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 .
Amendments to claims 24, 25, 27, 32, 34, 35, 37, 43, 47 and 48, filed 29 December 2025 have been entered into the above-identified application. Claims 1-22 and 39-41 remain canceled. Claims 23-38 and 42-48 are currently pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 23-28, 31-38, and 42-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loughney (U.S. 2019/0078379, herein after referred to as Loughney '379) in view of Abramson (U.S. 10,107,022, herein after referred to as Abramson '022) and Deiss (U.S. 2021/0156190).
Regarding claim 23, Loughney ‘379 teaches an article of manufacture for reducing infiltration of matter and/or energy through a window, the article including: a sealing pad (310/320) that is cut from a sealing pad material, said sealing pad material (310/320) including a first layer that is a backing layer (320, see fig 3) that is made from a non-woven polypropylene fabric ([0045]), said first layer having an upper exterior surface and a lower exterior surface (see fig 3); and wherein said sealing pad material further including a second layer that is made from a plurality of filaments (310) that attach to and protrude away from said upper exterior surface of said first layer (as seen in fig 3); said lower exterior surface of said first layer (320) of said sealing pad (310/320) is disposed along at least a portion of a surface of a window sash (the claimed article of manufacture could be disposed along any surface, including that of a window sash); and wherein said lower exterior surface of said first layer (320) of said sealing pad is configured to be attachable to said at least a portion of said surface of said window sash (as seen in fig 6C, 320 can be attached to a surface which could be a window sash, an alternate embodiment shown in fig 7 includes an adhesive layer on the lower exterior surface of the first layer of the sealing pad).
Loughney ‘379 teaches in [0026] that the sealing pad can be cut in any number of configurations, but does not teach an opening included in the sealing pad dimensioned to enable a protrusion though the opening of the sealing pad.
Abramson ‘022 teaches a sealing pad for a window where the sealing pad includes an opening (2101) and is shaped and sized to enable a protrusion (307) through said opening of the sealing pad (column 7, lines 3-4). Abramson ‘022 teaches that this protrusion is a pivot bar (307) or a tilt latch that is protruding from the intermediate side surface of a window sash (column 7, lines 3-4), however the opening in the sealing pad could accommodate other protrusions as well. The combination of Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 would see the opening in the article of manufacture and allow the sealing pad to attach to a surface while a protrusion is protruding through the opening of the sealing pad.
Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of seals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loughney ‘379 to incorporate the teachings of Abramson ‘022 and provide an opening in the sealing pad to enable a protrusion to protrude through the sealing pad. Doing so would ensure that the areas around the protrusions of the surface of the article of manufacturing is attached to are sealed to prevent air, water, dirt, pollen, sound, or insects from infiltrating a building, as taught by column 4 line 66-column 5, line 1 of Abramson ‘022).
Neither Loughney ‘379 nor Abramson ‘022 teach that the sealing pad backing layer is nonporous.
Deiss teaches a similar sealing pad where the polypropylene backing layer ([0065]) is nonporous ([0069]).
It would have been further obvious to have modified the combination of Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 to incorporate the teachings of Deiss and utilize a nonporous backing layer on the first layer of the sealing pad. Doing so would ensure the adhesive utilized does not absorb into the backing layer.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 23. Loughney ‘379 further teaches wherein said sealing pad (310/320) is further shaped and sized so that it can be disposed to span across at least two surfaces (as seen in fig 6C) of said window sash, and wherein each of said at least two adjacent surfaces is located adjacent to and not oriented parallel to at least one other of said at least two surfaces of said window sash (see fig 6C).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 24. Loughney ‘379 further teaches wherein one of said at least two surfaces of said window sash, is other than an intermediate side surface of a window sash (fig 6C shows the article of manufacture capable of being attached to two surfaces).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 23. Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss further teach that the protrusion is a pivot bar only and not a tilt latch. The combination as taught above allows for an opening in the sealing pad for a protrusion and the protrusion could be any type or configuration. In Abramson ‘022, the protrusion 307 is a pivot bar, however the opening 2101 could be utilized to surround any type of protrusion.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 23. Loughney ‘379 further teaches wherein said sealing pad is further shaped and sized so that it can be disposed to span across at least three surfaces of said window sash, and wherein each of said at least three surfaces is located adjacent to and not parallel to, at least one other of said at least three surfaces of said window sash (as seen in fig 6C, the article of manufacture is capable of being attached to adjacent surfaces, the sealing pad could therefore be attached to three adjacent surfaces by incorporating a subsequent bend in the sealing pad).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 23. The claim limitation “employing a programmable robotic controlled laser device for cutting through said sealing pad material” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The determination of the patentability is based on the product of claim 28 itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. The sealing pad as taught by the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss could be cut utilizing a programmable robotic controlled laser device along at least a portion of a perimeter of said sealing pad, and therefore the combination of references teaches the claim.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 23. The combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said first layer and said second layer are each made from a material including at least 30 percent polypropylene by weight or volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a material including at least 30 percent polypropylene by weight or volume, since Loughney ‘379 teaches using a polypropylene material in the first and second layer ([0011]) and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 23. Loughney ‘379 further teaches wherein said sealing pad is further shaped and sized so that it can be disposed to span across a minimal distance of a short dimension of an intermediate side surface of said window sash, said minimal distance equaling a value of at least 50 percent of said short dimension of a said intermediate surface ([0023] minimal distance can vary greatly based on the design need).
Regarding claim 33, Loughney ‘379 teaches a method for reducing infiltration of matter and/or energy through a window, the article being employed in proximity to a protrusion from a window, the method including: providing a sealing pad (310/320) that is cut from a sealing pad material, said sealing pad material (310/320) including a first layer that is a backing layer (320, see fig 3) that is made from a non-woven polypropylene fabric ([0045]), said first layer having an upper exterior surface and a lower exterior surface (see fig 3); and wherein said sealing pad material further including a second layer that is made from a plurality of filaments (310) that attach to and protrude away from said upper exterior surface of said first layer (as seen in fig 3).
Loughney ‘379 teaches in [0026] that the sealing pad can be cut in any number of configurations, but does not teach an opening included in the sealing pad shaped and sized to enable a protrusion though the opening of the sealing pad. Loughney ‘379 also teaches that the sealing pad can be disposed along a flat or perpendicular surface, but does not teach being disposed on a surface of a window sash.
Abramson ‘022 teaches a sealing pad for a window where the sealing pad includes an opening (2101) and is dimensioned to enable a protrusion (307) through said opening of the sealing pad (column 7, lines 3-4). Abramson ‘022 teaches that this protrusion is a pivot bar (307) or a tilt latch that is protruding from the intermediate side surface of a window sash (column 7, lines 3-4), however the opening in the sealing pad could accommodate other protrusions as well. Abramson ‘022 further teaches the sealing pad disposed on a surface of a window sash (fig 27).
The combination of Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 would see the opening in the article of manufacture and allow the sealing pad to attach to a surface of a window sash while a protrusion is protruding through the opening of the sealing pad, said lower exterior surface of said first layer (320 Loughney ‘379) of said sealing pad (310/320 Loughney ‘379) is disposed along at least a portion of a surface of a window sash (the claimed article of manufacture could be disposed along any surface, including that of a window sash, and the sealing pad of Abramson ‘022 is disposed on a window sash showing that this is a typical use for sealing pads of this nature); and wherein said lower exterior surface of said first layer (320 Loughney ‘379) of said sealing pad is configured to be attachable to said at least a portion of said surface of said window sash (as seen in fig 6C of Loughney ‘379, 320 can be attached to a surface which could be a window sash, an alternate embodiment shown in fig 7 includes an adhesive layer on the lower exterior surface of the first layer of the sealing pad for which to attach the sealing pad).
Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of seals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loughney ‘379 to incorporate the teachings of Abramson ‘022 and provide an opening in the sealing pad to enable a protrusion to protrude through the sealing pad. Doing so would ensure that the areas around the protrusions of the surface of the article of manufacturing is attached to are sealed to prevent air, water, dirt, pollen, sound, or insects from infiltrating a building, as taught by column 4 line 66-column 5, line 1 of Abramson ‘022).
Neither Loughney ‘379 nor Abramson ‘022 teach that the sealing pad backing layer is nonporous.
Deiss teaches a similar sealing pad where the polypropylene backing layer ([0065]) is nonporous ([0069]).
It would have been further obvious to have modified the combination of Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 to incorporate the teachings of Deiss and utilize a nonporous backing layer on the first layer of the sealing pad. Doing so would ensure the adhesive utilized does not absorb into the backing layer.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the method of claim 33. Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 further teach wherein said sealing pad (310/320) is further shaped and sized so that it can be disposed to span across at least two surfaces (as seen in fig 6C) of said window sash, and wherein each of said at least two surfaces is located adjacent to and not parallel to at least one other of said at least two surfaces of said window sash (see fig 6C).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the method of claim 34. Loughney ‘379 further teaches wherein at least one of said at least two surfaces of said window sash, is other than an intermediate side surface of a window sash (fig 6C shows the article of manufacture capable of being attached to adjacent surfaces).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the method of claim 33. Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss further teach that the protrusion is a pivot bar only and not a tilt latch. The combination as taught above allows for an opening in the sealing pad for a protrusion and the protrusion could be any type or configuration. In Abramson ‘022, the protrusion 307 is a pivot bar, however the opening 2101 could be utilized to surround any type of protrusion.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the method of claim 33. Loughney ‘379 further teaches wherein said sealing pad is further shaped and sized so that it can be disposed to span across at least three surfaces of said window sash, and wherein each of said at least three surfaces of said window sash is located adjacent to and not oriented parallel to, at least one other of said at least three surfaces of said window sash (as seen in fig 6C, the article of manufacture is capable of being attached to adjacent surfaces, the sealing pad could therefore be attached to three adjacent surfaces).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the method of claim 33. Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss further teach that the protrusion is a tilt latch only and not a pivot bar. The combination as taught above allows for an opening in the sealing pad for a protrusion and the protrusion could be any type or configuration. In Abramson ‘022, the protrusion 307 is a pivot bar, however the opening 2101 could be utilized to surround any type of protrusion.
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the method claim 33. The combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said first layer and said second layer are each made from a material including at least 30 percent polypropylene by weight or volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a material including at least 30 percent polypropylene by weight or volume, since Loughney ‘379 teaches using a polypropylene material in the first and second layer ([0011]) and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 23. Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 further teach wherein said sealing pad is further shaped and sized so that it can be disposed to span across four surfaces of said window sash, wherein each of said four surfaces of said window sash is located adjacent to and not oriented parallel to, at least one other of said four surfaces of said window sash (fig 6C of Loughney ‘379 shows the article of manufacture capable of being attached to adjacent surfaces, the sealing pad could therefore be attached to four adjacent surfaces by incorporating subsequent bends in the sealing pad).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the method of claim 33. Loughney ‘379 further teaches wherein said sealing pad is further shaped and sized so that it can be disposed to span across a minimal distance of a short dimension of said intermediate side surface of said window sash, said minimal distance equaling a value of at least 50 percent of said short dimension of a said intermediate surface ([0023], the minimal distance can vary greatly based on the design need).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 23. Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss further teach that the protrusion is a tilt latch only and not a pivot bar. The combination as taught above allows for an opening in the sealing pad for a protrusion and the protrusion could be any type or configuration. In Abramson ‘022, the protrusion 307 is a pivot bar, however the opening 2101 could be utilized to surround any type of protrusion.
Regarding claim 46, Loughney ‘379 teaches an article of manufacture for reducing infiltration of matter and/or energy through a window, the article being employed in proximity to a protrusion from a window, the article including: a sealing pad (310/320) that is made from a sealing pad material, said sealing pad material (310/320) including a first layer that is a backing layer (320, see fig 3) that is made from a non-woven polypropylene fabric ([0045]), said first layer having an upper exterior surface and a lower exterior surface (see fig 3); and wherein said sealing pad material further including a second layer that is made from a plurality of filaments (310, see fig 3, also [0047] refers to 310 as a “filament pile attachment section”) that attach to and protrude away from said upper exterior surface of said first layer (as seen in fig 3).
Loughney ‘379 teaches in [0026] that the sealing pad can be cut in any number of configurations, but does not teach an opening included in the sealing pad shaped and sized to enable a protrusion though the opening of the sealing pad. Loughney ‘379 also teaches that the sealing pad can be disposed along a flat or perpendicular surface, but does not teach being disposed on a surface of a window sash.
Abramson ‘022 teaches a sealing pad for a window where the sealing pad includes an opening (2101) and is dimensioned to enable a protrusion (307) through said opening of the sealing pad (column 7, lines 3-4). Abramson ‘022 teaches that this protrusion is a pivot bar (307) or a tilt latch that is protruding from the intermediate side surface of a window sash (column 7, lines 3-4), however the opening in the sealing pad could accommodate other protrusions as well. Abramson ‘022 further teaches the sealing pad disposed on a surface of a window sash (seen in fig 27).
The combination of Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 would see the opening in the article of manufacture and allow the sealing pad to attach to a surface of a window sash while a protrusion is protruding through the opening of the sealing pad, said lower exterior surface of said first layer (320 Loughney ‘379) of said sealing pad (310/320 Loughney ‘379) is disposed along at least a portion of a surface of a window sash (the claimed article of manufacture could be disposed along any surface, including that of a window sash, and the sealing pad of Abramson ‘022 is disposed on a window sash showing that this is a typical use for sealing pads of this nature); and wherein said lower exterior surface of said first layer (320 Loughney ‘379) of said sealing pad is configured to be attachable to said at least a portion of said surface of said window sash (as seen in fig 6C of Loughney ‘379, 320 can be attached to a surface which could be a window sash, an alternate embodiment shown in fig 7 includes an adhesive layer on the lower exterior surface of the first layer of the sealing pad for which to attach the sealing pad).
Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of seals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loughney ‘379 to incorporate the teachings of Abramson ‘022 and provide an opening in the sealing pad to enable a protrusion to protrude through the sealing pad. Doing so would ensure that the areas around the protrusions of the surface of the article of manufacturing is attached to are sealed to prevent air, water, dirt, pollen, sound, or insects from infiltrating a building, as taught by column 4 line 66-column 5, line 1 of Abramson ‘022).
Neither Loughney ‘379 nor Abramson ‘022 teach that the sealing pad backing layer is nonporous.
Deiss teaches a similar sealing pad where the polypropylene backing layer ([0065]) is nonporous ([0069]).
It would have been further obvious to have modified the combination of Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 to incorporate the teachings of Deiss and utilize a nonporous backing layer on the first layer of the sealing pad. Doing so would ensure the adhesive utilized does not absorb into the backing layer.
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 46. Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 further teach wherein said sealing pad (310/320 Loughney ‘379) is further shaped and sized so that it can be disposed to span across at least two surfaces (as seen in fig 6C Loughney ‘379) of said window sash (as taught by Abramson ‘022 and the combination above), and wherein each of said at least two surfaces is located adjacent to and is not oriented parallel to at least one other of said two surfaces of said window sash (see fig 6C Loughney ‘379).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 48. Loughney ‘379 further teaches wherein said sealing pad is further shaped and sized so that it can be disposed to span across at least three surfaces of said window sash and wherein each of said at least three surfaces is located adjacent to and not oriented parallel to, at least one other of said at least three surfaces of said window sash (as seen in fig 6C, the sealing pad of manufacture is capable of being attached to adjacent surfaces, the sealing pad could therefore be attached to three adjacent surfaces by incorporating an additional bend in the sealing pad).
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loughney (U.S. 2019/0078379, herein after referred to as Loughney '379) in view of Abramson (U.S. 10,107,022, herein after referred to as Abramson '022) and Deiss (U.S. 2021/0156190) as taught by claim 28 above, and further in view of Hong (U.S. 10,008,133).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss teaches the article of manufacture of claim 28. While Loughney ’379 teaches that the sealing pad is cut, it does not teach that when cut, an uncut portion of the perimeter remains.
The claim limitation “sealing pad is cut along a perimeter of said sealing pad, and wherein a portion of said perimeter remains uncut so as to not entirely cut said sealing pad from said sealing pad material” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The determination of the patentability is based on the product of claim 29 itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Hong teaches a type of cut object wherein the perimeter of the object is not cut from the material it is made from, and instead an uncut portion of said perimeter of said object remains within said material (Hong, in fig 33 and column 16 lines 39-55, describes including ties 332 on the end of a product which is an uncut area, Hong therefore teaches that it is known in the art to leave an uncut portion when an object is cut from a material along its perimeter ).
Hong is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of objects cut away from a material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, and Deiss to incorporate the teachings of Hong and provide an uncut portion of the sealing pad. Doing so would allow the mostly-cut sealing pad to remain on a larger piece of sealing pad material until a user disconnects the remaining sealing pad perimeter that remains uncut. Doing so would better organize the sealing pads on the sealing pad material for ease of installation by a user.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, Deiss, and Hong teaches the article of manufacture of claim 29. The combination of Loughney ‘379, Abramson ‘022, Deiss, and Hong discloses the claimed invention except for said uncut portion is at least one sixteenth of an inch in length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the uncut portion at least one sixteenth of an inch in length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant continues to argue that Loughney ‘379 does not teach a sealing pad attached to a window sash. However, while it doesn’t explicitly teach the sealing pad is attachable to a window sash, Loughney ‘379 instead teaches the sealing pad attachable to a surface, and that could be any surface including, but not limited to, a window sash. Abramson then teaches a similar sealing pad with fins that includes an opening in the pad which allows a pivot bar (or could allow any other protrusion as well) through the opening. Applicant has further argued that the prior art of Loughney ‘379 does not teach any specific cutting patterns in the sealing pad, however Loughney ‘379 in combination with Abramson ‘022 teaches a hole cut into a sealing pad for the purposes of a protrusion to go through the cut opening. It is well known in the art to add an opening to account for a protrusion, and that is therefore taught by the combination of Loughney ‘379 and Abramson ‘022 as described above.
Applicant continues to argue that each prior art reference alone does not teach the claimed invention, however, as described in this and previous office actions, it is the combination of prior art references which renders the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that Loughney ‘379 does not teach the sealing pad to be cut in configurations, however Loughney ‘379 at [0026] states cutting patterns can be employed to reduce the size of the sealing pad. Applicant further argues that the prior art of Loughney ‘379 does not refer the article of manufacture as a “sealing pad”, however the examiner utilized “sealing pad” to match the terminology of the claimed invention, as Loughney ‘379 clearly has the claimed structure of the sealing pad of the claimed invention. Applicant makes a similar argument in reference to Abraham ‘022, however, though the terminology across the prior art is different, the prior art is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and therefore represents a proper combination to teach the claimed invention.
Applicant further argues that the inventor of Loughney ‘379 is the same as the inventor of the instant application and the instant application represents a useful advancement of the invention of Loughney ‘379. While the advancements may be useful to the industry, the combination of prior art teaches the advancements are not novel to one of ordinary skill in the art in regard to the current claim set.
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 Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631