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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 2/27/2026. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 9 and 15 were amended, and no new claims were added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending for this application, with claims 1-15 and 17-20 under examination and claim 16 withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the chassis includes a cylindrical portion extending along a longitudinal axis of the cylindrical portion” in lines 3-4 is unclear how the cylindrical portion extends along an axis of itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-11, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 5,713,832) in view of D’Addario (US 2003/0046750) and Kulkarni (WO 2010101874 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jain discloses (Fig. 1-4) a vehicle seat element lining (device of Jain capable of being used to line a vehicle seat and thus comprehends the intended use recited in the preamble) comprising:
a cushioning (cushion structure 12) comprising at least one first face intended to be oriented towards an occupant of the vehicle seat (top surface contacting user) and a second face, opposite the first face (bottom surface of cushion 12), the cushioning having at least one hole opening on at least one among the first and the second face of the cushioning (hole opening on second face as shown in bottom view shown in Fig. 4),
at least one vibrating device (vibrator 14), each vibrating device being disposed in a respective hole (see Fig. 4), each vibrating device comprising at least two first reliefs (“relief” conventionally defined as raised shape above a flat surface, Cambridge Dictionary definition 4. In this case, relief is formed by combination of a ridge 32,36, wall of housing 15 opposite a ridge, and the surface of base 40 between the two walls), and
a plurality of distinct vibrating device brackets (rigid wires 42 that are bracket shaped), each comprising a base (base portion mounted to cushioning via fasteners 50,52, see Fig. 4), each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets (see Fig. 4, Col. 4 lines 10-25).
Jain discloses the brackets and vibrating device are connected via wires received within a channel (see Fig. 3-4), and thus does not disclose each vibrating device comprising at least two first snap-fit reliefs, the brackets comprising a second snap-fit relief, wherein each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets by snap-fitting a first snap-fit relief with a second snap-fit relief.
However, D’Addario teaches (Fig. 1-3) a housing (spine 15) comprising two first snap-fit reliefs (snap fit reliefs 41, paragraph [0034]), the brackets comprising a second snap-fit relief (brackets 20 comprising snap fit relief on bottom surface due to prongs 35 extending from bottom surface that form the relief), wherein each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets by snap-fitting a first snap-fit relief with a second snap-fit relief (paragraph [0033]-[0034] and Fig. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the connecting structures between the vibrating device and brackets of Jain such that each vibrating device comprising at least two first snap-fit reliefs, the brackets comprising a second snap-fit relief, wherein each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets by snap-fitting a first snap-fit relief with a second snap-fit relief, as taught by D’Addario, for the purpose of providing reversible attachment (paragraph [0015] D’Addario) between the vibration device and bracket so that vibration device can be easily replaceable and thus extending the operating life of the vibration element. Furthermore, it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known connection structure (channel connection structure of Jain) with another well-known connection structure (snap-on structure of D’Addario) would provide the expected result of providing secure attachment of one component to another (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Modified Jain does not disclose the brackets comprising a base overmoulded by the cushioning.
However, Kulkarni teaches (Fig. 1-6) a bracket (bracket 34) comprising a base (portion extending from center portion 50) overmoulded by the cushioning (overmolded by cushion 36, see Fig. 3-4 and paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the bracket of modified Jain to be overmolded by the cushion, as taught by Kulkarni, for the purpose of providing for secure attachment of the bracket to the cushioning so that the vibration device does not become dislodged during use. Furthermore, it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known bracket-cushion connection structure (fasteners 50,52 of Jain) with another well-known connection structure (overmolding of cushion of Kulkarni) would provide the expected result of providing secure attachment of one component to another (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jain discloses wherein each hole opens on a single face of the cushioning (bottom face, see Fig. 1 and 4 Jain), among the first face and the second face of the cushioning (second face, corresponding to bottom face).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jain discloses wherein each hole opens on the second face of the cushioning (see Fig. 4 Jain).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jain discloses wherein each hole is devoid of foam pad plugging the hole on the side of the second face of the cushioning (see Fig. 4 Jain).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jain discloses wherein each vibrating device comprises a chassis (base 40 of Jain corresponding to base 15 of D’Ardarrio) forming the at least two first snap-fit reliefs (formed within base as shown in Fig. 1 D’Ardarrio), and a vibrating element fastened to the chassis (see Fig. 2-3 Jain).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jain discloses wherein the chassis includes a cylindrical portion (cylindrical housing 15 of Jain) extending along a longitudinal axis (width extends along longitudinal left-right axis shown in Fig. 2 Jain) and receiving the vibrating element (element 24 Jain), the at least two snap-fit reliefs being integral with the cylindrical portion (integral to base and thus integral to the cylindrical portion that is also integral to base, see Fig. 2 Jan and Fig. 1 D’Ardarrio).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jain discloses wherein each first snap-fit relief is connected to the cylindrical portion by a lug (relief 41 of D’Ardarrio connected to cylindrical portion, due to connection to base, by way of lug 34. Lug is conventionally defined as a ridge (see Merriam-Webster definition 3(3)), and component 34 is ridge shaped).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jain discloses wherein each lug extends along an axial direction, in relation to the cylindrical portion (extending along axial direction shown in Fig. 1 D’Ardarrio in relation to cylindrical portion (which is centrally positioned)).
Regarding claim 14, modified Jain discloses wherein each vibrating device comprises three distinct first snap-fit reliefs (see three snap fit reliefs 41 in Fig. 1 D’Ardarrio).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jain discloses wherein the base of each bracket comprises a first tab (tab 34 of D’Ardarrio).
Regarding claim 19, modified Jain discloses method for manufacturing the vehicle seat element lining according to claim 1, comprising the steps of: i) providing the vibrating device brackets (brackets 41 of D’Ardarrio); ii) overmolding the cushioning on the vibrating device brackets (see Fig. 3-4 and paragraph [0064] Kulkarni)., the overmoulding being produced in such a way as to form the at least one hole opening on at least one among the first and the second face of the cushioning (second face, see Fig. 4 Jain); and iii) inserting a vibrating device into each of at least one hole and fastening each vibrating device to the vibrating device brackets by snap-fitting the first and second snap-fit reliefs (see Fig. 4 Jain and (paragraph [0033]-[0034] and Fig. 1-2 D’Ardarrio).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 5,713,832) in view of D’Addario (US 2003/0046750) and Kulkarni (WO 2010101874 A1), and further in view of Sleichter (US 6,682,494).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jain does not disclose wherein each hole opens on the first face of the cushioning.
However, Sleicther teaches (Fig. 2 and 3a) a vibration massage device comprising a cushion (cushioning 18) having a hole (receptacle 17) that opens on the first face of the cushioning (opens on top surface and thus first face, see Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hole of modified Jain to open on the first face of the cushioning instead of the second face, as taught by Sleichter, for the purpose of making it easier to insert and remove the vibration device (instead of having to go under cushion to remove/insert). Furthermore, outside evidence of criticality, it has been held that mere arrangement of parts (i.e. making the opening open on first face instead of second face) would be an obvious matter of design choice. See in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Regarding claim 4, modified Jain discloses wherein the hole is plugged on the side of the first face of the cushioning by a foam pad (foam pad 34 Sleichter) attached in the hole and distinct from the cushioning (see Fig. 3a and Col. 7 lines 38-46).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jain discloses wherein the foam pad is denser than the cushioning (cushioning 18 is made of 2-pound mini-cell polyethylene, which has a density of 2 lbs/ft3, Col. 6 lines 42-45, whereas foam pad is made from CF-40 Confor Foam, Col. 7 lines 38-46 which has a density of 6 lbs/ft3).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 5,713,832) in view of D’Addario (US 2003/0046750) and Kulkarni (WO 2010101874 A1), and further in view of Demick (US 2008/0224509).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jain discloses first snap fit reliefs having ridge portions (34 of D’Addario), but does not disclose wherein each first snap-fit relief comprises a cylindrical rod.
However, Demick teaches (Fig. 1-4) a snap-fit relief (snap fit relief 78, paragraph [0034] discloses “snap-fit”) comprising a cylindrical rod (ridges 166A and 168C have circular cross section and a length extending shown in Fig. 4 that forms a cylindrical shape, see paragraphs [0032] and [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ridges of reliefs of modified Jain to include cylindrical rod, as taught by Demick, as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of design choice outside evidence of criticality and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 5,713,832) in view of D’Addario (US 2003/0046750) and Kulkarni (WO 2010101874 A1), and further in view of Okubo (US 9,452,697).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jain discloses wherein each vibrating device comprises a chassis (base 40 of Jain corresponding to base 15 of D’Ardarrio) forming the at least two first snap-fit reliefs (formed within base as shown in Fig. 1 D’Ardarrio), and a vibrating element fastened to the chassis (see Fig. 2-3 Jain), wherein the chassis includes a cylindrical portion (cylindrical housing 15 of Jain) mainly extending along a longitudinal axis of the cylindrical portion (width extends along longitudinal left-right axis shown in Fig. 2 Jain), but does not disclose wherein the three first snap-fit reliefs are evenly distributed around the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical portion.
However, Okubo teaches (Fig. 3-6) three first snap-fit reliefs (snap fit reliefs 24a,24b,30b) are evenly distributed around the longitudinal axis of the portion (case 17. While case 17 is not cylindrical, the casing is analogous to the cylindrical portion 15 in that it’s also a housing, and the cylindrical shape of the portion is already disclosed by Jain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distribution of the first snap reliefs of modified Jain to be evenly distributed around the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical portion, as taught by Okubo, for the purpose of improving stability by ensuring the center of mass is evenly supported about the central axis of the vibration device.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (WO 2010101874 A1) in view of Jain (US 5,713,832) and D’Addario (US 2003/0046750).
Regarding claim 18, Kulkarni discloses (Fig. 1-4) a motor vehicle seat (paragraph [0002]) comprising a seat base (seat base 22) with a seat base frame (see frame positioned below cushion 22 of seat), a backrest (backrest 22) with a backrest frame (frame 38), a cushioning (padding 28) comprising at least one first face intended to be oriented towards an occupant of the vehicle seat (front surface contacting user) and a second face, opposite the first face (back surface of cushion 28). Kulkarni does not disclose the cushioning having at least one hole opening on at least one among the first and the second face of the cushioning at least one vibrating device each vibrating device being disposed in a respective hole, each vibrating device comprising at least two first reliefs, and a plurality of distinct vibrating device brackets, each comprising a base, each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets.
However, Jain teaches (Fig. 1-4) a vehicle seat element lining (device of Jain capable of being used to line a vehicle seat and thus comprehends the intended use recited in the preamble) comprising:
a cushioning (cushion structure 12) comprising at least one first face intended to be oriented towards an occupant of the vehicle seat (top surface contacting user) and a second face, opposite the first face (bottom surface of cushion 12), the cushioning having at least one hole opening on at least one among the first and the second face of the cushioning (hole opening on second face as shown in bottom view shown in Fig. 4),
at least one vibrating device (vibrator 14), each vibrating device being disposed in a respective hole (see Fig. 4), each vibrating device comprising at least two first reliefs (“relief” conventionally defined as raised shape above a flat surface, Cambridge Dictionary definition 4. In this case, relief is formed by combination of a ridge 32,36, wall of housing 15 opposite a ridge, and the surface of base 40 between the two walls), and
a plurality of distinct vibrating device brackets (rigid wires 42 that are bracket shaped), each comprising a base (base portion mounted to cushioning via fasteners 50,52, see Fig. 4), each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets (see Fig. 4, Col. 4 lines 10-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kulkarni to include the cushioning having at least one hole opening on at least one among the first and the second face of the cushioning at least one vibrating device each vibrating device being disposed in a respective hole, each vibrating device comprising at least two first reliefs, and a plurality of distinct vibrating device brackets, each comprising a base, each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets, as taught by Jain, for the purpose of providing soothing vibration to a user (Abstract Jain), thereby reducing stress or providing massage to a user while driving.
Jain discloses the brackets and vibrating device are connected via wires received within a channel (see Fig. 3-4), and thus does not disclose each vibrating device comprising at least two first snap-fit reliefs, the brackets comprising a second snap-fit relief, wherein each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets by snap-fitting a first snap-fit relief with a second snap-fit relief.
However, D’Addario teaches (Fig. 1-3) a housing (spine 15) comprising two first snap-fit reliefs (snap fit reliefs 41, paragraph [0034]), the brackets comprising a second snap-fit relief (brackets 20 comprising snap fit relief on bottom surface due to prongs 35 extending from bottom surface that form the relief), wherein each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets by snap-fitting a first snap-fit relief with a second snap-fit relief (paragraph [0033]-[0034] and Fig. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the connecting structures between the vibrating device and brackets of Kulkarni such that each vibrating device comprising at least two first snap-fit reliefs, the brackets comprising a second snap-fit relief, wherein each vibrating device being fastened to at least two respective brackets by snap-fitting a first snap-fit relief with a second snap-fit relief, as taught by D’Addario, for the purpose of providing reversible attachment (paragraph [0015] D’Addario) between the vibration device and bracket so that vibration device can be easily replaceable and thus extending the operating life of the vibration element. Furthermore, it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known connection structure (channel connection structure of Jain) with another well-known connection structure (snap-on structure of D’Addario) would provide the expected result of providing secure attachment of one component to another (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Modified Kulkarni does not disclose the brackets comprising a base overmoulded by the cushioning.
However, Kulkarni further teaches (Fig. 1-6) a bracket (bracket 34) comprising a base (portion extending from center portion 50) overmoulded by the cushioning (overmolded by cushion 36, see Fig. 3-4 and paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the bracket of modified Kulkarni to be overmolded by the cushion, as further taught by Kulkarni, for the purpose of providing for secure attachment of the bracket to the cushioning so that the vibration device does not become dislodged during use. Furthermore, it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known bracket-cushion connection structure (fasteners 50,52 of Jain) with another well-known connection structure (overmolding of cushion of Kulkarni) would provide the expected result of providing secure attachment of one component to another (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 5,713,832) in view of D’Addario (US 2003/0046750) and Kulkarni (WO 2010101874 A1), and further in view of Sleichter (US 6,053,880).
Regarding claim 20, modified Jain does not disclose the at least one hole opening on the first face of the cushioning, the method comprising a step iv) subsequent to step iii) of plugging each hole on the side of the first face of the cushioning by means of a foam pad.
However, Sleichter teaches (Fig. 1-2) a method of manufacturing vehicle seat element (Abstract) comprising the at least one hole opening on the first face of the cushioning (hole 17 on top surface and thus the first face, see Fig. 2), the method comprising a step iv) subsequent to step iii) of plugging each hole on the side of the first face of the cushioning by means of a foam pad (foam pad 21 plugs hole 17 subsequent to inserting a vibrating device into each of at least one hole, Col. 4 lines 12-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Jain such that the at least one hole opening on the first face of the cushioning, the method comprising a step iv) subsequent to step iii) of plugging each hole on the side of the first face of the cushioning by means of a foam pad, as taught by Sleichter, for the purpose of making it easier to insert and remove the vibration device due to the device being inserted on top surface of cushion (instead of having to go under cushion to remove/insert), and to improve protection of cushion by providing a top layer so that user does not get injured from vibration.. Furthermore, outside evidence of criticality, it has been held that mere arrangement of parts (i.e. making the opening open on first face instead of second face) would be an obvious matter of design choice. See in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, applicant argued (page 6 paragraph 1-3 Remarks) that D’Addario is nonanalogous art because it is not in the same field of endeavour due to being directed to a pad for a shoulder strap to help carry bulky items, and not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors, as inventors are concerned with the problem of fastening a vibrating device to a frame of a seat to generate vibrations of the frame, whereas D’Addario is directing to solving problem of improving weight distribution over shoulder to minimize discomfort.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While examiner agrees with applicant that D’Addario is not in the same field of endeavour as applicant’s invention, examiner disagrees regarding applicant’s arguments directed to D’Addario not being reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors. Specifically, both applicant and D’Addario are directed to the problem of providing a way of reversibly attaching a device to a support structure so that the devices can be attached and detached from multiple systems for improved user customization and comfort. While D’Addario does not disclose this applies for vibration devices, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the problem being faced and addressed by D’Addario would translate to that of a vibration element system since such a system would be improved if a user can detach and replace the vibration elements as needed, which would thereby extend the life of the system.
Regarding the Jain reference, applicant argued (page 7 paragraph 4 and page 8 paragraph 2 Remarks) that Office alleges that the brackets of Jain are mounted to cushioning via fasteners 50,52, however this mischaracterizes the refence because Jain discloses “the ends of wire 42 are then connected to sag resistant spring 46 by means of mechanical fasteners 50”, meaning that the fasteners are connected to metal frame elements, not cushioning. Applicant further argues that wires 42,44 are suspended between metal springs in a rigid frame and not mounted to a cushioning material. Rather, the fasteners are mounted to the sag-resistant springs.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fasteners mounted to cushioning) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argued (page 8 paragraph 4 Remarks) that the Office purports substitution of the channels of Jain with the snap fittings of D’Addario, and the fasteners 50,52 of Jain with the cushion overmoulding of Kulkarni, to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 1, however it is not clear how that piecemeal substitution would create the claimed invention (i.e. if the fittings replace the channels, and the cushion overmoulding replaces the fittings, what happens to the spring connection?).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant appears to allege that overmoulding replaces the fittings, however this has not been stated in the rejection. As stated in the rejection, the fittings are modified to be snap-fitted as opposed to being attached to the channel structure, and the fittings are modified to include a base that is overmoulded to the cushion. The simple substitution for this second modification is merely used to show that modifying the connection of the brackets to the cushion (not to be confused with the connection of the vibration device to the cushion) would be a simple substitution due to the connections being routine and conventional to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights