DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 07/27/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-24, 26-28, 30-35, and 38 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claim 41 is withdrawn for being drawn to a none elected invention. Claims 25, 29, 36-37, and 39-40 are pending and examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 41 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the originally filed claims pertain to a combination that does not require the particulars of the newly submitted claim, and the newly submitted claim pertain to a subcombination that has utility in other combinations
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a fastening tool comprising a nosepiece having a nosepiece insert, classified in B25C 1/182; and
II. Claim 41, drawn to a fastening tool comprising: a motor; a nail length sensor; and a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data, classified in B25C 1/06.
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require a motor, a sensor, or a processor. The subcombination has separate utility such as operating a fastening tool not comprising a nosepiece insert.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 41 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 08/07/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 11,229,995 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 25, 29, 36-37, and 39-40 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 25 lines 7-8, 18-19, the phrase “make an adjustment of the electric power supplied form the battery … to execute a control of the electric power supplied from the battery” renders claim 25 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between adjusting the electric power and controlling the electric power. Adjusting the electric power supplied from the battery appears to be a form of controlling the electric power supplied from the battery. It is unclear how the limitation of the microprocessor making an adjustment of the electric power supplied from the battery is further limited or different from the limitation of the microprocessor executing a control of the electric power supplied from the battery. For examining purposes, the prior art that discloses adjusting the electric power supplied from the battery is interpreted to read on the limitation of controlling the electric power supplied from the battery.
Claims 29 and 36 are dependent of claim 25 and include all the same limitations.
Regarding claim 37 lines 23, the phrase “microprocessor executing machine readable code processing the nail length data” renders claim 37 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what action is being conducted. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness. [MPEP 2173.05(q)] For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “processing the nail length data”.
Regarding claim 37 lines 25, the phrase “microprocessor executing machine readable code adjusting the electric power” renders claim 37 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what action is being conducted. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness. [MPEP 2173.05(q)] For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “adjusting the electric power”.
Regarding claim 37 lines 27, the phrase “microprocessor executing machine readable code controlling the electric power” renders claim 37 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what action is being conducted. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness. [MPEP 2173.05(q)] For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “controlling the electric power”.
Regarding claim 37 lines 25-27, the phrase “adjusting the electric power supplied from the battery … controlling the electric power supplied from the battery” renders claim 37 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between adjusting the electric power and controlling the electric power. Adjusting the electric power supplied from the battery appears to be a form of controlling the electric power supplied from the battery. It is unclear how the step of adjusting the electric power supplied from the battery is different from the step of controlling the electric power supplied from the battery. For examining purposes, the prior art that discloses the step of adjusting the electric power supplied from the battery is interpreted to disclose the step of controlling the electric power supplied from the battery.
Claims 39 are dependent of claim 37 and include all the same limitations.
Regarding claim 40 lines 2-3, the phrase “the microprocessor extending a battery life of the battery by said controlling the electric power supplied from the battery” renders claim 40 vague and indefinite because it is unclear if this is introducing a different step or is just disclosing the result of a previously disclosed step. Claim 40 is dependent of claim 37, and claim 37 disclose the step of controlling the electric power supplied from the battery to the electric motor based upon the nail length. The phrase “extending a battery life of the battery by said controlling the electric power” implies that actual action being conducted is controlling the electric power that results in extending a battery life. It is unclear how the “extending a battery life” step is different from the “controlling the electric power” step when both method steps include the same action of controlling the electric power. For examining purposes, the prior art that teaches the method step of controlling the electric power is interpreted to teach the method step of extending a battery life.
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 25, 29, 36-37, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Adams (6,796,475) in view of references Briggs, Jr. (3,708,095) and Shkolnikov et al. (6,739,490).
Regarding claim 25, Adams discloses a battery powered fastening tool (10) comprising:
an electric motor (24);
a battery (22) which supplies an electric power that drives the electric motor (24) to selectively drive a drive blade (68);
a nose assembly (36);
a microprocessor (200) configured to adjust the electric power supplied to the electric motor (24) to drive the nail.
(Figure 1, 3 and Column 4 lines 37-49, 63-66, Column 6 lines 8-13, Column 9 lines 40-43, Column 10 lines 35-41, Column 11 lines 25-27)
However, Adams does not disclose a nosepiece insert and a nail length sensor.
Briggs, Jr. discloses a fastening tool (10), comprising:
a nosepiece (20) having a nosepiece insert (54),
wherein the nosepiece insert (54) having a portion (74) which is adapted to be contacted by a head of a nail to be driven such that the nail is positioned for driving.
(Figure 4-6 and Column 2 lines 32-35, 54-61, Column 4 line 68 through Column 5 lines 1-3, Column 5 lines 48-55)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the nose assembly of Adams by incorporating the nosepiece as taught by Briggs, Jr., since column 1 lines 50-62 of Briggs, Jr. states such a modification would ensure adequate strength while aligning the nail within the drive track with the driver blade.
Shkolnikov et al. disclose a fastening tool (10) comprising: a driver blade (40) that drives a nail (20) having a nail length; a means for driving the driver blade (40); a nail length sensor (50, 64) configured to indicate the nail length; and a microprocessor (82) configured to execute a machine readable code to process the nail length indicated by the nail length sensor (50, 64), wherein the microprocessor (82) is configured to adjust the power out of the means for driving the driver blade (40) based upon the nail length. (Figure 3, 4 and Column 4 lines 42-47, Column 5 lines 11-21, Column 6 lines 22-25, Column 8 lines 1-15)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the tool of Adams by incorporating the nail length sensor and the process of adjusting the driving energy based on the nail length data as taught by Shkolnikov et al., since column 2 lines 65-67 through column 3 lines 1-2 of Shkolnikov et al. states such a modification would allow automatic adjusting of the power output based upon the length of the fastener.
In column 10 lines 37-41 of Adams, the speed of the motor is disclosed to be adjusted in order to adjust the amount of force used to drive the nail. In 3 lines 36-43 of Shkolnikov et al., the amount of force used to drive the nail is disclosed to be adjusted based on the detected length of the nail to be driven. Therefore, Adams in view of Shkolnikov et al. is interpreted to disclose the process of executing a machine readable code to adjust the electric power supplied from the battery to the electric motor to power the electric motor to selectively drive the driver blade to drive the nail having the indicated length.
Regarding claim 29, Adams modified by Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al. disclose a longitudinal centerline of a nail track (Briggs, Jr. – 116), and a longitudinal centerline of the fastening tool (Briggs, Jr. – 10), wherein the longitudinal centerline of the nail track (Briggs, Jr. – 116) and the longitudinal centerline of the fastening tool (Briggs, Jr. – 10) are configured to have an offset angle greater than 5 degrees. (Briggs, Jr. – Figure 2 and Column 7 lines 18-24)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Offset Angle)]
PNG
media_image1.png
32
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
491
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Adams modified by Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al. disclose the portion (Briggs, Jr. – 74) is a nail stop bridge that bridges a nail channel (Briggs, Jr. – see Figure 4 below). (Briggs, Jr. – Figure 6)
[AltContent: textbox (Nail Channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
32
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
694
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, Adams discloses a method comprising the steps of:
providing an electric fastening tool (10) having:
an electric motor (24) ;
a battery (22) which supplies an electric power that drives the electric motor (24) to selectively drive a driver blade (68) that drives a nail;
a microprocessor (200) configured to adjust the electric power supplied to the electric motor (24) to drive the nail; and
a nose assembly (36) of the fastening tool (10);
providing at least one of the nail;
adjusting the electric power supplied from the battery (22) to the electric motor (24) to power the electric motor (22); and
selectively driving the nail.
(Figure 1, 3 and Column 4 lines 37-49, 63-66, Column 6 lines 8-13, Column 9 lines 40-43, Column 10 lines 35-41, Column 11 lines 25-27)
However, Adams does not disclose the steps of providing nosepiece insert and providing a nail length sensor.
Briggs, Jr. discloses a method for positioning a nail for driving, comprising the steps of:
providing a nosepiece of the fastening tool (10),
wherein the nosepiece has a nosepiece insert (54), and
wherein the nosepiece insert (54) having a portion (74) which is adapted to be contacted by a nail head;
providing at least one nail to be driven;
positioning the at least one nail for driving; and
contacting a nail head of the at least one nail to the portion.
(Figure 4-6 and Column 2 lines 32-35, 54-61, Column 4 line 68 through Column 5 lines 1-3, Column 5 lines 48-55)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Adams by incorporating the nosepiece as taught by Briggs, Jr., since column 1 lines 50-62 of Briggs, Jr. states such a modification would ensure adequate strength while aligning the nail within the drive track with the driver blade.
Shkolnikov et al. disclose a fastening tool (10) comprising: a driver blade (40) that drives a nail (20) having a nail length; a means for driving the driver blade (40); a nail length sensor (50, 64) configured to indicate the nail length; and a microprocessor (82) configured to execute a machine readable code to process the nail length indicated by the nail length sensor (50, 64), wherein the microprocessor (82) is configured to adjust the power out of the means for driving the driver blade (40) based upon the nail length. (Figure 3, 4 and Column 4 lines 42-47, Column 5 lines 11-21, Column 6 lines 22-25, Column 8 lines 1-15)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Adams by incorporating the nail length sensor and the step of adjusting the driving energy based on the nail length data as taught by Shkolnikov et al., since column 2 lines 65-67 through column 3 lines 1-2 of Shkolnikov et al. states such a modification would allow automatic adjusting of the power output based upon the length of the fastener.
In column 10 lines 37-41 of Adams, the speed of the motor is disclosed to be adjusted in order to adjust the amount of force used to drive the nail. In 3 lines 36-43 of Shkolnikov et al., the amount of force used to drive the nail is disclosed to be adjusted based on the detected length of the nail to be driven. Therefore, Adams in view of Shkolnikov et al. is interpreted to disclose the method step of adjusting the electric power supplied from the battery to the electric motor to power the electric motor based upon the processing of the nail length data by the microprocessor.
Regarding claim 39, Adams modified by Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al. disclose the using the portion of the nosepiece insert (Briggs, Jr. – 54) to guide the at least one nail for a distance that is shorter than the nail length of the at least one nail. (Briggs, Jr. – Figures 4, 5)
However, Adams modified by Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al. disclose do not explicitly disclose the distance in a range of from 10% to 90% of the nail length of the at least one nail.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have adjust the length of the nail stop in respect to the length of the nail, since it has been held wherein the conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (II-A)] It would be beneficial to incorporate the modification since such a modification would help ensure the head of a nail engages the nail stop.
On page 6 paragraph 30 of the Specification, the nail stop is disclosed having a nail stop length in a range of 10% to 90% of the nail length, less than 25% of the nail length, or less than 10% of the nail length. The Specification shows no criticality for claimed features in claim 15. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Adams, Briggs, Jr., and Shkolnikov et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 40, Adams modified Shkolnikov et al. disclose the process of executing a machine readable code to adjust the electric power from the battery. When the fastening tool drives a nail that requires less energy, the fastening tool will expend less energy in order to drive said nail, and maintain more energy within the battery. Therefore, Adams modified by Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al. is interpreted to disclose the process of executing a machine readable code to extend a battery life of the battery by adjusting the electric power supplied from the battery to the electric motor.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 07/27/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-24, 26-28, 30-35, and 38 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claim 41 is withdrawn for being drawn to a none elected invention. Claims 25, 29, 36-37, and 39-40 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) toward claim 25, in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) toward claim 37, Examiner finds the argument not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Independent claims 25 and 37, as well as dependent claims 29 and 36 are amended herein rendering the Office Action rejections under 35 USC 112 moot.
Claim 37 was considered vague and indefinite because the claim tried introducing methods steps that did not involve any active, positive actions delimiting how the use is actually practiced. The amendments to claim 37 did not address this issue. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections toward claim 37 is maintained.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Adams (6,796,475) modified by references Briggs, Jr. (3,708,095) and Shkolnikov et al. (6,739,490), Examiner finds the argument not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Adams speed control is responsive to flywheel speed, not fastener length as claimed by Applicant
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).
In this case, Adams is not relied upon for the teaching of adjusting the speed control in response to a fastener length. Adams is relied upon for the teaching of a fastening tool comprising: an electric motor; a battery; and a microprocessor. Shkolnikov et al. is relied upon for the teaching of having a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data. When modifying Adams in view of Shkolnikov et al., the fastening tool is interpreted to comprises: an electric motor; a battery; a nail length sensor; and a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data.
In column 10 lines 37-41 of Adams, the speed of the motor is disclosed to be adjusted in order to adjust the amount of force used to drive the nail. In 3 lines 36-43 of Shkolnikov et al., the amount of force used to drive the nail is disclosed to be based on the detected length of the nail to be driven. Therefore, Adams in view of Shkolnikov et al. is interpreted to disclose the process of executing a machine readable code to adjust the electric power supplied from the battery to the electric motor to power the electric motor to selectively drive the driver blade to drive the nail having the indicated length.
Applicant states:
As such, Briggs does not disclose the deficient features of Adams as regards Applicant’s independent claim 25.
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).
In this case, Briggs, Jr. is not relied upon for the teaching of adjusting the speed control in response to a fastener length. Briggs, Jr. is relied upon for the teaching of a nosepiece having a nosepiece insert. Adams is relied upon for the teaching of a fastening tool comprising: an electric motor; a battery; and a microprocessor. Shkolnikov et al. is relied upon for the teaching of having a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data. When modifying Adams in view of Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al., the fastening tool is interpreted to comprises: an electric motor; a battery; a nail length sensor; a nosepiece having a nosepiece insert, a nail length sensor; and a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data.
Applicant states:
Applicant respectfully asserts that Shkolnikov is not an electric tool, does not have a battery and does not have a control system as recited in independent claim 25.
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).
In this case, Shkolnikov et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of an electric motor or a battery. Shkolnikov et al. is relied upon for the teaching of having a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data. Adams is relied upon for the teaching of a fastening tool comprising: an electric motor; a battery; and a microprocessor. When modifying Adams in view of Shkolnikov et al., the fastening tool is interpreted to comprises: an electric motor; a battery; a nail length sensor; and a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data.
In column 10 lines 37-41 of Adams, the speed of the motor is disclosed to be adjusted in order to adjust the amount of force used to drive the nail. In 3 lines 36-43 of Shkolnikov et al., the amount of force used to drive the nail is disclosed to be based on the detected length of the nail to be driven. Therefore, Adams in view of Shkolnikov et al. is interpreted to disclose the process of executing a machine readable code to adjust the electric power supplied from the battery to the electric motor to power the electric motor to selectively drive the driver blade to drive the nail having the indicated length.
Applicant states:
Applicant respectfully asserts, Shkolnikov’s intensity of a fan mixing a combustion gas prior to combustion and/or a nail driving cycle, or Shkolnikov’s using the fan to exhaust gasses after a driving cycle, does not rectify the deficiencies of Adams regarding kinetic energy of a flywheel which is nor part of Shkolnikov’s technology, and further does not rectify the deficiencies of Briggs.
It is unclear what deficiencies of Briggs that Shkolnikov et al. is supposedly rectifying. The claims are rejected by Adams in view references Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al.. In other words, Adams is being modified by Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al.. The rejections do not rely on modifying Briggs, Jr..
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Shkolnikov et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of a combustion motor, a fan mixing combustion gas, nor a fans exhausting gasses after a driving cycle. Shkolnikov et al. is relied upon for the teaching of having a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data. Adams is relied upon for the teaching of a fastening tool comprising: an electric motor; a battery; and a microprocessor. When modifying Adams in view of the teachings of Shkolnikov et al., the fastening tool is interpreted to comprises: an electric motor; a battery; a nail length sensor; and a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data.
In column 10 lines 37-41 of Adams, the speed of the motor is disclosed to be adjusted in order to adjust the amount of force used to drive the nail. In 3 lines 36-43 of Shkolnikov et al., the amount of force used to drive the nail is disclosed to be based on the detected length of the nail to be driven. Therefore, Adams in view of Shkolnikov et al. is interpreted to disclose the process of executing a machine readable code to adjust the electric power supplied from the battery to the electric motor to power the electric motor to selectively drive the driver blade to drive the nail having the indicated length.
Applicant states:
For reasons analogous to those above, Applicant respectfully asserts that Adams, Briggs and Shkolnikov do not disclose all claimed recitation of Applicant’s claimed method recited in amended independent claim 37
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).
In this case, Adams is not relied upon for the teaching of a nosepiece having a nosepiece insert, nor the teaching of adjusting the speed control in response to a fastener length. Adams is relied upon for the teaching of a fastening tool comprising: an electric motor; a battery; and a microprocessor. Briggs, Jr. is relied upon for the teaching of a nosepiece having a nosepiece insert. Shkolnikov et al. is relied upon for the teaching of having a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data. When modifying Adams in view of Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al., the fastening tool is interpreted to comprises: an electric motor; a battery; a nail length sensor; a nosepiece having a nosepiece insert; and a microprocessor configured to receive nail length data and to execute machine readable code to process the nail length data.
In column 10 lines 37-41 of Adams, the speed of the motor is disclosed to be adjusted in order to adjust the amount of force used to drive the nail. In 3 lines 36-43 of Shkolnikov et al., the amount of force used to drive the nail is disclosed to be based on the detected length of the nail to be driven. Therefore, Adams in view of Briggs, Jr. and Shkolnikov et al. is interpreted to disclose the process of executing a machine readable code to adjust the electric power supplied from the battery to the electric motor to power the electric motor to selectively drive the driver blade to drive the nail having the indicated length.
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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 September 24, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
