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 office action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/10/2026 in which claims 16, 20-25, 28-31, 33-37 are pending, claims 16, 25, 29 are currently amended.
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 16, 20-25, 28-31, 33-37 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the third angular value" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the Applicant intended -- the third angular position--.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the third angular value" in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the Applicant intended -- the third angular position--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16, 19-24, 28-31, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfarr et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0212506), herein referred to as Pfarr in view of Dreier et al. (U.S. Patent 9,981,400), herein referred to as Dreier.
In regards to claim 16 and 29, Pfarr discloses a cutting apparatus (fig. 1) for cutting a food object, said apparatus comprising: at least one circular blade (22; “circular saw paragraph [0126]) being rotatable around a first axis through a center of the circular blade, the at least one circular blade defining a cutting plane (the plane of the blade),
and wherein the at least one circular blade is rotatable around a second axis, wherein the second axis is parallel and non-coaxial with respect to the first axis;
said apparatus further comprising:
a measurement device (scanning system 16) for determining a position of at least a part of a surface of the food object to be cut (“scans the workpieces (14) to physically characterize the workpieces”), wherein the measurement device includes a height profiler (paragraph [0013,0034,0040; 0047]) arranged for determining a height profile (“height distribution” paragraph [0040]) of the food object,
and a processor (computer 36; paragraph [0039]) arranged for controlling an angular speed of the at least one circular blade around the second axis based on the position of at least a part of the surface of the food object to be cut, and the height profile;
(It will be appreciated that different cutting velocities can be tested, either during normal production or in a separate non-production or calibration mode so as to determine the force imposed on the blade 22 as a function of velocity of the blade passing through the workpiece. This information can be combined with other data, such as the dimensions of a cross-section of the workpiece from scanner 16, or the physical composition of the workpiece (for instance, for the meat workpieces, the amount of fat, gristle, etc., in the meat), thereby to develop parameters of the cutting mode of the blade 22 for specific physical specifications and conditions of the workpiece being processed” paragraph [0072 and 0084-0091].
a conveyor (42) for conveying the food object from a first position (non-cutting position ) wherein the food object does not intersect the plane (blade doesn’t cut the food) to a second position wherein the food object intersects the cutting plane (position where food is cut)
wherein the angular speed of the at least one circular blade around the second axis is configured to vary according to the position of at least the part of the surface of the food object (fig. 3e)
and wherein a rotational speed of the at least one circular blade around the first axis remains constant during slicing of the food object (e.g. “the speed of the blade 22 can be constant or nearly constant, for example, similar to the rotation of an airplane propeller” paragraph [0073]).
Wherein the processor is further arranged for determining based on the position of at least the part of the surface of the food object to be cut and the height profile, a first angular position (position where the blade first enters the food object per pass; see paragraph [0078])) upon rotation of the at least one circular blade around the second axis;
And determining based on the position of at least the part of the surface of the food object to be cut and the height profile, a second angular position at which one of the at least one circular blade finishes cutting the food object (when the blade is leaving or exiting the food item per pass; see paragraph [0078]) upon rotation of the at least one circular blade around the second axis following determination of the first angular position (when the blade first contacts the food item per pass)
determining based on the position of the at least the part of the surface object to be cut and the height profile, a third angular position (when the blade is leaving or exiting the food item per pass; see paragraph [0078]) at which one of the at least one circular blade loses contact with the food object upon rotation of the at least one circular blade around the second axis (the third angular position could be the same as the second angular position as they are not indicated as different positions);
controlling an angular speed of the at least one circular blade around the second axis to exceed or increase above a first threshold value (e.g. accelerating) after having passed the first angular position (initial contact position with the food item), wherein the angular speed varies (e.g. decelerating) between the first and second angular positions and;
(“In all of the above-described blade speed profiles, the blade speed through the workpiece may be at a constant speed, but this does not necessarily have to be the case. In this regard, allowing the blade to still be accelerating as it enters the workpiece and then allowing the blade to decelerate as it is leaving the workpiece can provide more flexibility to the blade speed profile approaches described above, see FIG. 3e.” paragraph [0078]).
controlling a conveying speed of the conveyor (“a blade cutting path can be selected and the blade speed along the rotational blade path determined along with the conveyor belt speed needed to achieve the desired throughput of the workpieces”.; paragraph [0082 and 0100]
based on the first angular position and the third angular position, wherein the conveying speed is increased after the one circular blade loses contact with the food object at the third angular position.
Pfarr discloses the claimed invention except for the highlighted recitations in which the circular blade is also rotatable around a second axis, wherein the second axis is parallel and non-coaxial with respect to the first axis; such that it is the angular speed of the at least one circular blade around the second axis that is configured to vary according to the position of at least the part of the surface of the food object and that the conveying speed of the conveyor is controlled when the blade passes the third angular position.
In response to the first contention, Pfarr does disclose that “the cutting device 24 can be of types other than the cutting device 24 illustrated and described above. For example, the cutting device may be a motor-driven circular saw, a radial saw, a band saw, a hacksaw, a reciprocating saw, a Stryker® saw, etc”; paragraph [0126]. Thus, Pfarr establishes that other cutting blades may be utilized with the system for optimizing portioning of workpieces.
Attention is directed to Dreier, which discloses a food slicer that utilizes a conveyor to transport food products to a slicing system. Dreier teaches that the angular position value determining where the slicer begins its cutting “can depend on the respective product, in particular on its shape, height and/or width” col. 3, lines 45-50. Drier further discloses that the slicer can be a scythe-like blade rotating about a blade axis or alternatively, a circular knife orbiting in planetary motion (see col. 2, lines 30-32). Thus, Drier establishes that a planetary circular knife may be substituted for a scythe-like blade to perform the same slicing operation, while revolving relative to the food product to generate slices based on the shape of the food product.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a planetary motion circular knife in the system of Pfarr in place of the scythe like blade, especially in view of Pfarr’s disclosure that alternative cutting blades may be employed and Dreier’s teaching that such a planetary circular knife can perform the same slicing operation.
In Pfarr, the blade rotates about a single axis such that the angular speed of the blade corresponds to the rotational speed of the blade. Dreier teaches that the angular positional value may depend on multiple variables, including characteristics of the product being sliced. Specifically, Dreier sets forth that: “The respective angular position value and /or a correction value for the angular position value can depend on the speed of rotation of the blade and/or on the cutting speed.”
Thus, the positional movement of the planetary circular blade relative to the food product depends on both the rotational speed of the blade and/or the revolution speed of the blade. Each rotational movement of the blade may be controlled in only a limited number of ways; the speeds may be constant or variable. Accordingly, there are finite number of predictable options available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for controlling the rotational movement of a planetary circular blade. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure the planetary circular blade such that the rotational speed of the blade remains constant while the angular speed varies relative to the food product, particularly where the angular rotation performs the same slicing function as the scythe blade profile while allowing eccentric movement of the blade relative to the food product.
The modified device of Pfarr does not disclose that the conveying speed is increased after the blade loses contact with the food object at the third angular position. Pfarr, however, sets forth that the blade accelerates as it enters the workpiece (e.g. first angular position) and decelerates when the blade leaves the workpiece (2nd angular position). Accordingly, the angular position at which the blade exits the workpiece could be considered both the second and third angular position, as the claims do not expressly require the second and third angular positions to be different. However, to the extent that the Applicant intends for the second and third angular positions to be a different angular position, that relationship is not disclosed by Pfarr. Pfarr discloses that after exiting the workpiece, the blade continues revolving toward the initial angular position. Additionally, Pfarr discloses the desire to increase the throughput (paragraph [0100]) and identifies conveyor speed as one the controlled parameters (see paragraphs [0082], [0086-100]). Attention is again directed to the Dreier reference , which teaches that the blade completes cutting through the food product at a first angular position, somewhat greater than 180 degrees, and thereafter completely exits and loses contact with the food product at a later, distinct angular position, of approximately 270 degrees (see col. 6, lines 22-32 and col. 7, lines 1-10; Figs. 2B-2C). The later angular position at which the blade completely exits and loses contract with food product corresponds to the claimed third angular position. Dreier further teaches that these angular position values may depend upon the shape, height and width of the food product (paragraphs [0056-0057]). It would have been obvious to configure the processor of Pfarr to determine these angular positions using Pfarr’s detected position and height profile of the food product to coordinate operation of the blade with the geometry of the particular food object being cut.
Dreier further teaches commencing a conveying operation when the blade reaches the third angular position at which the blade has completely exited and lost contact with the food product. Commencing the conveying operation at this third angular position increases the conveying speed from a stopped condition to the operating conveying speed. It would therefore have been obvious to configure the processor of Pfarr to increase the speed of Pfarr’s conveyor after the blade reaches the third angular position and loses contact with the food object, in accordance with the angularly synchronized conveying control taught by Dreier. Such a modification would allow the food object to be advanced more rapidly during the available non-cutting interval while avoiding interference with the blade or displacement of the food object during cutting, thereby improving throughput and cutting accuracy.
In regards to claim 19, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the processor is arranged for: determining based on the position of at least a part of the surface of the food object to be cut, and the height profile, a third angular position at which one of the at least one circular blade loses contact with the food object upon rotation of the at least one circular blade around the second axis (when the blade stops; Pfarr paragraphs [0016. 0064, 0075] / as modified by Dreier).
In regards to claim 20, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the processor is further arranged for: ensuring that an angular speed of the at least one circular blade around the second axis does not exceed a first threshold value at the first angular position (“In all of the above-described blade speed profiles, the blade speed through the workpiece may be at a constant speed, but this does not necessarily have to be the case. In this regard, allowing the blade to still be accelerating as it enters the workpiece and then allowing the blade to decelerate as it is leaving the workpiece can provide more flexibility to the blade speed profile approaches described above, see FIG. 3e.” paragraph [0078]).
In regards to claim 21, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the processor is further arranged for: ensuring that an angular speed of the at least one circular blade around the second axis exceeds or increases above a first threshold value after having passed the first angular position (“As a third rotational cut profile, shown in FIG. 3c, if there is sufficient time available between cuts and motor heating is a concern, the blade can overshoot the normal stop point and then be retracted to a position before the stop point before the next cut is made.” Pfarr Paragraph [0076]).
In regards to claim 22, Pfarr discloses wherein the cutting apparatus is arranged so that a cut-off part of the food object fulfils a pre-defined criteria, such as thickness, such as wherein slices have a thickness of less than or equal to 10 mm, such as wherein slices have a mass of less than or equal to 1000 gram (paragraph 0034;0040).
In regards to claim 23, the modified device of Pfarr discloses, wherein an angular speed at the first angular position, such as an angular speed profile between the first angular position and the second angular position, such as between the first angular position and a third angular position, is pre-defined depending on the nature, condition and/or type of food product; (“Applicants have found that there is an optimum blade speed or speed range resulting in accurate, high quality cuts for a given meat geometry for specific physical properties of the meat while maintaining a high level of throughput. [0058, 0079] Pfarr).
In regards to claim 24, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the measurement device comprises: an imaging system for acquiring image data of the food object (camera or laser; paragraph [0043]).
In regards to claim 26, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the at least one circular blade (29) defines a cutting plane (parallel to gap 20), and wherein the cutting apparatus is further comprises: a conveyor (conveyor belt 42) for conveying the food object from: a first position (infeed conveyor 12) wherein the food object does not intersect the cutting plane, to a second position (at gap 20) wherein the food object intersects the cutting plane, and wherein the food object will be cut upon rotation of one of the at least one circular blade (29) around the second axis.
In regards to claim 27, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the processor is further arranged for controlling a conveying speed of the conveyor based on a third angular value, such as the third angular position and the first angular position (“The portioning of the workpiece can be carried out in accordance with one or more directly-controlled characteristics (parameter/specifications), such as a cutting path of the blade (22), the rotational speed of the blade (22), and the speed of the conveyor (12)” abstract).
In regards to claim 28, the modified device of Pfarr discloses a method of using of the apparatus for cutting as slicing (portions 28) such as wherein slices have a thickness of less than or equal to 10 mm (as shown in Figure 1).
In regards to claim 29, Pfarr discloses a method for cutting a food object, said method comprising: rotating at least one circular blade (29) around a first axis (circular saw blade) through a center of the circular blade, rotating the at least one circular blade around a second axis (27), wherein the second axis is parallel and non-coaxial with respect to the first axis,
determining a position of at least a part of the surface of the food object to be cut, such as a height profile of the food object (“scans the workpieces (14) to physically characterize the workpieces”), such as a height profiler (paragraph [0013,0034,0040; 0047]),
and controlling an angular speed of the rotation of the at least one circular blade around the second axis based on the position of at least a part of the surface of the food object to be cut, such as the height profile.
