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 Arguments
1. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 05/12/25 regarding rejected claims on pages 7-13, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “Binder teaches using a first distance meter for a first distance value (d1A) and a second distance meter for a second distance (d2A). In contrast, the pending claim recite the use of a single rangefinder to calculate a first distance and a second distance, and displaying either the first distance or the second distance”.
The current claims disclose “(a) ranging a first distance using a laser rangefinder; (c) ranging a second distance using the laser rangefinder”. According to the current claims, and to the Examiner point of view, a laser rangefinder for ranging the first distance, and the laser rangefinder for ranging the second distance could be different laser rangefinder or the same laser rangefinder. In the other words, the limitation “a single rangefinder to calculate a first distance and a second distance, and displaying either the first distance or the second distance” must be disclosed clearly in the claims in order to be considered.
Further, Binder also discloses the limitation “a single rangefinder to calculate a first distance and a second distance” in figures 14 and 14a, the first distance d1 of measurement beam 51a and the second distance d2 measurement beam 51b are measured by the same emitter 11a and the same sensor 13a, which is not different from a single rangefinder.
Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/05/26, 05/21/25 have been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne (US 5291262 A) in view of Binder (US 20190154439 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dunne teaches a method comprising:
(a) ranging a first distance using a laser rangefinder; (Fig. 1, laser rangefinder, 30)
(b) displaying the first ranged distance on a display of the laser rangefinder; (Fig. 1, display, 82 “These include nearly any task requiring some combination of one or more distance measurements, one or more inclination measurements, one or more compass measurements, and/or one or more width measurements. Various readings and computed values may be displayed as appropriate on the display” [Col.15, lines 18-23])
(c) ranging a second distance using the laser rangefinder; (d) comparing the first distance to the second distance using the laser rangefinder; (“determine her distance and compass direction from that object, alter her course to travel on another course, and recheck the new course by again determining her distance and compass heading from the target object. Or, the user could compare the distance and compass heading information for two or more remote targets, and determine a travel course relative to those targets. These and many other uses will be apparent to one skilled in surveying and related navigational arts” [Col. 15, lines 55-63]).
Dunne teaches claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to show the laser rangefinder displaying either the first distance from the laser rangefinder or the second distance from the laser rangefinder on the display of the laser rangefinder, wherein the first distance is displayed when the second distance is within set tolerance limits of the first distance and the second distance is displayed when the second distance is outside of the set tolerance limits.
However, Binder, directed to using a laser rangefinder to determine a distance to a target, teaches the laser rangefinder displaying either the first distance from the laser rangefinder or the second distance from the laser rangefinder on the display of the laser rangefinder, wherein the first distance is displayed when the second distance is within set tolerance limits of the first distance and the second distance is displayed when the second distance is outside of the set tolerance limits (figures 14 and 14a, the first distance d1 of measurement beam 51a and the second distance d2 measurement beam 51b are measured by the same emitter 11a and the same sensor 13a, which is not different from a single rangefinder. The first distance value d1A and the second distance d2A, may be above the minimum threshold or may be below the maximum threshold is not different from within set tolerance limits or is outside of the set tolerance limits, [0496]. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser rangefinder disclosed by Dunne to include the range display process of Binder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of notifying a local user by displaying the information that is most accurate after a comparison and tolerance filter, as suggested by Binder, (“such as for notifying a remote user, as an alternative or in addition to notifying a local user such as by displaying the information on the display” [1006, lines 7-10]).
Regarding claim 2, Dunne in view of Binder teach the method of Claim 1 as discussed above, Dunne further teaches ranging the first distance and second distance to the same target. (“determine her distance and compass direction from that object, alter her course to travel on another course, and recheck the new course by again determining her distance and compass heading from the target object.” [Col.15, lines 55-58]).
Regarding claim 3, Dunne in view of Binder teach the method of Claim 1 as discussed above, Dunne further teaches the first distance being ranged to a first target and the second distance being ranged to a second target. (“Or, the user could compare the distance and compass heading information for two or more remote targets, and determine a travel course relative to those targets.” [Col.15, 59-61]).
Regarding claim 4, Dunne in view of Binder teach the method of Claim 1 as discussed above, but Dunne does not show ranging the first distance and ranging the second distance occurring within a set time period.
However, Dunne does disclose “determine her distance and compass direction from that object, alter her course to travel on another course, and recheck the new course by again determining her distance and compass heading from the target object.” [Col.15, lines 55-58]. The disclosure made by Dunne shows a first and second distance being taken in an undisclosed amount of time. Binder further teaches the ranging of the first distance and the ranging of the second distance occur within a set time period. (“any distance meter herein may measure a distance using, or based on, multiple consecutive measurement cycles time” [0561]).
Furthermore, both Dunne and Binder teach taking a first and second distance in a time period.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser rangefinder disclosed by Dunne to include the set time frame of Binder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing the echo from an object, as suggested by Binder, (“the time interval is set so that the received reflection (echo) from an object or surface by a sensor 13 is not detectable” [0852]).
Regarding claim 5, Dunne in view of Binder teaches the method of Claim 4 as discussed above, Binder further teaches the set time period is selected from the group consisting of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, and greater than 65 seconds. (“Alternatively or in addition, any distance meter herein may measure a distance using, or based on, multiple consecutive measurement cycles time spaced by less than, or more than, 1 ms (micro-second), 2 ms, 3 ms, 5 ms, 8 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 30 ms, 50 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 200 ms, 300 ms, 500 ms, 800 ms, 1 ms (milli-second), 2 ms, 3 ms, 5 ms, 8 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 30 ms, 50 ms, 80 ms, 100 ma, 200 ma, 300 ms, 500 ma, 800 ma, 1 s (second), 2 s, 3 s, 5 s, 8 s, or 10 s.”[0561]).
Regarding claim 6, Dunne in view of Binder teaches the method of Claim 4 as discussed above, Binder further teaches the set time period is less than 60 seconds. (“Alternatively or in addition, any distance meter herein may measure a distance using, or based on, multiple consecutive measurement cycles time spaced by less than, or more than, 1 ms (micro-second), 2 ms, 3 ms, 5 ms, 8 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 30 ms, 50 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 200 ms, 300 ms, 500 ms, 800 ms, 1 ms (milli-second), 2 ms, 3 ms, 5 ms, 8 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 30 ms, 50 ms, 80 ms, 100 ma, 200 ma, 300 ms, 500 ma, 800 ma, 1 s (second), 2 s, 3 s, 5 s, 8 s, or 10 s.”[0561]).
7. Claim(s) 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne (US 5291262 A) in view of Binder (US 20190154439 A1) in further view of Monahan (US 10012506 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Dunne teaches a method comprising:
(a) ranging a first distance using a laser rangefinder and determining a first compass heading; (“a user might walk to location away from a remote target object, determine her distance and compass direction from that object” [Col.15, lines 53-56]);
(b) displaying the first ranged distance and first compass heading on a display of the laser rangefinder; (Fig. 1, display, 82 “These include nearly any task requiring some combination of one or more distance measurements, one or more inclination measurements, one or more compass measurements, and/or one or more width measurements. Various readings and computed values may be displayed as appropriate on the display” [Col.15, lines 18-23]);
(c) ranging a second distance using the laser rangefinder and determining a second compass heading; (“alter her course to travel on another course, and recheck the new course by again determining her distance and compass heading from the target object.” [Col.15, 56-58]);
(d) comparing the second distance to the first distance; (e) comparing the second compass heading to the first compass heading. (“the user could compare the distance and compass heading information for two or more remote targets, and determine a travel course relative to those targets. These and many other uses will be apparent to one skilled in surveying and related navigational arts.”[Col. 15, lines 59-63]); and
(f) displaying either the first distance from the laser rangefinder and first compass heading or the second distance from the laser rangefinder and second compass heading on the display of the laser rangefinder, (Fig. 1, display, 82 “These include nearly any task requiring some combination of one or more distance measurements, one or more inclination measurements, one or more compass measurements, and/or one or more width measurements. Various readings and computed values may be displayed as appropriate on the display” [Col.15, lines 18-23]. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above).
Dunne does not teach the first distance and first compass heading are displayed when the second distance is within a set distance tolerance limit of the first distance and the second compass heading is within a set compass heading tolerance limit of the first compass heading; and the second distance and second compass heading are displayed when the second distance is beyond the set distance tolerance limit of the first distance and/or the second compass heading is beyond the set compass heading tolerance limit of the first compass heading.
However, Binder, directed to using a laser rangefinder to determine a distance to a target, teaches the laser rangefinder displaying either the first distance or the second distance on the display of the laser rangefinder, wherein the first distance is displayed when the second distance is within set tolerance limits of the first distance and the second distance is displayed when the second distance is outside of the set tolerance limits (figures 14 and 14a, the first distance d1 of measurement beam 51a and the second distance d2 measurement beam 51b are measured by the same emitter 11a and the same sensor 13a, which is not different from a single rangefinder. The first distance value d1A and the second distance d2A, may be above the minimum threshold or may be below the maximum threshold is not different from within set tolerance limits or is outside of the set tolerance limits, [0496]. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser rangefinder disclosed by Dunne to include the range display process of Binder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of notifying a local user by displaying the information, as suggested by Binder, (“such as for notifying a remote user, as an alternative or in addition to notifying a local user such as by displaying the information on the display” [1006, lines 7-10]).
Dunne in view of Binder does not show a first and second compass heading tolerance limit.
However, Monahan, directed to compass heading, teaches (“navigational guidance to turn in a right direction when the current direction of travel is beyond a predetermined acceptable tolerance extending leftward from the established compass heading, navigational guidance to turn in a left direction when the current direction of travel is beyond a predetermined acceptable tolerance extending rightward from the established compass heading, and navigational guidance indicating that the current direction of travel is within the tolerance band from the established compass heading.”[Col.3, lines 51-60]).
Furthermore, Both Dunne and Monahan utilize compass heading for navigation purposes.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser rangefinder disclosed by Dunne in view of Binder to include the compass tolerance process of Monahan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of real time navigational display based on movement of the device, as suggested by Monahan, (“As the user travels, the device monitors the actual direction of travel, compares the actual direction of travel to the established compass heading and an acceptable tolerance and provides feedback to the user” [Col.3, lines 46-49]).
Regarding claim 10, Dunne in view of Binder in further view of Monahan teach the method of Claim 9 as discussed above, Dunne further teaches the first distance and second distance are ranged to the same target. (“a user might walk to location away from a remote target object, determine her distance and compass direction from that object” [Col.15, lines 53-56]).
Regarding claim 11, Dunne in view of Binder in further view of Monahan teach the method of Claim 9 as discussed above, Dunne further teaches the first distance is ranged to a first target and the second distance is ranged to a second target. (“the user could compare the distance and compass heading information for two or more remote targets, and determine a travel course relative to those targets.” [Col.15, 59-61]).
Regarding claim 12, Dunne in view of Binder in further view of Monahan teach the method of Claim 9 as discussed above, but Dunne does not show ranging the first distance and ranging the second distance occurs within a set time period.
However, Dunne does disclose “determine her distance and compass direction from that object, alter her course to travel on another course, and recheck the new course by again determining her distance and compass heading from the target object.” [Col.15, lines 55-58]. The disclosure made by Dunne shows a first and second distance being taken in an undisclosed amount of time in between. Binder teaches the ranging of the first distance and the ranging of the second distance occur within a set time period. (“any distance meter herein may measure a distance using, or based on, multiple consecutive measurement cycles time” [0561]).
Furthermore, both Dunne and Binder teach taking a first and second distance in a time period.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser rangefinder disclosed by Dunne to include the set time frame of Binder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of reducing the echo from an object, as suggested by Binder, (“the time interval is set so that the received reflection (echo) from an object or surface by a sensor 13 is not detectable” [0852]).
Regarding claim 13, Dunne in view of Binder in further view of Monahan teach the method of Claim 12 as discussed above, Binder further teaches the set time period is selected from the group consisting of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, and greater than 65 seconds. (“Alternatively or in addition, any distance meter herein may measure a distance using, or based on, multiple consecutive measurement cycles time spaced by less than, or more than, 1 ms (micro-second), 2 ms, 3 ms, 5 ms, 8 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 30 ms, 50 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 200 ms, 300 ms, 500 ms, 800 ms, 1 ms (milli-second), 2 ms, 3 ms, 5 ms, 8 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 30 ms, 50 ms, 80 ms, 100 ma, 200 ma, 300 ms, 500 ma, 800 ma, 1 s (second), 2 s, 3 s, 5 s, 8 s, or 10 s.”[0561]).
Regarding claim 14, Dunne in view of Binder in further view of Monahan teaches the method of Claim 12 as discussed above, Binder further teaches the set time period is less than 60 seconds. (“Alternatively or in addition, any distance meter herein may measure a distance using, or based on, multiple consecutive measurement cycles time spaced by less than, or more than, 1 ms (micro-second), 2 ms, 3 ms, 5 ms, 8 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 30 ms, 50 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 200 ms, 300 ms, 500 ms, 800 ms, 1 ms (milli-second), 2 ms, 3 ms, 5 ms, 8 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 30 ms, 50 ms, 80 ms, 100 ma, 200 ma, 300 ms, 500 ma, 800 ma, 1 s (second), 2 s, 3 s, 5 s, 8 s, or 10 s.”[0561]).
8. Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne (US 5291262 A) in view of Binder (US 20190154439 A1) in further view of Tubb (US 20200018566 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Dunne in view of Binder teaches the method of Claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to show the set distance tolerance limit is selected from the group consisting of: ± 1 yard, ± 2 yards, ± 3 yards, ± 4 yards, ± 5 yards, ± 6 yards, ±7 yards, ± 8 yards, ± 9 yards, and ± 10 yards.
Binder does teach a minimum and maximum threshold for distance measurement “Any apparatus or device herein may be used with a minimum threshold or with a maximum threshold, and the first surface or first object may be detected when the measured second distance (d2A) may be above the minimum threshold, or when the measured second distance (d2A) may be below the maximum threshold” [0496] but does not teach setting a specific value.
However, Tubb, directed to a laser rangefinder, teaches setting a distance tolerance limit is selected from the group consisting of: 1 yard, ± 2 yards, ± 3 yards, ± 4 yards, ± 5 yards, ± 6 yards, ±7 yards, ± 8 yards, ± 9 yards, and ± 10 yards. (“a first selected threshold range (e.g., 500 yds) and optimum EHP range is within a selected percentage (e.g. 10%) or a selected distance (e.g., 10 yards”[0123])
Furthermore, both Binder and Tubb teach a threshold distance while using a laser rangefinder.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser rangefinder disclosed by Dunne in view of Binder to include the threshold distance selection of Tubb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of sighting in a line-of-sight target, as suggested by Tubb, (“a primary aiming point adapted to be sighted-in at a first selected range and (b) the locus of the LRF beam for sensing Line of Sight (“LOS”) range 29 to a selected target 28.” [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Dunne in view of Binder teaches the method of Claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to show the set distance tolerance limit is ± 3 yards.
Binder does teach a minimum and maximum threshold for distance measurement “Any apparatus or device herein may be used with a minimum threshold or with a maximum threshold, and the first surface or first object may be detected when the measured second distance (d2A) may be above the minimum threshold, or when the measured second distance (d2A) may be below the maximum threshold” [0496] but does not teach setting a specific value.
However, Tubb, directed to a laser rangefinder, teaches setting a distance tolerance limit is the set distance tolerance limit is ± 3 yards. (“a first selected threshold range (e.g., 500 yds) and optimum EHP range is within a selected percentage (e.g. 10%) or a selected distance (e.g., 10 yards” [0123])
Dunne in view of Binder in further view of Tubb discloses the claimed invention except for the range being 3 yards. Tubbs discloses a tolerance of 10 yards where tolerances may be above or below a set point. Having a tolerance of 3 yards would make the system even more accurate and obviously beneficial. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to test these ranges, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, both Binder and Tubb teach a threshold distance while using a laser rangefinder.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser rangefinder disclosed by Dunne in view of Binder to include the threshold distance selection of Tubb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of sighting in a line-of-sight target, as suggested by Tubb, (“a primary aiming point adapted to be sighted-in at a first selected range and (b) the locus of the LRF beam for sensing Line of Sight (“LOS”) range 29 to a selected target 28.” [0052]).
9. Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne (US 5291262 A) in view of Binder (US 20190154439 A1) in further view of Monahan (US 10012506 B1) and Tubb (US 20200018566 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Dunne in view of Binder further in view of Monahan teach the method of Claim 9 as discussed above, but fails to show the set distance tolerance limit is selected from the group consisting of: ± 1 yard, ± 2 yards, ± 3 yards, ± 4 yards, ± 5 yards, ± 6 yards, ±7 yards, ± 8 yards, ± 9 yards, and ± 10 yards.
Binder does teach a minimum and maximum threshold for distance measurement “Any apparatus or device herein may be used with a minimum threshold or with a maximum threshold, and the first surface or first object may be detected when the measured second distance (d2A) may be above the minimum threshold, or when the measured second distance (d2A) may be below the maximum threshold” [0496] but does not teach setting a specific value.
However, Tubb, directed to a laser rangefinder, teaches setting a distance tolerance limit is selected from the group consisting of: 1 yard, ± 2 yards, ± 3 yards, ± 4 yards, ± 5 yards, ± 6 yards, ±7 yards, ± 8 yards, ± 9 yards, and ± 10 yards. (“a first selected threshold range (e.g., 500 yds) and optimum EHP range is within a selected percentage (e.g. 10%) or a selected distance (e.g., 10 yards” [0123]).
Furthermore, both Binder and Tubb teach a threshold distance while using a laser rangefinder.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser rangefinder disclosed by Dunne in view of Binder to include the threshold distance selection of Tubb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of sighting in a line-of-sight target, as suggested by Tubb, (“a primary aiming point adapted to be sighted-in at a first selected range and (b) the locus of the LRF beam for sensing Line of Sight (“LOS”) range 29 to a selected target 28.” [0052]).
Regarding claim 16, Dunne in view of Binder in further view of Monahan teach the method of Claim 9 as discussed above, but fails to show the set distance tolerance limit is ± 3 yards.
Binder does teach a minimum and maximum threshold for distance measurement “Any apparatus or device herein may be used with a minimum threshold or with a maximum threshold, and the first surface or first object may be detected when the measured second distance (d2A) may be above the minimum threshold, or when the measured second distance (d2A) may be below the maximum threshold” [0496] but does not teach setting a specific value.
However, Tubb, directed to a laser rangefinder, teaches setting a distance tolerance limit is the set distance tolerance limit is ± 3 yards. (“a first selected threshold range (e.g., 500 yds) and optimum EHP range is within a selected percentage (e.g. 10%) or a selected distance (e.g., 10 yards” [0123]).
Dunne in view of Binder in further view of Tubb discloses the claimed invention except for the range being 3 yards. Tubbs discloses a tolerance of 10 yards where tolerances may be above or below a set point. Having a tolerance of 3 yards would make the system even more accurate and obviously beneficial. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to test these ranges, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, both Binder and Tubb teach a threshold distance while using a laser rangefinder.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser rangefinder disclosed by Dunne in view of Binder to include the threshold distance selection of Tubb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of sighting in a line-of-sight target, as suggested by Tubb, (“a primary aiming point adapted to be sighted-in at a first selected range and (b) the locus of the LRF beam for sensing Line of Sight (“LOS”) range 29 to a selected target 28.” [0052]).
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
June 4, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights