been fabricated has the physical attributes, where the determination cannot be made via visual inspection alone;
Examiner notes that a parameter of a 3D part is being monitored by accessing the record of the part; values of the parameter; Examiner is relying on the description in spec, [0009], and/or “For instance, if build materials fail to reach certain temperatures during fabrication of the parts, the build materials may not sufficiently fuse together and the parts may have inadequate strengths. As another example, if the humidity level inside of a build chamber of a 3D fabrication system exceeds certain levels, the build materials may also not sufficiently fuse together properly. These physical attributes of the fabricated parts may not be readily identifiable through a visual inspection of the parts.” See Spec [0009].
cause the 3D fabrication of the part;
cause, during the 3D fabrication of the part, monitoring of the parameter, such that the values of the parameter are measured (Huang, [0048]); and
cause recording of data including the measured values, (Huang teaches a datastore but not a block-chain ledger)
wherein when the measured values of the parameter, wherein the part that has been fabricated; wherein recording the data at least in a database to match the part that has been fabricated has the attributes of specified physical attributes,
and wherein the parameter comprises one or multiple of: temperature around build material particles during fabrication of the part, air pressure and/or air flow within a build chamber in which the part is being fabricated; and humidity within the build chamber during fabrication. (Huang, [0024], “Additionally, or as another example, properties of the 3D fabricating device itself may be inferred from the determined properties of the 3D indicator object 200. For instance, if a block of the 3D indicator object 200 has a color that is darker than intended, a determination may be made that the 3D fabricating device applied too much heat during the fabrication process, e.g., the heating process may be malfunctioning or may require tuning. As another example, if a block of the 3D indicator object 200 has a gap, e.g., an empty streak, a determination may be made that a fluid delivery device that delivered printing fluid for that block malfunctioned. As a further example, if a block of the 3D indicator object 200 has a color that is lighter than intended, a determination may be made that the block was printed with a shortage of printing fluid, e.g., printing fluid of a particular color may need to be replenished.”)
With respect to claim 1, specifically with respect to the limitation,” wherein when the measured values of the parameter are outside a predefined range, whether the part that has been fabricated”, Huang, although suggest that a predetermined range of temperature for the warming devices be maintained, Huang does not explicitly indicate the values are measured to maintain the temperature within the predetermined range.
With respect to claim 1, Chen teaches adjusting the temperature. See Chen, [0016]), “(t)he systems and methods described in the present disclosure can detect and adjust processing temperatures and chemical flows within a processing chamber by 3D visualization of the temperature field and chemical flow using injected suitable illumination markers and detectors that can detect the injected illumination markers..” Chen also recognizes the problems with the processing operations of semiconductor wafer fabrication, “such as etching and cleaning of semiconductor wafers,” when “temperature and chemical flow can vary within a processing chamber and cause non-uniformity in semiconductor wafer processing.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing to incorporate the parameter adjustment feature of Chen in Huang because Chen, [0002], suggests that “the process parameters can be adjusted (e.g., in real time). Chen also teaches that using the adjustment the processing conditions of wafers can be kept “within the predetermined baseline levels, the wafer can be dried and removed from the wet chemical processing tool” (see Chen, [0015]) and thus improve the overall chip production throughput (Chen, [0014].
With respect to claim 1, specifically the limitation of “recording of data including the measured values in a blockchain ledger,” Huang teaches a datastore but does not indicate the use of a block-chain ledger to store the data regarding the fabrication of a part.
With respect to claim 1, Bischoff (in par. [0013]) teaches the use of blockchain. Bischoff teaches , “…at least one of the databases is operated as a distributed ledger ([0047]). In some embodiments, at least one of the databases or the possibly sole database is operated as a distributed register. A database that is operated as a distributed register is referred to as a “distributed ledger”.
It would have been obvious to incorporate the distributed ledger (which is equivalent to a blockchain) of Bischoff in the Huang-Chen combination, because Bischoff teaches, “(i)f a plurality of electronic computing units are networked together ….. the fabrication data, reproduction data, production data and character data can, by virtue of the distributed ledger, be kept continuously updated in the database by a plurality of entities, in particular in the correct sequence. In this case, the distributed ledger effectively acts as or generally provides the basis for a block chain, so that the file containers or the database in which the file containers are saved or stored can be operated as a continuously extendable list of data sets which can be concatenated by means of cryptographic methods, e.g. the cited encryption and/or checksum. This means that time-specific integral concatenation can be implemented by a decentralized network of electronic computing units. Using the distributed ledger or the resulting block chain as a method keeping safe or organizing the file containers, the respective actor can be granted access to the data that is intended for them in a simple manner in each case.”
The improvement to the combined system of Huang-Chen-Bischoff is spelled out by Bischoff hereinabove.
With respect to claim 1, the Huang-Chen-Bischoff combination does not explicitly indicate that “wherein when the measured values of the parameter are outside a predefined range, whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes cannot be guaranteed, and wherein recording the data in the blockchain ledger inhibits tampering of the data, permitting the data to be used in a guaranteed manner to verify whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes.” In other words, the Huang-Chen-Bischoff combination does not explicitly indicate that the data in blockchain ledger cannot be tempered and to be used for verifying whether a part has been fabricated in accordance with the parts specification.
With respect to claim 1, Srivastava teaches automated inspection system that compares inspection data about a pat to be fabricate with the data in the part’s specification (Srivastava, Fig. 4, 400-408) to determine if the part is defective (Fig. 4, 408, [0040]) The AI client service 108 determines whether the cut part is defective (i.e., non-compliant with the corresponding MBD) based on the comparison of the inspection data of the cut part to the corresponding MBD. In other words, the AI client service 108 uses the comparison to verify whether the cut part is compliant with the corresponding MBD (model based definition or specification).
It would have been obvious to incorporate Srivastava in the Huang-Chen-Bischoff combination to further automate the combined system as Srivastava not only compares the parts with specification, but also provides the color-coded indicators (Srivastava further teaches, in [0045], …the AI client 108 (and/or the inspection system 104) provides an indication for the human operator, the pick and place system, and/or another automated movement system that indicates whether a cut part has passed the inspection and thereby complies with the corresponding MBD or is defective (i.e., has failed the inspection and is thus non-compliant with the corresponding MBD). For example, cut parts determined as compliant with the corresponding MBD are illuminated with a color of light (e.g., green, etc.), while cut parts determined as defective are illuminated with a different color of light (e.g., white, red, etc.)) that make the system easier to use.
Claim 2 is rejected under the same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
[Claim 2. (previously presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the record specifying the identification of the parameter to be monitored is recorded in the blockchain ledger and the instructions are executable by the processor to further: access the record specifying the identification of the parameter to be monitored from the blockchain ledger.]
As to the “specifying the identification of the parameter,” in claim 2, the part to be fabricated with specified part is done by storing the specified part in a database as taught by Huang. See also Bischoff, [0013] and [0047].
With respect to claim 3, (the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause recording of the data in the blockchain ledger by: applying a hash to the data and a previous block hash value of a previous block in the blockchain ledger to generate a block hash value; and recording the data, the previous block hash value, and the block hash value as a new record in the blockchain ledger), see Bischoff, [0013], [0047].
With respect to Claim 4 (the system of claim 1, wherein the parameter is one of a plurality of parameters that are monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part so that values thereof are measured and subsequently included in the data recorded in the blockchain ledger), specifically, regarding the data to be stored in a blockchain ledger, see Bischoff, [0013], [0047].
With respect to claim 5 (the system of claim 1, wherein the parameter to be monitored comprises temperature, air pressure, humidity, airflow, or a geometry of portions of the part monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part),
Huang, teaches, ( see [0024]), “Additionally, or as another example, properties of the 3D fabricating device itself may be inferred from the determined properties of the 3D indicator object 200. For instance, if a block of the 3D indicator object 200 has a color that is darker than intended, a determination may be made that the 3D fabricating device applied too much heat during the fabrication process, e.g., the heating process may be malfunctioning or may require tuning.
With respect to claim 6, wherein the values of the parameter are measured at multiple time periods during the 3D fabrication of the part, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the invention to measure temperature multiple times because it is a common practice to take multiple readings of temperature and normalize the readings for accuracy.
Claim 7 is essentially the same as claim 1 except is directed to a method and rejected under the same rationale as applied to claim 1. As to the data to be stored in a blockchain ledger, see Bischoff, [0013], [0047].
7. (currently amended) A method comprising: identifying, by a processor, data recorded in a first record of a blockchain ledger, the data including measured values of a parameter monitored during three-dimensional (3D) fabrication of a part, the measured values indicative of whether the part that has been fabricated has specified physical attributes that are not identifiable via visual inspection of the part alone, such that knowledge of the values permits determination as to whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes, where the determination cannot be made via visual inspection alone; identifying, by the processor, a predefined range for the parameter recorded in a second record of the blockchain ledger; determining, by the processor, whether the measured values of the parameter monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part fall within the predefined range; and recording, by the processor, an indication as to whether the measured values of the parameter monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part fall within the predefined range as a third record of the blockchain ledger, wherein when the measured values of the parameter are outside a predefined range, whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes cannot be guaranteed,[[and ]]wherein recording the data in the blockchain ledger inhibits tampering of the data, permitting the data to be used in a guaranteed manner to verify whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes, and wherein the parameter comprises one or multiple of: temperature around build material particles during fabrication of the part, air pressure and/or air flow within a build chamber in which the part is being fabricated; and humidity within the build chamber during fabrication.
With respect to claim 8, the rationale applied to claim 3 is used. Specific limitations are highlighted with pointers to relevant teachings. Claim 7 is rejected as applied to claim 1 above. , further comprising: applying, by the processor, a hash (see Bischoff, [0044], [0045]) to the indication as to whether the measured values of the parameter monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part fall within the predefined range and a hash value of a previous record of the blockchain ledger (Bischoff, [0013], [0047]) to generate a third record hash value; and recording, by the processor, the indication, the hash value of the previous record, and the third record hash value as the third record of the blockchain ledger.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as applied to claim 7 above. As to the highlighted limitations in claim 9 (the method of claim 7, further comprising: based on a determination that the measured values of the parameter monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part fall within the predefined range, generating, by the processor, a certificate of compliance; and recording, by the processor, the certificate of compliance as the third record of the blockchain ledger; and based on a determination that the measured values of the parameter monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part fall outside of the predefined range, generating, by the processor, a certificate of non-compliance; and recording, by the processor, the certificate of non-compliance as the third record of the blockchain ledger. As to the certificate of compliance recited in claim 9, Bischoff teaches the validation of a part to be fabricated to be compared with the model based definition (i.e., specification of the part) and the fabrication is validated by inspection data. Bischoff teaches, in
[0042], “(i)In some implementations, the inspection system 104 only inspects some of the cut parts of the same layup and the AI client 108 determines whether all of the cut parts of the layup comply with the corresponding MBD(s) based on the inspection data of the cut parts that have been inspected. ….. in FIG. 3, the inspection system 104 only obtains inspection data for the cut parts 318a, 318b, 318c, 320a, and 320b that are exposed along the upper side of the layup 314, and the AI client 108 determines whether the cut parts 318d and 318g are defective or in compliance based on whether the cut part 318a is defective or in compliance.”
With respect to claim 10 (the method of claim 7, further comprising: accessing, by the processor, an identifier of the fabricated part; and recording, by the processor, the identifier of the fabricated part as a fourth record of the blockchain ledger), the rationale of claim 7 is applied. As to the storing of parts information in a blockchain ledger, see Bischoff ([0013], [0047]).
With respect to claim 11,. (the method of claim 7, wherein the parameter comprises temperature, air pressure, airflow, or a geometry of portions of the part monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part. With respect to claim 11, Huang teaches applying heat and also measuring humidity level), see Huang, [0048],
“[0048] The 3D fabricating device 600 may also include a plurality of warming devices 620 arranged in an array above the build area platform 602. Each of the warming devices 620 may be a lamp or other heat source that is to apply heat onto spread layers of the build material particles 606, for instance, to maintain the build material particles 606 within a predetermined temperature range; heat that is being applied to the particle layer is considered monitoring),
Claim 12 combines the subject matters of claims 7 and 9, and is directed to a computer program product rather than a method, and is rejected under the same rationale as applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 above.
[Claim 12. (currently amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable by a processor to: access a first record of a blockchain ledger, wherein data is recorded in the first record, the data including measured values of a parameter monitored during three- dimensional (3D) fabrication of a part, the measured values indicative of whether the part that has been fabricated has specified physical attributes that are not identifiable via visual inspection of the part alone, such that knowledqe of the values permits determination as to whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes, where the determination cannot be made via visual inspection alone; access a second record of the blockchain ledger, wherein a predefined range for the parameter is recorded in the second record; determine whether the parameter monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part complies with the predefined range; generate a certificate of compliance or a certificate of non-compliance based on the determination as to whether the parameter monitored during the 3D fabrication of the part complies with the predefined range; and record the generated certificate of compliance or certificate of non-compliance as a third record of the blockchain ledger, wherein when the measured values of the parameter are outside a predefined range, whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes cannot be guaranteed, wherein recording the data in the blockchain ledger inhibits tampering of the data, permitting the data to be used in a guaranteed manner to verify whether the part that has been fabricated has the specified physical attributes and wherein the parameter comprises one or multiple of: temperature around build material particles during fabrication of the part, air pressure and/or air flow within a build chamber in which the part is being fabricated; and humidity within the build chamber during fabrication.]
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as applied to claims 3 and 8 above. As for the hash value as recited in claim 13, see Bischoff, [0044], [0045].
Claim 13 (the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to further: apply a hash to the generated certificate of compliance or certificate of non- compliance and a hash value of a previous record of the blockchain ledger to generate a third record hash value; and record the generated certificate of compliance or certificate of non-compliance, the hash value of the previous record, and the third record hash value as the third record of the blockchain ledger.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as applied to claim 10 above.
As to the storing of parts information in a blockchain ledger, see Bischoff ([0013], [0047]).
14. (previously presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to further: access an identifier of the fabricated part; and record the identifier of the fabricated part as a fourth record of the blockchain ledger.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as applied to claim 7, 8 and 10 above.
As to the storing of parts information in a blockchain ledger, see Bischoff ([0013], [0047]).
Claim 15. (previously presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to further: apply a hash to the identifier of the fabricated part and a hash value of a previous record of the blockchain ledger to generate a fourth record hash value; and record the identifier, the hash value of the previous record, and the fourth record hash value as the fourth record of the blockchain ledger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132