(It will be appreciated that different cutting velocities can be tested, either during normal production or in a separate non-production or calibration mode so as to determine the force imposed on the blade 22 as a function of velocity of the blade passing through the workpiece. This information can be combined with other data, such as the dimensions of a cross-section of the workpiece from scanner 16, or the physical composition of the workpiece (for instance, for the meat workpieces, the amount of fat, gristle, etc., in the meat), thereby to develop parameters of the cutting mode of the blade 22 for specific physical specifications and conditions of the workpiece being processed” paragraph [0072 and 0084-0091].
determining based on the position of at least the part of the surface of the food object to be cut, including the height profile, a first angular position (when contact of the blade and workpiece is made; paragraph [0078]); at which one of the at least one circular blade makes contact with the food object upon rotation of the at least one circular blade around the second axis,
and determining based on the position of at least the part of the surface of the food object to be cut, including the height profile, a second angular position (when the blade exits the workpiece; paragraph [0078]);
at which one of the at least one circular blade (29) finishes cutting the food object upon rotation of the at least one circular blade around the second axis (as modified by Dreier) following determination of the first angular position (contacting the food item at the entry position);
controlling an angular speed (accelerate; paragraph [0078]) of the at least one circular blade around the second axis (as modified by Dreier) to exceed or increase above a first threshold value (increasing speed during blade entry inherently requires exceeding a previous rotational value) after passed the first angular position (contact with the workpiece) , wherein the angular speed varies (decelerates; paragraph [0078]) between the first and second angular position;
wherein the angular speed of the at least one circular blade (29) around the second axis is configured to vary according to the position of at least the part of the surface of the food object; and wherein a rotational speed of the at least one circular blade around the first axis remains constant during slicing of the food object (as modified by Drier that sets forth that the angular position values that determine where the slicer beings cutting may depend on the respective product, in particular its shape, height or width; col 3, lines 45-50).
And wherein a rotational speed of the at least one circular blade around the first axis remains constant during slicing of the food object (as modified by Drier and KSR in the apparatus claim)
In regards to claim 30, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the food object is fresh, frozen, non-frozen, non-undercooled, non-crust-frozen, or wherein a temperature of the food object is above 0 deg. Celsius or undercooled or a temperature of the food object is below 0 deg. Celsius (paragraph [0053]).
In regards to claim 31, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the height profiler (scanning system 16) comprises laser lines (“The scanning system 16 may be of a variety of different types, including a video camera to view workpiece 14 illuminated by one or more light sources such as a laser. Light from the light source is extended across the moving conveyor belt 42 to define a sharp shadow or light stripe line, with the area forwardly of the transverse light beam being dark.” paragraph [0043]) that are communicatively connected to an imaging system (e.g. video camera), wherein the imaging system acquires image data of the food object based on the line lasers (“The video camera detects the displacement of the shadow line/light stripe from the position it would occupy if no workpiece were present on the conveyor belt. This displacement represents the thickness of the workpiece along the shadow line/light stripe” paragraph [0043]).
In regards to claim 34, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the nature of the food product is defined as fat content, water content, or bone presence of the food object wherein the condition of the food product is defined as a temperature or temperature distribution within the food object and wherein the type of food product is defined as animal type and cut type.
“This information can be combined with other data, such as the dimensions of a cross-section of the workpiece from scanner 16, or the physical composition of the workpiece (for instance, for the meat workpieces, the amount of fat, gristle, etc., in the meat), thereby to develop parameters of the cutting mode of the blade 22 for specific physical specifications and conditions of the workpiece being processed. In some cases, temperature of the product, especially temperatures in the freezing latent zone, may be encountered, or even encouraged, and could significantly affect the force required, and quality of the cut.” Paragraph [0072 Pfarr).
In regards to claim 35, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the angular speed of the at least one circular blade around the second axis is higher at a first angular interval where the at least one circular blade is not in contact with the food object, and wherein the angular speed of the at least one circular blade around the second axis is lower at a second angular interval when cutting of the food object is initiated. “As a fourth potential rotational profile, it may be desirable to have a slower cutting speed, but with a shorter time period between successive cuts. In this rotational speed profile, the blade slows down just before entering the workpiece to be sliced and then speeds up after exiting the workpiece, see FIG. 3d.” Pfarr paragraph [0033].
In regards to claim 36, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the height profiler (paragraph [0013,0034,0040; 0047]) is arranged for determining the height profile of the food object (“height distribution” paragraph [0040]), including multiple corresponding values of height and lateral position of the food object, wherein the position of at least the part of the surface to be cut varies between cuts. (“The computer 36 also develops a thickness or height distribution of the scanned workpiece/portion as well as area and/or volume distributions of the workpieces/portions. The weight of the workpiece/portions can be determined by using an assumed density for the workpieces/portions.” Paragraph [0040]).
In regards to claim 37, the modified device of Pfarr discloses wherein the angular speed increases (accelerates) after making contact with the food object and decreases (decelerate) before finishing cutting the food object (paragraph [0078]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfarr et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0212506), herein referred to as Pfar in view of in view of Dreier et al. (U.S. Patent 9,981,400), herein referred to as Dreier and in further view of Weber (U.S. Patent 5,045,345)
In regards to claim 25, the modified device of Pfar discloses wherein one of the at least one circular blade is a first circular blade, which defines a cutting plane, but does not disclose wherein the cutting apparatus is further comprising: a second circular blade being rotatable around a third axis through a center of the second circular blade, wherein the third axis is parallel and non-coaxial with respect to each of the first axis and the second axis and wherein the second circular blade is substantially within, the cutting plane, wherein the second circular blade is rotatable around the second axis.
The difference between Pfarr and the claimed invention involving a duplication of the cutting blade about the planetary axis. Attention is also directed to the Weber slicing device for slicing meat. Instead of a singular rotational blade mounted for planetary movement, Weber discloses that two blades are spaced from the central rotational axis such that each blade alternate slicing of the product. To provide the device of Pfaf with a second planetary blade would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Weber, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known method with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e. one skilled in the art would have recognized that the second blade of Weber would allow for an increased life of the cutting blades before needing replaced due to wear, as each blade would be performing half the cutting rotations as a single blade .
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfarr et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0212506), herein referred to as Pfarr in view of Dreier et al. (U.S. Patent 9,981,400), herein referred to as Dreier. The modified device of Pfarr discloses the claimed invention except that the at least one circular blade is arranged to rotate around the first axis in a first direction and further arranged to rotate around the second axis in a second direction opposite of the first direction. Pfarr discloses that the blade can be a circular saw and then it can swing across the conveyor system but does not positively disclose that combination in the figures. As demonstrated by Dreier it is known to utilize circular saws 7 that swing along a non-coaxial axis to the rotational axis. Thereby allowing the saw blade to swing across the conveyor system. Dreier does not positively disclose the rotational arrangement between the rotational axis of the blade and the rotational axis of the swinging movement. However, there is a limited number of options, as either they rotate in the same direction or in opposite directions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a rotational set up for the circular saw of Pfarr as demonstrated by Dreier, if not already set forth, in order that the circular saw blade would sweep across the path of the conveyor and to have the rotational direction of the blade rotate in either the same or opposite direction of the swinging direction as determined by best cut quality and the setup of the device as options are limited and one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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 In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments address Pfarr and Dreier individually rather than the combined teachings relied upon in the rejection. Pfarr discloses measuring the position and height profile of the food object and using a processor to control blade and conveyor operation., while Dreier teaches a later angular position at which the planetary circular blade completely exits and loses contact with the food product and teaches commencing a conveying operation at that angular position (see Dreier paragraphs [0039-0041; Fig. 2c). Dreier further expressly teaches that the blade exit angular position value may depend upon the products shape, height and width (paragraphs 0056-0057]). Thus, Dreier’s blade exit position corresponds to the claimed third angular position, and the proposed combination uses Pfarr’s measured food object position and height profile to determine that product dependent position. Although Dreier’s conveying device conveys interleaving material, Dreier is relied upon for the known control technique of commencing a conveying location after the blade completely exits the food product, not for bodily incorporating the interleaver into Pfarr. Applying that angularly synchronized control to Pfarr’s processor-controlled food object conveyor would increase the conveying speed after the blade reaches the third angular position, thereby advancing the food object more rapidly during the available non-cutting interval while avoiding displacement during cutting and improving throughput and cutting accuracy. Applicant’s references to “a geometry derived blade contact model”, “a calculated blade disengagement event” and “an integral control architecture” do not distinguish the claims because they do not impose limitations beyond the express claim language and in any event, the recited functions are provided by the combined teachings of Pfarr and Dreier.
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 LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights