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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-27, and 73-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheddy et al. (US 7308844, "Sheddy") in view of Chen et al. (US PGPub 2019/0118317, "Chen") and Zhang (US 6932073).
Regarding claims 1, 10-11, 16-17, 27, and 75, Sheddy teaches a saw assembly (10) comprising:
a base (11);
a frame assembly (20) disposed on the base;
a rail assembly (30) disposed on the frame assembly (rail assembly 30 is on frame assembly 20, see Sheddy fig. 1), the rail assembly having a longitudinal axis (X), a first end and a longitudinally opposite second end (rail assembly 30 has two ends, see Sheddy fig. 1);
Wherein the rail assembly comprises a rail having two ends (rail assembly 30 includes a rail 31 having two ends, see Sheddy fig. 1) and a contact portion comprising a rod disposed along the longitudinal axis, the rod having a first end and an opposite second end (rod 31R acts as a contact portion and is disposed along axis X and has two ends, see Sheddy fig. 1 and 5:62-6:8);
a support assembly disposed on at least one of the base and the frame assembly (combination of column assembly 50, arm assembly 60, and motor assembly 70 form a support assembly and are disposed on frame assembly 20, see Sheddy fig. 1) and comprising a motor (78M), and a cutting wheel (76) driven by the motor, the cutting wheel having a cutting wheel axis that lies in a cutting wheel axis plane (a plane containing wheel axis WA may be arbitrarily defined, see Sheddy figs. 17a-17b);
a table assembly (40) having a table body (41), the table assembly movably disposed on the rail assembly between a first cantilevered position with respect to the frame assembly at the first end of the rail assembly, and a second cantilevered position with respect to the frame assembly at the second end of the rail assembly (table assembly 40 is disposed on rail assembly 30 and may be moved between two cantilevered positions with respect to the frame assembly where each cantilevered position is at one of the ends of the assembly, see Sheddy fig. 1 and 5:62-6:8); and
a plurality of wheels serially arranged on the table body to move the table assembly along the rail assembly between the first cantilevered position (wheels 44 are arranged in a line on table body 41, see Sheddy 5:16-28 and figs. 6a-6c) wherein at least two of the plurality of wheels are moved beyond the first end of the rail assembly, and the second cantilevered position wherein at least two of the plurality of wheels are moved beyond the second end of the rail assembly (at least three wheels are present, and at each of the end positions, one of the rearmost wheels will be prevented from moving beyond each of the ends of rod 31r of the rail assembly, meaning that at least two wheels are moved beyond the end of rod 31R, see Sheddy 5:45-6:8 and figs. 6a-6c),
wherein the plurality of wheels comprises: a first end wheel disposed at one end of the table body and having a first end wheel axis that lies in a first end wheel axis plane a second end wheel disposed at an opposite end of the table body and having a second end wheel axis that lies in a second end wheel axis plane, and at least one middle wheel located between the first end wheel and the second end wheel (Sheddy teaches a plurality of at least three wheels 44, each having an axis lying in an axis plane, see Sheddy 5:16-28 and figs. 6a-6c).
Sheddy does not explicitly disclose the presence of a plurality of middle wheels, wherein a distance between the first end wheel and a middle wheel adjacent to the first end wheel or between the second end wheel and a middle wheel adjacent to the second end wheel, is greater than a distance between two adjacent middle wheels.
However, Chen teaches a saw assembly (Chen fig. 1) including a table (13) having three wheels on each side (Chen figs. 2, 10-13, and 17), and further shows an alternative embodiment wherein the table has four wheels on a side, with the two middle wheels located closer to each other than they are to an end wheel (Chen fig. 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the wheel configuration taught by Chen into the table of Sheddy such that the plurality of wheels comprised: a first end wheel disposed at one end of the table body and having a first end wheel axis that lies in a first end wheel axis plane, a second end wheel disposed at an opposite end of the table body and having a second end wheel axis that lies in a second end wheel axis plane, and middle wheels located between the first end wheel and the second end wheel, and wherein a distance between the first end wheel and a middle wheel adjacent to the first end wheel or between the second end wheel and a middle wheel adjacent to the second end wheel, is greater than a distance between two adjacent middle wheels, as doing so represents no more than the simple substitution of one known configuration for wheels on a table assembly for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Sheddy as modified does not teach a carrying handle that extends laterally from a side surface of the table body in a direction parallel to the cutting wheel axis.
However, Zhang teaches the concept of providing handles (60, see Zhang fig. 1 and 2:52-3:17) extending laterally from side surfaces of a cutting table body (25) in a direction parallel to a cutting wheel axis (tool 100 may be a tile saw with a blade extending along channel 80, resulting in a wheel axis orthogonal to channel 80 and parallel to an extension direction of handles 60, see Zhang figs. 1-2 and 3:31-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Zhang regarding handles into the saw assembly of Sheddy as modified such that the table assembly comprised a handle usable for carrying that extends laterally from a side surface of the table body in a direction parallel to the cutting wheel axis, as doing so would increase the usable work area of the table (Zhang 3:13-17).
Sheddy as modified does not explicitly teach that a ratio of the distance between the first end wheel axis and the second end wheel axis to the length of the rail is less than 1.25, or that a ratio of the distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and first end wheel axis plane to the length of the rail is greater than one.
However, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that a ratio of the distance between the first end wheel axis and the second end wheel axis to the length of the rail is less than 1.25 and in the maximum cantilevered span position, a ratio of the distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and first end wheel axis plane to the length of the rail is greater than one, as the only differences between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device (to produce the claimed ratios), and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
2. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least two of the plurality of wheels in the first cantilevered position are different from the at least two of the plurality of wheels in the second cantilevered position (Sheddy teaches that at each of the end positions, one of the rearmost wheels will be prevented from moving beyond each of the ends of rod 31r of the rail assembly, meaning that in each of the cantilevered positions, at least two wheels are moved beyond the end of rod 31R, see Sheddy 5:45-6:8 and figs. 6a-6c; Sheddy as modified teaches the presence of at least four wheels, so that each of the sets of "at least two of the plurality of wheels" each contain two different wheels).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claims 1 and 11, but does not explicitly teach that the first cantilevered position comprises the table assembly being cantilevered to a maximum cantilevered span at the first end of the rail assembly, and wherein a distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and the first end wheel axis plane is greater than the length of the rail assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sheddy as modified such the first cantilevered position comprises the table assembly being cantilevered to a maximum cantilevered span at the first end of the rail assembly, and wherein a distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and the first end wheel axis plane is greater than the length of the rail assembly, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claims 1 and 11, but does not explicitly teach that the second cantilevered position comprises the table assembly being cantilevered to a maximum cantilevered span at the second end of the rail assembly, and wherein a distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and the second end wheel axis plane is less than the length of the rail assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sheddy as modified such that the second cantilevered position comprises the table assembly being cantilevered to a maximum cantilevered span at the second end of the rail assembly, and wherein a distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and the second end wheel axis plane is less than the length of the rail assembly, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
6. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the table assembly has a length that is greater than the distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and a plane defining a longitudinal end of the rail assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that the table assembly has a length that is greater than the distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and a plane defining a longitudinal end of the rail assembly, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
7. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that in the first and second cantilevered positions, more than 50% of the table assembly is movable beyond the first end of the rail assembly and the second end of the rail assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that in the first and second cantilevered positions, more than 50% of the table assembly was movable beyond the first end of the rail assembly and the second end of the rail assembly, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
8. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that in the first cantilevered position, more than 75% of the table assembly is movable beyond the first end of the rail assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that in the first cantilevered position, more than 75% of the table assembly was movable beyond the first end of the rail assembly, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
9. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 1, wherein the table assembly comprises a carrying handle (upwardly extending fence 41f is capable of use as a carrying handle, see Sheddy fig. 2).
15. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 11, but does not explicitly teach that in the first cantilevered position, a distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and the first end wheel axis plane at the maximum cantilevered span position is at least 36 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that in the first cantilevered position, a distance between the cutting wheel axis plane and the first end wheel axis plane at the maximum cantilevered span position was at least 36 inches, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
16. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 11, wherein the contact portion is a rod (rod 31R, see Sheddy fig. 1).
18. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach that a ratio of the distance between the first end wheel axis and the second end wheel axis to the length of the rail is less than 1.0.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that a ratio of the distance between the first end wheel axis and the second end wheel axis to the length of the rail is less than 1.0, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
19. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach that a ratio of the distance between the first end wheel axis and the second end wheel axis to the length of the rail is less than 0.85.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that a ratio of the distance between the first end wheel axis and the second end wheel axis to the length of the rail is less than 0.85, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
20. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach that a ratio of the distance between the first end of the table body at the maximum cantilevered span position at the first end of the rail, and the second end of the table body at the maximum cantilevered span position at the second end of the rail, to the length of the rail is greater than 1.0.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that a ratio of the distance between the first end of the table body at the maximum cantilevered span position at the first end of the rail, and the second end of the table body at the maximum cantilevered span position at the second end of the rail, to the length of the rail is greater than 1.0, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
21. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach that a travel length of the table assembly along the rail is about two times the length of the rail.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that a travel length of the table assembly along the rail is about two times the length of the rail, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
22. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach that a cantilevered portion of the table assembly is about 70% of the length of the table assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that a cantilevered portion of the table assembly is about 70% of the length of the table assembly, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
23. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach that the length of the table assembly is substantially equal to the length of the rail.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that the length of the table assembly is substantially equal to the length of the rail, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
24. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 17, wherein the cutting wheel and motor are disposed above the table assembly (motor assembly 70 including motor 78M and cutting wheel 76 is positionable above table assembly 40, see Sheddy figs. 1-2), wherein the saw assembly is capable of cutting tile of at least 36 inches oblique.
Applicant is reminded that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). As noted above, Sheddy teaches the recited structure and would be capable of being used in the described fashion.
25. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 17, wherein the cutting wheel and motor are disposed above the table assembly (motor assembly 70 including motor 78M and cutting wheel 76 is positionable above table assembly 40, see Sheddy figs. 1-2), wherein the saw assembly is capable of cutting tile of at least 25 inches square.
Applicant is reminded that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). As noted above, Sheddy teaches the recited structure and would be capable of being used in the described fashion.
26. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach that the ratio between a cutting wheel diameter and an oblique tile distance is about 0.28.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy as modified such that the ratio between a cutting wheel diameter and an oblique tile distance is about 0.28, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Sheddy as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
73. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a first end bearing, second end bearing and center bearings serially arranged on an opposite side of the table body from the first end wheel, second end wheel and middle wheels, respectively (bearings 46 located across table body from opposite wheels 44, see Sheddy 5:22-39 and cross-section shown in fig. 6a; the modifications to Sheddy would result in bearings located across from each of the wheels).
74. Sheddy as modified teaches the saw assembly according to claim 73, but does not explicitly teach that a height differential between the center bearings and each of the first and second end bearings are different.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sheddy such that a height differential between the center bearings and each of the first and second end bearings are different, as doing so would prevent binding during sliding (Sheddy 6:54-63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-27, and 73-75 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights