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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer (US 20180051915 A1), hereinafter Rainer, in view of Sanford (US 20130341296 A1), hereinafter Sanford, and further in view of Henderson (US 20180226915 A1), hereinafter Henderson.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Rainer discloses a system for supporting a single-axis tracker center structure comprising:
a pair of truss legs (“a first support leg SF1 and a second support leg SF2” paragraph [0040]); and
a center structure support, the center structure support adapted to unify the truss legs and providing a support platform for a single-axis tracker center structure, wherein the pair of truss legs are received within openings in each of the opposing ends of the center structure support (“a bridge BB, which mechanically couples the first support leg SF1 and the second support leg SF2 to each other while maintaining them in their relative orientation to each other. The pivot axis 1 is accommodated by way of the bearing 4, as mentioned above. The bearing 4 is furthermore supported by the bridge BB” paragraph [0040] and “single-axis horizontal trackers” paragraph [0042]), and wherein the center structure is configured to be adjusted relative to the pair of truss legs (Screws 9 and 9’ may be loosened which would permit at least some axial adjustment of the clamps, and thus center support, in relation to the legs).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
465
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
475
659
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
432
672
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rainer does not disclose:
a pair of adjustable leg clamp assemblies, the center structure support adapted to receive the pair of adjustable leg clamp assemblies, wherein the pair of leg clamp assemblies are received within the openings, and wherein the center structure is configured to be adjusted after receiving the pair of adjustable leg clamp assemblies;
wherein the single axis tracker center structure transfers torque to a torque tube;
wherein the single-axis tracker center structure is a motorized center structure;
wherein the single-axis tracker center structure is a non-motorized center structure.
However, Sanford teaches a pair of adjustable leg clamp assemblies, the center structure support adapted to receive the pair of adjustable leg clamp assemblies, wherein the pair of leg clamp assemblies are received within the openings (“The sleeve 80 in FIG. 4 has two pieces 80a and 80b that cooperate to form a single piece when put together and the main body 52 placed over it. The pieces 80a and 80b have a tab 82 and an indentation 84 that receives the tab 82 from the other part of the sleeve 80. The outer surface 86 of the sleeve 80 corresponds to engage the opening 58 of the main body 52” paragraph [0029]), and wherein the center structure is configured to be adjusted after receiving the pair of adjustable leg clamp assemblies (“the adjustable connector must be easy to attach to the supports and to adjust the attachment point” paragraph [0002]).
PNG
media_image5.png
578
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
648
256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Sanford’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the clamp/opening arrangement as is taught in Sanford, in the system disclosed by Rainer because Sanford states “the adjustable connector must be easy to attach to the supports and to adjust the attachment point” (paragraph [0002]) and “the sleeve 80' can be located anywhere along the length of the support 40 to allow the adjustable connector 50 to placed at the precise location needed/wanted by the user” (paragraph [0031]). Therefore, including the clamp/opening arrangement taught by Sanford will simplify attachment and improve adjustability of the connection to the legs of Rainer.
Rainer, as modified by Sanford, does not disclose:
wherein the single axis tracker center structure transfers torque to a torque tube;
wherein the single-axis tracker center structure is a motorized center structure;
wherein the single-axis tracker center structure is a non-motorized center structure.
However, Henderson teaches:
wherein the single axis tracker center structure transfers torque to a torque tube (“In conventional single axis tracker systems, a torque tube is rotated by employing an actuator such as a slew drive to turn the torque tube at one position. Distributed torque single axis solar tracker 10 of the present invention, employs a plurality of actuators 30 to rotate torque structure 14” paragraph [0032]);
wherein the single-axis tracker center structure is a motorized center structure (“Actuators 30 can include numerous different devices, but in the preferred embodiment illustrated, each include a slew drive 32 and a motor 34 coupled thereto” paragraph [0033]);
wherein the single-axis tracker center structure is a non-motorized center structure (“It will be understood that the actuators can also be driven by mechanical means which may or may not be actuated electrically” paragraph [0033]).
PNG
media_image7.png
444
462
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Rainer does not disclose the claimed drive mechanism (the examiner notes that Rainer is directed to a solar tracking configuration which must have a drive mechanism). The substitution of one known element (the drive mechanism of Rainer) for another (the drive mechanism of Henderson) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the drive mechanism taught in Henderson would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for tracking the sun to improve solar collection Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer, in view of Sanford (US 20130341296 A1), hereinafter Sanford.
Regarding claim 6, Rainer discloses a center structure assembly for a single-axis tracker comprising:
a pair of truss legs extending below and above ground (“a first support leg SF1 and a second support leg SF2” paragraph [0040]), having a coupler at the above ground end of each leg (Top end);
an elongated center structure support with a first end and an opposing second end each of the first and second ends comprising an opening, the center structure support joining each truss leg via a connection (“a bridge BB, which mechanically couples the first support leg SF1 and the second support leg SF2 to each other while maintaining them in their relative orientation to each other. The pivot axis 1 is accommodated by way of the bearing 4, as mentioned above. The bearing 4 is furthermore supported by the bridge BB” paragraph [0040] and “single-axis horizontal trackers” paragraph [0042]), and wherein the elongated center structure is configured to be adjusted relative to the truss legs (Screws 9 and 9’ may be loosened which would permit at least some axial adjustment of the clamps, and thus center support, in relation to the legs).
Rainer does not disclose a pair of adjustable clamp assemblies, each dimensioned to clamp around one of the couplers, joining each truss leg via a connection to each clamp assembly, wherein each one of the clamp assemblies is captured in the openings within the opposing ends of the center structure, wherein the elongated center structure is configured to be adjusted relative to the truss legs after each one of the adjustable clamp assemblies is captured.
However, Sanford teaches a pair of adjustable clamp assemblies, each dimensioned to clamp around one of the couplers, joining each truss leg via a connection to each clamp assembly, wherein each one of the clamp assemblies is captured in the openings within the opposing ends of the center structure (“The sleeve 80 in FIG. 4 has two pieces 80a and 80b that cooperate to form a single piece when put together and the main body 52 placed over it. The pieces 80a and 80b have a tab 82 and an indentation 84 that receives the tab 82 from the other part of the sleeve 80. The outer surface 86 of the sleeve 80 corresponds to engage the opening 58 of the main body 52” paragraph [0029]), wherein the elongated center structure is configured to be adjusted relative to the truss legs after each one of the adjustable clamp assemblies is captured (“the adjustable connector must be easy to attach to the supports and to adjust the attachment point” paragraph [0002]).
In view of Sanford’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the clamp/opening arrangement as is taught in Sanford, in the system disclosed by Rainer because Sanford states “the adjustable connector must be easy to attach to the supports and to adjust the attachment point” (paragraph [0002]) and “the sleeve 80' can be located anywhere along the length of the support 40 to allow the adjustable connector 50 to placed at the precise location needed/wanted by the user” (paragraph [0031]). Therefore, including the clamp/opening arrangement taught by Sanford will simplify attachment and improve adjustability of the connection to the legs of Rainer.
Regarding claim 14, Rainer discloses an assembly comprising:
an elongated center support, the center support adapted to clamp around a top portion of a pair of truss legs having a receiving portion comprising an opening at each end, and a platform portion for supporting a single-axis tracker center structure such that the elongated center support is adjustable with respect to the foundation (“a bridge BB, which mechanically couples the first support leg SF1 and the second support leg SF2 to each other while maintaining them in their relative orientation to each other. The pivot axis 1 is accommodated by way of the bearing 4, as mentioned above. The bearing 4 is furthermore supported by the bridge BB” paragraph [0040] and “single-axis horizontal trackers” paragraph [0042]. Screws 9 and 9’ may be loosened which would permit at least some axial adjustment of the clamps, and thus center support, in relation to the foundation).
Rainer does not disclose a pair of adjustable clamp portions adapted to clamp around a top portion of a pair of truss legs, including a recess for receiving a portion of a foundation component, the opening at each end to receive one of the adjustable clamp portions, wherein the center support is adjustable after the clamp portions are received within the openings of the center support.
However, Sanford teaches a pair of adjustable clamp portions adapted to clamp around a top portion of a pair of truss legs, including a recess for receiving a portion of a foundation component, the opening at each end to receive one of the adjustable clamp portions (“The sleeve 80 in FIG. 4 has two pieces 80a and 80b that cooperate to form a single piece when put together and the main body 52 placed over it. The pieces 80a and 80b have a tab 82 and an indentation 84 that receives the tab 82 from the other part of the sleeve 80. The outer surface 86 of the sleeve 80 corresponds to engage the opening 58 of the main body 52” paragraph [0029]), wherein the center support is adjustable after the clamp portions are received within the openings of the center support (“the adjustable connector must be easy to attach to the supports and to adjust the attachment point” paragraph [0002]).
In view of Sanford’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the clamp/opening arrangement as is taught in Sanford, in the system disclosed by Rainer because Sanford states “the adjustable connector must be easy to attach to the supports and to adjust the attachment point” (paragraph [0002]) and “the sleeve 80' can be located anywhere along the length of the support 40 to allow the adjustable connector 50 to placed at the precise location needed/wanted by the user” (paragraph [0031]). Therefore, including the clamp/opening arrangement taught by Sanford will simplify attachment and improve adjustability of the connection to the legs of Rainer.
Regarding claim 15, Rainer, as modified by Sanford, discloses the assembly according to claim 14, further comprising a pair of truss legs (“a first support leg SF1 and a second support leg SF2” paragraph [0040]).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer, in view of Sanford, in view of Henderson, and further in view of Sassak (US 5170850 A), hereinafter Sassak.
Regarding claim 2, Rainer, as modified by Sanford and Henderson, discloses the system according to claim 1.
Rainer, as modified by Sanford and Henderson, does not disclose wherein each truss leg terminates in a driving coupler having at least one driving feature and a connecting portion extending away from the at least one driving feature.
However, Sassak teaches wherein each truss leg (66) terminates in a driving coupler (12) having at least one driving feature (44) and a connecting portion (42) extending away from the at least one driving feature.
PNG
media_image8.png
317
302
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
308
419
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
542
465
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In view of Sassak’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein each truss leg terminates in a driving coupler having at least one driving feature and a connecting portion extending away from the at least one driving feature as is taught in Sassak, in the system disclosed by Rainer because Sassak states “An advantage to the present invention is that the ratchet action of ratchet mechanism assembly 10 can quickly set post 66 in the ground without the need for first digging a hole for post 66” (column 5, line 25). Therefore, including the driving coupler of Sassak will expedite installation of the legs of Rainer.
Regarding claim 4, Rainer, as modified by Sanford, Henderson, and Sassak, discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein each leg clamp assemblies comprises a pair of leg clamp halves that fit around the connecting portion (Figure 4 of Sanford) and at least one driving feature (The examiner notes that Rainer is modified to include the connecting portion and driving feature of Sassak at the terminal end of the truss legs. The clamps are located at the terminal ends of the truss legs of Rainer. Furthermore, Sassak teaches a body clamped to fit around the connecting portion and at least one driving feature).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer, in view of Sanford, in view of Henderson, in view of Sassak, and further in view of Taylor (US 5127342 A), hereinafter Taylor.
Regarding claim 3, Rainer, as modified by Sanford, Henderson, and Sassak, discloses the system according to claim 2.
Rainer, as modified by Sanford, Henderson, and Sassak, does not disclose wherein the connecting portion comprises a projection with a plurality of adjacent channels circumscribing its surface.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the connecting portion comprises a projection with a plurality of adjacent channels circumscribing its surface (“each post 16 contains multiple grooves 18” column 2, line 58).
PNG
media_image11.png
759
439
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In view of Taylor’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the connecting portion comprises a projection with a plurality of adjacent channels circumscribing its surface as is taught in Taylor, in the system as presently modified because Taylor states “ridges 26 nest within grooves 18 and latch 22 engages, locking shelf support 20 in place around post 16” (column 3, line 26). Therefore, including the channels will improve the connection between the legs and clamps as modified.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer, in view of Sanford, and further in view of Corio (US 20080308091 A1), hereinafter Corio.
Regarding claims 7-9, Rainer, as modified by Sanford, discloses the center structure assembly according to claim 6, further comprising a center structure attached to the center structure support, the center structure providing a bearing for receiving a rotating torque tube (“a pivot axis 1 being held by a bearing 4” paragraph [0036]).
Rainer, as modified by Sanford, does not disclose:
a pair of bearings;
wherein the center structure comprises a power output for transferring torque to a center structure in an adjacent tracker row;
wherein the center structure comprises a motor having an output that drives the rotating torque tube.
However, Corio teaches:
a pair of bearings (“Torsion tube 16 is inserted into bearings 20” paragraph [0048]);
wherein the center structure comprises a power output for transferring torque to a center structure in an adjacent tracker row (“A second, third, etc. tracking assembly, similar to tracking assembly 10 can be connected to drive shaft 28” paragraph [0048]);
wherein the center structure comprises a motor having an output that drives the rotating torque tube (“Drive mechanism 14, in this case a drive motor” paragraph [0048]).
PNG
media_image12.png
440
626
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Rainer does not disclose a pair of bearings. However, the court has held that the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, the difference between the claims and the prior art is the provision of additional bearings. The provision of additional bearings as taught by Corio will provide the expected result of additional support to the torsion tube and solar energy collectors thereon.
In view of Corio’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the center structure comprises a power output for transferring torque to a center structure in an adjacent tracker row, wherein the center structure comprises a motor having an output that drives the rotating torque tube as is taught in Corio, in the assembly disclosed by Rainer because Corio states “An object of the presently claimed invention is to mechanically link multiple solar trackers in a large array configuration so that they may operate in unison, driven by a single motor and tracker controller” (paragraph [0024]). Therefore, including the configuration of Corio will reduce the required number of components.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer, in view of Sanford, in view of Corio, and further in view of Sassak.
Regarding claim 10, Rainer, as modified by Sanford and Corio, discloses the center structure assembly according to claim 7.
Rainer, as modified by Sanford and Corio, does not disclose wherein the coupler comprises at least one driving feature and a connecting portion projecting away from the at least one driving feature.
However, Sassak teaches wherein the coupler (12) comprises at least one driving feature (44) and a connecting portion (42) projecting away from the at least one driving feature.
In view of Sassak’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the coupler comprises at least one driving feature and a connecting portion projecting away from the at least one driving feature as is taught in Sassak, in the system disclosed by Rainer because Sassak states “An advantage to the present invention is that the ratchet action of ratchet mechanism assembly 10 can quickly set post 66 in the ground without the need for first digging a hole for post 66” (column 5, line 25). Therefore, including the driving coupler of Sassak will expedite installation of the legs of Rainer.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer, in view of Sanford, in view of Corio, in view of Sassak, and further in view of Taylor.
Regarding claim 11, Rainer, as modified by Sanford, Corio and Sassak, discloses the center structure assembly according to claim 10.
Rainer, as modified by Sanford, Corio and Sassak, does not disclose wherein the connecting portion comprises a projection with a plurality of adjacent channels circumscribing its surface.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the connecting portion comprises a projection with a plurality of adjacent channels circumscribing its surface (“each post 16 contains multiple grooves 18” column 2, line 58).
In view of Taylor’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the connecting portion comprises a projection with a plurality of adjacent channels circumscribing its surface as is taught in Taylor, in the system as presently modified because Taylor states “ridges 26 nest within grooves 18 and latch 22 engages, locking shelf support 20 in place around post 16” (column 3, line 26). Therefore, including the channels will improve the connection between the legs and clamps of Rainer.
Regarding claim 12, Rainer, as modified by Henderson, Corio, Sassak, and Taylor, discloses the center structure assembly according to claim 11, wherein each clamp assembly clamp half clamps (Figure 6) around the projection and the at least one driving feature (The examiner notes that Rainer is modified by to include the connecting portion and driving feature of Sassak at the terminal end of the truss legs. The clamps are located at the terminal ends of the truss legs of Rainer. Furthermore, Sassak teaches a body clamed to fit around the connecting portion and at least one driving feature).
Claims 16 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer, in view of Sanford, and further in view of Sassak.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Rainer, as modified by Sanford, discloses the assembly according to claim 15.
Rainer, as modified by Sanford, does not disclose each truss leg comprising a driving coupler at an upper end, wherein the driving coupler is portion of the foundation component received in the recess, wherein the driving coupler comprises at least one driving feature and a connecting portion projecting away from the at least one driving feature.
However, Sassak teaches the truss leg (66) comprising a driving coupler (12) at an upper end, wherein the driving coupler is portion of the foundation component received in the recess (of 14), wherein the driving coupler comprises at least one driving feature (44) and a connecting portion (42) projecting away from the at least one driving feature
In view of Sassak’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the truss leg comprising a driving coupler at an upper end, wherein the driving coupler is portion of the foundation component received in the recess, wherein the driving coupler comprises at least one driving feature and a connecting portion projecting away from the at least one driving feature as is taught in Sassak, in the system disclosed by Rainer because Sassak states “An advantage to the present invention is that the ratchet action of ratchet mechanism assembly 10 can quickly set post 66 in the ground without the need for first digging a hole for post 66” (column 5, line 25). Therefore, including the driving coupler of Sassak will expedite installation of the legs of Rainer.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer, in view of Sanford, in view of Sassak, and further in view of Taylor.
Regarding claim 18, Rainer, as modified by Sanford and Sassak, discloses the assembly according to claim 17.
Rainer, as modified by Sanford and Sassak, does not disclose wherein the connecting portion is a projection with a plurality of adjacent channels circumscribing its surface.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the connecting portion comprises a projection with a plurality of adjacent channels circumscribing its surface (“each post 16 contains multiple grooves 18” column 2, line 58).
In view of Taylor’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the connecting portion comprises a projection with a plurality of adjacent channels circumscribing its surface as is taught in Taylor, in the system as presently modified because Taylor states “ridges 26 nest within grooves 18 and latch 22 engages, locking shelf support 20 in place around post 16” (column 3, line 26). Therefore, including the channels will improve the connection between the legs and clamps of Rainer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the center structure is configured to be adjusted relative to the leg clamp assemblies after receiving the pair of adjustable leg clamp assemblies.” The closest prior art of record to this limitation is Worden (US 20170234580 A1) which teaches wherein the center structure is configured to be adjusted relative to the leg after receiving the pair of adjustable leg (“The assembly may further include a plurality of fasteners securing the bearing collar to the stationary structural member. Each of the fasteners may extend through a respective one of the slots and a respective one of the mounting apertures. One or more of the fasteners may be operable to be selectively positioned within the slots to change the vertical and/or lateral position of the bearing collar relative to the stationary structural member” paragraph [0019]). However, Worden fails to teach the specific limitation in its entirety. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claims from the prior art.
Claim 22 recites the limitations “wherein the elongated center structure is configured to be adjusted relative to the adjustable clamp assemblies after each one of the adjustable clamp assemblies is captured” and is objected to by the same or substantially the same rationale as articulated with regards to claim 21, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schad (US 1176605 A)
PNG
media_image13.png
360
458
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Agostineto (US 2237383 A)
PNG
media_image14.png
538
497
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Adams (US 3961671 A)
PNG
media_image15.png
503
130
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Itou (US 4614462 A) “Fixing plate 26 is attached to the upper face of foundation pile A” column 4, line 29 and “Rotational force is also transferred to the upper portion of the pile through the diving block 9, upper clutch member 16, lower clutch member 17, and fixing plate 26. Accordingly, the foundation pile A will be rotated by torque applied to both its upper and lower ends” column 5, line 4
PNG
media_image16.png
468
180
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Bullivant (US 20080260470 A1)
PNG
media_image17.png
503
149
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Talbert (US 20160348332 A1)
PNG
media_image18.png
254
271
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Michotte De Welle (US 20160013751 A1)
PNG
media_image19.png
422
496
media_image19.png
Greyscale
West (US 20180313051 A1)
PNG
media_image20.png
472
322
media_image20.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762