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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“and a member which attaches to at least one end of the pin, and which prevents the at least one end of the pin from passing through the opposed openings defined in the tubular housing side wall when the member is attached to the at least one end of the pin, to thereby secure the pin to the tubular housing side wall” (claim 2, lines 4-8; claim 6, lines 16-19).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Grimmett in view of Drake, Abernethy, and Glassman
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 10518746 B1 (“Grimmett”) in view of US 20080146397 A1 (“Drake”), US 20180029430 A1 (“Abernethy”), and US 5806873 A (“Glassman”).
Grimmett pertains to a trailer jack cover and lock device (Abstr.; Fig. 1A). Drake pertains to a jack assembly with a protective cover (Abstr.; Figs. 6A-B). Abernethy pertains to a protective cover for a trailer jack (Abstr.; Figs. 7-8). Glassman pertains to a protective cover for a trailer jack (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Grimmett discloses a cover for a trailer hitch jack having an adjustment mechanism with a crank handle (Figs. 1A-E, cover assembly including housing 130, the covered trailer hitch jack has an adjustment mechanism with a crank handle 116; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)),
the cover comprising:
a housing with a closed upper end and a lower open end and configured to be securely disposed over the trailer hitch jack so that the housing surrounds an operative upper portion of the trailer hitch jack, including the adjustment mechanism crank handle... (Figs. 1A-E, housing 130 has a closed upper end and a lower open end and is capable of securely surrounding an operative upper portion of a trailer hitch jack 110 including at least a portion of the adjustment mechanism crank handle 116);
and a fastener which secures the housing to the trailer hitch jack (Fig. 1B, shackle of lock 170 secures housing 130 to hitch jack 110 at hole 160),
wherein the housing...includes a tubular housing side wall which defines an open space therein which is configured to surround the operative upper portion of the trailer hitch jack, and the closed upper end of the housing includes a housing upper member which is fixed to and closes an upper end of the tubular housing side wall (Figs. 1A-E, housing 130 has a tubular housing side wall that defines an open space 135 therein, surrounding the operative upper portion of the trailer hitch jack 110, a housing upper member (at reference 130) is fixed to and closes the upper end of the tubular side wall).
Grimmett does not explicitly disclose:
a housing with a closed upper end and a lower open end and configured to be securely disposed over the trailer hitch jack so that the housing surrounds an operative upper portion of the trailer hitch jack, including the adjustment mechanism crank handle, entirely except at the lower open end of the housing;
a cushion member fixed to the housing;
wherein the housing is formed of metal,
and the cushion member covers only the housing upper member.
However, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination makes obvious this claim.
Drake discloses wherein the housing is formed of metal (Fig. 6B; ¶ 0030, “The cover 60 may be made of plastic, rubber, metal or other protective material. The cover 60 may protect the actuator 3 from mechanical damage”).
Abernethy discloses:
a housing with a closed upper end and a lower open end and configured to be securely disposed over the trailer hitch jack so that the housing surrounds an operative upper portion of the trailer hitch jack, including the adjustment mechanism crank handle... (Figs. 5-19, housing 10 has a closed upper end and lower open end and is capable of securely surrounding an operative upper portion of a trailer hitch jack 42 including the adjustment mechanism crank handle);
a cushion member fixed to the housing;
and the cushion member covers only the housing upper member (Fig. 19, cushion 32 (made of foam) secured to housing 10 and covers the housing upper member (at reference 34); ¶¶ 0055-0057; see discussion below re “only”).
Glassman discloses:
a housing with a closed upper end and a lower open end and configured to be securely disposed over the trailer hitch jack so that the housing surrounds an operative upper portion of the trailer hitch jack, including the adjustment mechanism crank handle, entirely except at the lower open end of the housing (Figs. 1-3; housing 25 has a closed upper end and lower open end and is capable of securely surrounding an operative upper portion of a trailer hitch jack 15 including the adjustment mechanism crank handle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Drake with Grimmett to manufacture the housing from metal. This would have been obvious because the housing must be strong enough to withstand collision damage and tampering damage (e.g., due to tampering with the fastening/security mechanism). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Abernethy and Glassman with the Drake/Grimmett combination by enlarging the housing of Grimmett to entirely enclose the operative upper portion of the trailer hitch jack (including the handle) and by adding a cushion 32 to the upper surface of the housing upper member (which is at “the closed upper end of the housing”). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the enlarged housing (with no open side walls as taught by Glassman (see Grimmett open side walls at references 140 and 150)) and the added cushion would protect the housing, the covered jack (including the entirety of the “operative upper portion” and its handle), and a striking object (such as a tailgate) from collision damage and/or environmental damage (Abernethy ¶ 0008, “It is thus an object of the present invention to provide a device which cushions and protects the tailgate, door, window, or other opening device of the tow vehicle from damage”). Examiner notes that enlarging housing 130 of Grimmett to also enclose the handle (and removing the cutout 140 for the handle) is a simple modification that would not render the Grimmett device inoperable, but only make it larger (see Abernethy Figs. 5-19, showing a larger housing that also covers the handle (except for the opening on the side)). In addition, whether to have a cushion that covers only the housing upper member is merely a design choice (e.g., to save weight or cost, leaving the sides uncushioned). Applicant has not disclosed that having a cushion covering only the housing upper member (compared to covering additional sides) provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this positioning as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record (not attorney argument) fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination makes obvious the trailer hitch jack cover of claim 1 as applied above. Grimmett further discloses:
wherein the fastener includes a pin which is configured to be extended through and removed from opposed openings defined in portions of the tubular housing side wall which define the open space, for selectively fastening and unfastening the housing to the trailer hitch jack (Figs. 1A-E, shackle of lock 170 is a type of pin that secures housing 130 to hitch jack 110 at hole 160; there are two opposed openings 165 in that portion of tubular housing side wall, which define the open space. Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, a bent pin (e.g., a bent sewing pin) is still considered to be a pin. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” (emphasis added)); MPEP 2111),
and a member which attaches to at least one end of the pin, and which prevents the at least one end of the pin from passing through the opposed openings defined in the tubular housing side wall when the member is attached to the at least one end of the pin, to thereby secure the pin to the tubular housing side wall (Fig. 1B, body of lock 170 secures shackle (“pin”) to the side wall and prevents the shackle from falling out of holes 165; this limitation is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes a pin, clip, or padlock, and equivalents thereof (Spec. p. 12, lines 25-30)).
Regarding claim 3, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination makes obvious the trailer hitch jack cover of claim 2 as applied above. Grimmett further discloses a lock which selectively locks and unlocks the fastener to the trailer hitch jack cover (Fig. 1B, lock 170 selectively locks and unlocks the shackle (“pin”) to the housing).
Regarding claim 4, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination makes obvious the trailer hitch jack cover of claim 2 as applied above. Grimmett further discloses an anti-rattling mechanism configured to be operatively connected to the trailer hitch jack which minimizes movements of the trailer hitch jack cover relative to the trailer hitch jack when the housing is fastened to the trailer hitch jack (Fig. 1E, clamp 180 has hole 160 that is used to secure housing 130 to minimize the movement of housing 130 relative to jack 110; Examiner interprets the phrase “which minimizes movement” to include the meaning of limiting a range of motion (and not necessarily requiring “minimizing” the range of motion to the smallest possible amount)),
wherein the anti-rattling mechanism includes a guide which is configured to be fixed to the trailer hitch jack, which has an opening defined therein which receives an intermediate portion of the pin therethrough, and wherein when the housing is securely disposed over the trailer hitch jack the anti-rattling mechanism is entirely enclosed by the housing, including the tubular housing side wall and housing upper member, except at the lower open end of the housing (Fig. 1E, tabs 185/190 (“guide”) of clamp 180 are capable of being fixed to jack 110 and have holes 160 that are used to secure housing 130 with the intermediate portion of shackle (“pin”) of lock 170 to minimize the movement of housing 130 relative to jack 110, the anti-rattling mechanism is entirely enclosed by the housing except at the lower open end (housing as modified in claim 1); the limitation “which receives” is interpreted as “configured to receive”, thereby not requiring a portion of the pin to actually be “received” in the opening in order for infringement to occur; Examiner suggests amending the claim accordingly).
Regarding claim 8, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination makes obvious the trailer hitch jack cover of claim 1 as applied above. Abernethy further discloses wherein the cushion member fully covers the upper surface of the housing upper member (Figs. 17-20, cushion 32 (made of foam) fully covers the upper surface of housing upper member 34; ¶¶ 0055-0057).
This limitation is addressed by the modification of claim 1. The obviousness rationale for claim 8 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination makes obvious the trailer hitch jack cover of claim 1 as applied above. Drake further discloses wherein the tubular housing side wall is longer on one side thereof and shorter on an opposite side thereof so that when the housing is disposed over the trailer hitch jack the housing upper member and the cushion member extend downward from the longer one side of the tubular housing side wall to the shorter opposite side of the tubular housing side wall (Fig. 6B, tubular housing side wall (side walls of cover 60) is longer on one side than an opposite side (short side is near reference 70) such that the closed upper end (sloped surface near reference 60) extends downward from the longer side to the shorter side, and the housing upper member extends parallel to the closed upper end; see discussion below re “cushion member”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination with the teachings of Drake to have the recited structure which results in a sloped upper housing surface because this would allow for rainwater and moisture to drain down and away from at least a portion of the housing, prolonging its life (e.g., preventing damage due to water accumulation). With this modification, the cushion of the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination would also be modified to follow the profile of the sloped upper housing surface.
Regarding claim 10, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination makes obvious the trailer hitch jack cover of claim 2 as applied above. Grimmett further discloses wherein the closed upper end of the housing and the tubular housing sidewall are fluid-tight except at the lower open end thereof and at the opposed openings defined in the tubular housing side wall (Figs. 1A-E, the housing (as modified in claim 1) has an open bottom end defined by the side walls, and the side walls and upper member are fixed together to be fluid tight (e.g., having no seams)).
Regarding claim 11, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination makes obvious the trailer hitch jack cover of claim 1 as applied above. Abernethy discloses wherein the cushion member covers only an upper surface of the housing upper member (Fig. 19, cushion 32 (made of foam) secured to housing 10 and covers an upper surface of the housing upper member (at reference 34); ¶¶ 0055-0057).
This limitation is addressed by the modification of claim 1. The obviousness rationale for claim 11 is the same as for claim 1.
Grimmett in view of Drake, Abernethy, Glassman, and Hoagland
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 10518746 B1 (“Grimmett”) in view of US 20080146397 A1 (“Drake”), US 20180029430 A1 (“Abernethy”), US 5806873 A (“Glassman”), and US 5527056 A (“Hoagland”).
Grimmett pertains to a trailer jack cover and lock device (Abstr.; Fig. 1A). Drake pertains to a jack assembly with a protective cover (Abstr.; Figs. 6A-B). Abernethy pertains to a protective cover for a trailer jack (Abstr.; Figs. 7-8). Glassman pertains to a protective cover for a trailer jack (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Hoagland pertains to a trailer hitch jack cover (Abstr.; Fig. 1.). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 7, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination makes obvious the trailer hitch jack cover of claim 1 as applied above. Grimmett, Drake, Abernethy, and Glassman do not explicitly disclose wherein each of the housing upper member and the cushion member has an outer circumference which is larger than an outer circumference of the tubular housing side wall. However, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman/Hoagland combination makes obvious this claim.
Hoagland discloses wherein each of the housing upper member and the cushion member has an outer circumference which is larger than an outer circumference of the tubular housing side wall (Figs. 2, 3; 2:33-44, cap 42 (“upper member”) has an outer circumference larger than that of the side wall 43/44, “cap 42 fits over sides 43 and 44 so that water flowing down the sides of cover 40 does not make its way inside the cover 40.”; see discussion below re “cushion member”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Hoagland with the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination by modifying the upper member of Grimmett along with the cushion attached to the upper member (as modified in claim 1), to have a larger outer circumference than the tubular side wall. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to keep rainwater out of the housing (e.g., by the larger cushion and upper member causing any water on top of them to drain directly onto the ground instead of dripping down onto the side walls and possibly reaching the hitch jack, resulting in damage to the hitch jack) (Hoagland 2:41-43, “cap 42 fits over sides 43 and 44 so that water flowing down the sides of cover 40 does not make its way inside the cover 40.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed for the reasons stated in the 09/29/2025 Office Action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are pending. Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected. Claim 6 is allowed.
Specification – The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claims – The objections to claims 9-10 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant is cautioned that claim amendments must include accurate markings to show the changes from the previous claim set. 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(c); MPEP § 714(II)(C). The amendment at the end of claim 6 (“
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, Applicant’s statement regarding the § 112(f) interpretation of “a member...” in claim 2 appears to have been carried over from a previous response and does not reflect the relevant limitation and the § 112(f) interpretation stated in the previous Office Action.
With respect to Applicant’s intended use argument (Reply at 11-12), Applicant mischaracterizes the analysis set forth in the claim 1 rejection above. The preamble of claim 1 is interpreted as an intended use because the claimed invention is a “cover”, and the recited intended use for the cover is to cover a trailer hitch jack that has an adjustment mechanism and a crank handle. Applicant should note that claim 1 does not positively recite the trailer hitch jack or its adjustment mechanism and crank handle. In other words, the presence of a trailer hitch jack, adjustment mechanism, and crank handle would not required for infringement—the infringing device would simply be a cover itself that is capable of the recited use. Nevertheless, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination would be capable of the intended use of covering a trailer hitch jack that has an adjustment mechanism and a crank handle.
Applicant’s arguments about the Grimmett/Drake/Abernethy/Glassman combination with respect to surrounding the crank handle (Reply 12-15) are not persuasive and are addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Further, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the Grimmett, Drake, Abernethy, and Glassman references and the alleged reasons why the proposed combination discussed in the rejection of claim 1 would not suffice. Examiner notes that Applicant focuses on the teachings of each cited reference in isolation and ignores what the references together would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant is advised that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the explicit content of the cited references. The question is not whether a combination was obvious to the inventor or Applicant but whether the combination was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. The KSR standard for a person of ordinary skill is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at that time and addressed by the application can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21; MPEP § 2145(X)(C).
With respect to Applicant’s cushion member arguments for claim 1 (Reply at 15-16), these are also not persuasive as once again, Applicant focuses on the Abernethy reference in isolation and ignores the contribution of the other references in combination with the knowledge, skill, and creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments for claims 2 and 4 (Reply at 16-17), specifically Applicant’s mischaracterization of the rejections with respect to the identified side wall of Grimmett in light of the recited limitations (see rejections of claims 2 and 4 above). It appears that Applicant’s arguments are directed more accurately to the limitations recited in claim 6, which has been indicated as allowable.
Finally, Applicant’s arguments for the alleged benefits of the various parts of the claimed invention (Reply at 10-11) are not persuasive as these are well-known benefits of devices having similar structural elements; actual evidence of secondary considerations (e.g., commercial success, long felt need, failure of others, skepticism of others, copying) would be required for further consideration. MPEP § 2145; see MPEP §§ 716.01-06. Applicant’s statement of alleged commercial success (Reply at 17-18) is not persuasive as this statement is not supported by any evidence (e.g., sales records, sales surveys, sales data compared to competitors, etc.) submitted in an affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132. It should be noted that attorney argument cannot take the place of actual evidence. MPEP §§ 716.01(c)(I)-(II).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are conclusory and are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723