Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-38 are pending, of which claims 2 and 12-38 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant's amendments received 9 September 2025 have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8 April 2025, except for any objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 23 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. As best as can be determined, the projection and run-on edge as recited in claim 6 are not illustrated in the present drawings because these features are not indicated with any reference characters in the present drawings. Therefore, the projection and run-on edge as recited in claim 6 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. If the features are already shown, the features should be indicated with reference characters that are included in the specification to make clear that the features are illustrated. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 12 recites, “a cut strip”. Claim 1 previously introduces “strips” that are cut from the web material at lines 1-2. Thus, line 12 should read – one of the strips – or otherwise refer back to the strips that are previously introduced.
Claim 1 at lines 16-17 recites, “which is positioned on the blade table and fixes the material”. This recitation should read – when the material web , the hold-down section fixed the material –. The present grammar is problematic because “which is” and “fixes the material” refer to different structures, such that the recitation should be amended for improved clarity.
Claim 1 at lines 26-27 recites, “which is positioned on the blade table and fixes the material”. This recitation should read – when the material web , the hold-down section fixed the material –. The present grammar is problematic because “which is” and “fixes the material” refer to different structures, such that the recitation should be amended for improved clarity.
Claim 7 at lines 4-5 recites, “in which the magnetic element interacts”. This recitation should be rephrased to recite “wherein in the lowered position” rather than “in which”, to make clear that “in which” is describing the lowered position rather than further describing the invention as a whole. The examiner suggests amending lines 4-5 to recite – wherein the magnetic element interacts magnetically with one of the magnetically couplable elements when the magnetic element is in the lowered position –.
Claim 9 at line 4 recites, “the at least one hold-down element”. This recitation should read – the at least one further hold-down element – for consistency with the prior nomenclature at lines 3-4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“a hold-down section” as recited in claim 1 at line 14 (first, “section” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a section is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for any particular type of structure; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “fixes the material web during the cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “hold-down” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the section, and additionally “comprising a recess” is insufficient structure for performing the recited function);
“a further hold-down element” as recited in claim 1 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “hold-down” – i.e., in order for an element to be a hold-down element, the element must perform a hold-down function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “hold-down” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element); and
“a movement device” as recited in claim 9 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language of moving the hold-down element; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “movement” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device).
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 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 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at lines 24-25 recites, “or the gripping device comprises the hold-down section”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new hold-down section is being introduced, or whether the previously introduced ‘hold-down section’ is being further described. To elaborate, claim 1 previously introduces “a hold-down section” at line 14 and makes requirements of the hold-down section. For example, claim 1 at lines 21-22 recites, “the hold-down section comprising a recess”. It is unclear whether the hold-down section of lines 24-25 is the same hold-down section that is previously introduced, such that the hold-down section of lines 24-25 must also include the recess through which the cutting blade is movable. In support of the hold-down section of lines 24-25 being the same as the already introduced hold-down section, lines 24-25 refer to “the hold-down section” rather than using “a” and using a new name for the hold-down section. On the other hand, the hold-down section of line 14 is required to include a recess through which the cutting blade is movable, whereas the hold-down section of lines 24-25 requires that the hold-down section is spaced apart from a further hold-down section with a space between the hold-down section and the further hold-down section, where the blade moves through the spec. It is unclear whether the hold-down section of lines 24-25 must have the recess through which the blade moves and also define a portion of the space through which the blade moves. Interpretating claim 1 in view of the present specification suggests that lines 24-25 are introducing another hold-down section. Furthermore, if the same hold-down section is being described at lines 24-25 as at line 14, it is unclear whether a second ‘dispensing position’ is required by claim 1 at line 31. The use of “a” to describe the dispensing position suggests that a new dispensing position is being introduced. However, it is unclear whether the gripping device must be able transport a cut strip to two dispensing positions. If the Applicant intends claim 1 to refer to two different gripping devices and/or two different hold-down sections, then the examiner suggests using different names for the two gripping devices and/or the two hold-down sections. For example, the Applicant can amend claim 1 to recite that the cutting device includes one of a first gripping device and a second gripping device, where the first gripping device includes a first hold-down section having certain features, and where the second gripping device includes a second hold-down section having certain features.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear which clauses are required to satisfy the claim in view of the multiple uses of “or” and the run-on nature of the recitation. For example, does “or a carrier” at line 4 mean that the gripping device including a housing with a bottom as described at lines 2-3 is optional? Does the recitation of “or only a section of the carrier forms the hold-down section” at lines 7-8 mean that every feature in the claim recited prior to this recitation is optional? Similarly, does the recitation of “, or a lower side of the housing or the bottom or the carrier forms the hold-down section” at lines 8-10 mean that every preceding recitation is optional?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2014/0290453 A1 to Buettner et al.
Regarding claim 1, Buettner discloses a cutting device 11 (see Fig. 1) for cutting narrow strips (such as strip 36 shown in Fig. 2a) from a material web (the particular type of material is merely an intended use of the claimed cutter device; nonetheless, Buettner’s cutting device 11 is capable of receiving a web material fed on the blade table 16 such as if the web material is fed from a side of the blade table 16 opposite the gripping device 27 relative to Fig. 1), magnetically couplable elements are embedded or arranged in the material web at defined spacings behind one another in a web longitudinal direction (no web material is claimed, so Buettner need not disclose the particular characteristics of the unclaimed web material; regardless, the device of Buettner is operable on such material for the same reasons as explained above), the cutting device comprising a blade table 16 arranged on a device frame (see Fig. 1, where the device frame includes the structure underlying the blade table 16), the material web to be cut being positionable on the blade table 16 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 30), a cutting apparatus 14 comprising a cutting blade (the cutting blade being disclosed by the punching stamp of paragraph 30; this structure is properly considered as a cutting blade since it is the cutting part of the cutting instrument 14, noting that the definition of ‘blade’ includes the cutting part of an implement per merriam-webster.com, and also in view of the cutting shape produced by the cutting stamp as can be seen in Figs. 2a-2c per paragraph 35) that is movable out of a starting position into a cutting position relative to the blade table 16 (the cutting blade is movable into a lowered position relative to the position of Figs. 5 and 6, noting that in Figs. 5 and 6 the cutting blade is not engaging the workpiece 12, whereas when lowered the cutting blade does engage the workpiece since engagement of the cutting blade with the workpiece 12 is necessary to produce a cut), and a gripping device 27 which receives and transports a cut strip and is movable relative to the blade table 16 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 31 and 36),
either the gripping device comprising a hold-down section that is placeable for cutting purposes onto the material web which is positioned on the blade table and fixes the material web during the cutting on the blade table, and the gripping device comprises a magnetic element which interacts magnetically with the magnetically couplable element of the cut strip for fixing the strip on the gripping device for transport into a dispensing position, and the hold-down section comprising a recess, through which the cutting blade is movable to the blade table into the cutting position, [this paragraph is optional due to the recitation of ‘either’ at the start of this paragraph and ‘or’ at the beginning of the next paragraph]
or the gripping device 27 comprising the hold-down section (the hold-down section including the carrier to which hold-down elements 34 are attached; note that a carrier is one option of the corresponding structure of the hold-down section as disclosed in the present application) that is placeable for cutting purposes onto the material web which is positioned on the blade table 16 and fixes the material web during the cutting on the blade table 16 (see paragraph 36), and the gripping device 27 comprises the magnetic element 34 (element 34 can be a magnetic element per paragraph 32) which interacts magnetically with the magnetically couplable element of the cut strip for fixing the strip on the gripping device for transport into a dispensing position (see paragraph 36, demonstrating that Buettner’s gripping device 27 is operable in this manner to carry out this functional recitation; again, since no workpiece is claimed, Buettner need not expressly disclose magnetic interaction, but instead need only disclose structure that allows for a magnetic interaction when the workpiece is provided as a magnetized workpiece, which Buettner does due to including magnetic elements 34), and at least one further hold-down element 18 (corresponding to a bar or flap as disclosed in the present application) being provided that is placeable onto the material web for cutting purposes (see Fig. 1) spaced apart from the hold-down section (see Fig. 2b) so that the cutting blade is movable through a space between the hold-down section and the at least one further hold-down element 18 to the blade table 16 into the cutting position (see Figs. 2a and 2b showing the cutting apparatus 14, which includes the cutting blade, in the space, such that the cutting blade is movable through the space when performing a cutting operation; see paragraph 36 as evidence of the ability of Buettner’s structure to perform cutting while the workpiece is in the configuration of Fig. 2b), wherein the space is configured as an elongate slot (see the annotated Fig. 2b below; note that while this ‘elongate slot’ is only bound on two sides, the same is true for the elongate slot disclosed in the present application as can be understood in view of Fig. 38 of the present drawings, such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an elongate slot encompasses an elongate empty space bound on only two sides – in Buettner, the space is elongate because a dimension of the space in the ‘x’ direction is significantly greater than a dimension of the space in the ‘y’ direction using the coordinate system shown in Fig. 2a; as such, Buettner discloses an ‘elongate slot’ to the same extent as an elongate slot is disclosed in the present application).
Regarding claim 3, Buettner discloses that the gripping device comprises a carrier (the carrier to which hold-down elements 34 are attached; see Figs. 1 and 2c; as best understood, no hold-down plate is required due to the recitation of ‘or’ at line 4 preceding ‘a carrier’ – as a result, additional recitations related to the hold-down plate are likewise interpretation as optional features, since if no hold-down plate is required then additional features describing the hold-down plate are likewise not required), the carrier forms the hold-down section (see Fig. 1; noting again that the carrier is a structure corresponding to the hold-down section disclosed in the present specification). Since Buettner teaches at least one ‘or’ option recited in claim 3, Buettner discloses the features required by claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Buettner discloses that the space is configured between the hold-down element 18 and the carrier (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 6, Buettner disclose that a projection which forms a run-on edge for the material web is provided on a side of the carrier that faces the blade table 16 (see the annotated Fig. 1 below, where the run-on edge being “for the material web” is merely an intended use of the projection).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Buettner discloses that the magnetic element 34 is arranged on the carrier such that the magnetic element 34 is movable between a raised and a lowered position (see paragraphs 33 and 37), in which the magnetic element 34 interacts magnetically with one of the magnetically couplable elements (see paragraph 36; the ability of the magnetic element 34 to magnetically interact with some workpiece depends on the workpiece itself being interactive with a magnet, noting that the workpiece is not claimed).
Regarding claim 9, Buettner discloses that the gripping device 27 comprises the hold-down section, the magnetic element 34 at the at least one further hold-down element 18 (see the discussion of claim 1 above), wherein the at least one further hold-down element 18 is movable in a linear or pivotable manner relative to the material web (see movement produced by linear drive 19 in Fig. 1; see also paragraph 30) by a movement device (see paragraph 30, where linear drive 19 corresponds to the movement device; this device performs the specified function of moving the hold-down element, is not excluded by any explicitly definition in the present specification, and performs the identical function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same results as the inventive movement device, since a linear drive moves the hold-down element in the same manner as a slide, such that the linear drive 19 of Buettner is an equivalent to the corresponding structure disclosed in the present specification).
Regarding claim 10, Buettner discloses that the hold-down element 18 is a bar (see Fig. 1, where the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘bar’ includes a straight piece that is longer than it is wide and has any of various uses and a solid piece or block of material that is longer than it is wide per merriam-webster.com, and element 18 has a greater length measured in the Y-direction than width measured in the X-direction as is evident from Fig. 1 ) that is movable in a linear manner (see paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 11, Buettner discloses that the bar is placeable with an edge onto the material web (see Fig. 1, where the material web can be provided in place of workpiece 12).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0290453 A1 to Buettner et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0311010 A1 to Liechti.
Regarding claim 5, Buettner discloses that the magnetic element 34 interacts with the magnetically couplable element (this feature is satisfied when the device of Buettner operates on a magnetically couplable element containing workpiece; see paragraph 36 and Fig. 2b).
Buettner fails to disclose that the magnet’s interaction is through the carrier as required by claim 5 and that the magnetic element is mounted pivotably on the carrier as required by claim 8.
Liechti, though, is pertinent to the problems of transporting magnetically couplable elements and of releasing magnetically couplable elements from a magnetic interaction. Liechti teaches a magnetic element 54 that interacts with a magnetically couplable element 21 through a carrier 51 (see Fig. 6), where the magnetic element 54 is mounted pivotably on the carrier 51 (see pivoting at pivot axis 60 in Figs. 6-9). Liechti teaches that providing a magnetic element to be pivotably mounted to a carrier and to extend through the carrier when the magnetic element is in an engaging position is advantageous because the magnetic element is pivotable away from the carrier to release the magnetically couplable element (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the magnetic elements of Buettner to extent through the carrier in a workpiece engaging position and to be pivotably mounted to the carrier in view of the teachings of Liechti. This modification is advantageous because the pivotable mounting provides a manner for release work engaged by the gripping device of Buettner. That is, the gripping device of Buettner requires some manner for releasing work, and this modification enables the magnetic elements to be pivoted to a retracted position relative to the carrier so that the magnetic elements release the work. (In the engaging position where the magnetic elements extend through the carrier, the magnetic elements are positioned to carry or otherwise move the work.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In discussing the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Buettner, the Applicant asserts, “the Examiner does not find the first alternative [of claim 1] to be obvious because this alternative is not addressed”. While the point is moot in view of claim 1 being rejected as anticipated as a result of Buettner disclosing the second option of claim 1, the examiner does not find the first alternative permitted by claim 1 to be nonobvious. Instead, the examiner takes no position on whether or not the first alternative of claim 1 is obvious. Because Buettner renders the second option of claim 1 anticipated, the examiner need not make any determination with respect to the first option of claim 1. Therefore, merely because the examiner has not rejected the first option of claim 1 does not mean that the examiner finds the first option of claim 1 to be non-obvious.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Buettner, the Applicant asserts that Buettner does not disclose an elongated slot as required by claim 1, but instead discloses “a distance of any desired size”. This argument is not persuasive. Consider the geometry of the Applicant’s “elongated slot”. As can be seen in Fig. 37 of the present drawings, the “elongate slot” is a space bounded on two opposing sides by the hold-down section and the further hold-down element. Buettner discloses exactly such a slot, where the slot of Buettner is likewise “elongate” because one of its dimensions is substantially greater than an orthogonal dimension. Also, even though the slot of Buettner is dependent on the position of the hold-down section and the further hold-down element, the exact same is true of the elongate slot of the present invention. In Fig. 38 of the present drawings, for example, there is no ‘elongate slot’ when the hold-down section is moved to position far from a workpiece holding position. As such, that Buettner’s slot may depend on the position of the hold-down section is irrelevant, so long as the slot is present in at least one position of the hold-down section. Such an interpretation is consistent with the disclosure of the present application. In summary, since Buettner discloses an ‘elongate slot’ to the same extent as disclosed in the present application, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights