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
Applicant’s amendments of 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 7 and 16-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are presented for examination on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “21b” has been used to designate both non-contacted parts and non-connected parts. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the meaning of “an area ratio of the plurality of non-contacted parts to a total area of the connected part and the plurality of non-connected parts is 25% or more, and 95% or less”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure in para. 36, it appears the non-contacted parts 21b are the same as the non-connected parts 21b. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify whether “the plurality of the non-contacted parts” was intended to be “the plurality of non-connected parts” and/or if the non-contacted parts is a different structure than the non-connected parts 21b. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the non-contacted parts 21b are the same as the non-connected parts 21b. Claim 1 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an area ratio of the plurality of non-contacted parts to a total area of the connected part and the plurality of non-connected parts is 25% or more, and 95% or less” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, examiner interprets “the plurality of non-contacted parts” as the plurality of non-connected parts. The recitation should read “an area ratio of the plurality of non-connected parts to a total area of the connected part and the plurality of non-connected parts is 25% or more, and 95% or less”.
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheney et al. (US 2009/0107012 A1).
Regarding claim 1, insofar as is definite, Cheney discloses an upper (64) of a shoe (60; Figs. 3 & 3A), the upper comprising:
a fiber sheet (70, 72, 80; para. 5 disclose each layer is made of fibers) comprising: a surface layer (70) configuring an outer surface of the shoe (Fig. 3A shows 70 faces the exterior side);
an inner layer (80) disposed on an inner side of the surface layer (Fig. 3A, where 80 is on the interior side, opposite the exterior side);
an intermediate layer (72) between portions of the surface layer and the inner layer (Fig. 3A; para. 37), such that the fiber sheet has: a connected part (Fig. 3A, “a connected part” is/are where portions of 72 are connected to 70 and 80) in which the surface layer and the inner layer are connected to each other by the intermediate layer (Fig. 3A);
and a plurality of non-connected parts (a plurality of 76; para. 37 & Fig. 3A disclose a plurality of 76 are slits, and therefore, “a plurality of non-connected parts) in which the surface layer and the inner layer are not connected to each other with the intermediate layer being absent therebetween (Fig. 3A), wherein the plurality of non-connected parts are surrounded by the connected part (Fig. 3A), each of the surface layer, the inner layer, and the intermediate layer comprises fibers (para. 5, where 70 is made of cotton and Lycra, 72 is made of polyester and spandex, and 80 is made of polyurethane film or an inelastic woven fabric), a total area of the intermediate layer is less than a total area of the surface layer (Fig. 3A, where the total area of 72 is less than a total area of 70 because of the plurality of 76 existing; para. 38), and an area ratio of the plurality of non-contacted parts (area of the plurality of 76; para. 37 & Fig. 3A disclose a plurality of 76 are slits, and therefore, the area where the plurality of 76 is “an area ratio of the plurality of non-contacted parts”, as best understood) and a total area of the connected part (Fig. 3A, a total area of where portions of 72 are connected to 70 and 80 is “a total area of the connected part”).
Cheney does not directly disclose an area ratio of the plurality of non-contacted parts to a total area of the connected part and the plurality of non-connected parts is 25% or more, and 95% or less.
However, 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 area ratio of non-contacted parts of Cheney to have an area ratio of the plurality of non-contacted parts to a total area of the connected part and the plurality of non-connected parts is 25% or more, and 95% or less, in order to provide a proper fit for a user’s foot. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 1, wherein the shoe comprises: a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below); a midfoot portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below); and a rearfoot portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below) arranged in order from a front toward a back of the shoe (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where a front of the shoe is toward 61 and the tip of the front of the shoe, and the back of the shoe is toward the heel of the shoe).
PNG
media_image1.png
787
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cheney does not directly disclose an area ratio of the connected part to the plurality of non-connected parts in the rearfoot portion is higher than that in the forefoot portion.
However, it would have been “obvious to try” such an arrangement of having an area ratio of the connected part to the plurality of non-connected parts in the rearfoot portion is higher than that in the forefoot portion, as one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to try to modify the area ratio of the connected part to the plurality of non-connected parts so that the rearfoot portion is higher than that of the forefoot portion, in order to adjust the strength, tensile property, breathability, and other performance of the upper to provide better comfort, fit, and breathability for the wearer. Further, a finite number of identified, predictable solutions would exist: where the area ratio of the connected part to the plurality of non-connected part is higher in the rearfoot or midfoot portion than that of the forefoot portion. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 1, wherein the shoe comprises: a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection above); a midfoot portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection above); and a rearfoot portion arranged in order from a front-back direction (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection above), which is a direction from a front toward a back of the shoe (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection above, where a front of the shoe is toward 61 and the tip of the front of the shoe, and the back of the shoe is toward the heel of the shoe).
Cheney does not directly disclose in the midfoot portion, an area of the connected part which has a larger dimension in a vertical direction of the shoe than a dimension in a front-back direction of the shoe is larger than an area of the plurality of non-connected parts which has a larger dimension in the front- back direction than a dimension in the vertical direction.
However, it would have been “obvious to try” such an arrangement of having an area of the connected part which has a larger dimension in a vertical direction of the shoe than a dimension in a front-back direction of the shoe is larger than an area of the plurality of non-connected parts which has a larger dimension in the front- back direction than a dimension in the vertical direction, as one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to try to modify an area of the connected part which has a larger dimension in a vertical direction of the shoe than a dimension in a front-back direction of the shoe is larger than an area of the plurality of non-connected parts which has a larger dimension in the front- back direction than a dimension in the vertical direction, in order to adjust the strength, tensile property, breathability, and other performance of the upper to provide better comfort, fit, and breathability for the wearer. Further, a finite number of identified, predictable solutions would exist: where an area of the connected part has a larger or smaller dimension in the vertical direction than a dimension in a front-back direction of the shoe, is larger or smaller than an area of the plurality of non-connected parts which has a larger or smaller dimension in the front-back direction than a dimension in the vertical direction. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 4, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 1, wherein the shoe comprises: a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection above); a midfoot portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection above); and a rearfoot portion arranged in order from a front toward a back of the shoe (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection above, where a front of the shoe is toward 61 and the tip of the front of the shoe, and the back of the shoe is toward the heel of the shoe).
Cheney does not directly disclose an area ratio of the plurality of non-connected parts to the connected part in the forefoot portion is higher than that in each of the midfoot portion and the rearfoot portion.
However, it would have been “obvious to try” such an arrangement of having an area ratio of the plurality of non-connected parts to the connected part in the forefoot portion is higher than that in each of the midfoot portion and the rearfoot portion, as one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to try to modify an area ratio of the plurality of non-connected parts to the connected part in the forefoot portion is higher than that in each of the midfoot portion and the rearfoot portion, in order to adjust the strength, tensile property, breathability, and other performance of the upper to provide better comfort, fit, and breathability for the wearer. Further, a finite number of identified, predictable solutions would exist: where the area ratio of the plurality of the non-connected parts to the connected part in the forefoot portion is higher or lower than that in each of the midfoot portion and the rearfoot portion. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 8, Cheney discloses a shoe (60; Figs. 3 & 3a) comprising the upper according to claim 1 (Figs. 3 & 3a shows 64 as part of 60).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheney et al. (US 2009/0107012 A1), in view of Shiomura (US 4,785,558 A).
Regarding claim 5, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 1. While Cheney discloses materials of the fiber sheet that are common in warp knitted fabrics (para. 5, where 70 is made of cotton and Lycra, 72 is made of polyester and spandex, and 80 is made of polyurethane film or an inelastic woven fabric), Cheney does not directly disclose wherein the fiber sheet comprises a warp knitted fabric, and the surface layer comprises a front yarn, the inner layer comprises a lining yarn, and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn that is knitted on both the front yarn and the lining yarn.
However, Shiomura teaches wherein the fiber sheet (Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 45-46 and 55-58, where layers 4, 5, and 7 make up a knitted fabric, and therefore, “a fiber sheet”) comprises a warp knitted fabric (col. 3 lines 4-6, Raschel knitting, which is a warp knitted fabric), and the surface layer comprises a front yarn (col. 2 lines 32-33), the inner layer comprises a lining yarn (col. 2 lines 58-62, where the yarn is a multifilament, and therefore, comprises a lining yarn), and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn (col. 2 lines 58-62, where the yarn is a multifilament, and therefore, comprises an intermediate yarn) that is knitted on both the front yarn and the lining yarn (col. 4, lines 9-11).
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 fiber sheet comprising the surface, inner, and intermediate layers of Cheney to comprise of a warp knitted fabric, and the surface layer comprises a front yarn, the inner layer comprises a lining yarn, and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn, as taught by Shiomura, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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 6, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 1,except for wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn.
However, Shiomura teaches wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn (col. 2 lines 58-61).
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 surface layer of Cheney to comprise of a monofilament yarn, as taught by Shiomura, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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 9, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 2. While Cheney discloses materials of the fiber sheet that are common in warp knitted fabrics (para. 5, where 70 is made of cotton and Lycra, 72 is made of polyester and spandex, and 80 is made of polyurethane film or an inelastic woven fabric), Cheney does not directly disclose wherein the fiber sheet comprises a warp knitted fabric, and the surface layer comprises a front yarn, the inner layer comprises a lining yarn, and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn that is knitted on both the front yarn and the lining yarn.
However, Shiomura teaches wherein the fiber sheet (Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 45-46 and 55-58, where layers 4, 5, and 7 make up a knitted fabric, and therefore, “a fiber sheet”) comprises a warp knitted fabric (col. 3 lines 4-6, Raschel knitting, which is a warp knitted fabric), and the surface layer comprises a front yarn (col. 2 lines 32-33), the inner layer comprises a lining yarn (col. 2 lines 58-62, where the yarn is a multifilament, and therefore, comprises a lining yarn), and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn (col. 2 lines 58-62, where the yarn is a multifilament, and therefore, comprises an intermediate yarn) that is knitted on both the front yarn and the lining yarn (col. 4, lines 9-11).
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 fiber sheet comprising the surface, inner, and intermediate layers of Cheney to comprise of a warp knitted fabric, and the surface layer comprises a front yarn, the inner layer comprises a lining yarn, and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn, as taught by Shiomura, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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 10, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 3. While Cheney discloses materials of the fiber sheet that are common in warp knitted fabrics (para. 5, where 70 is made of cotton and Lycra, 72 is made of polyester and spandex, and 80 is made of polyurethane film or an inelastic woven fabric), Cheney does not directly disclose wherein the fiber sheet comprises a warp knitted fabric, and the surface layer comprises a front yarn, the inner layer comprises a lining yarn, and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn that is knitted on both the front yarn and the lining yarn.
However, Shiomura teaches wherein the fiber sheet (Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 45-46 and 55-58, where layers 4, 5, and 7 make up a knitted fabric, and therefore, “a fiber sheet”) comprises a warp knitted fabric (col. 3 lines 4-6, Raschel knitting, which is a warp knitted fabric), and the surface layer comprises a front yarn (col. 2 lines 32-33), the inner layer comprises a lining yarn (col. 2 lines 58-62, where the yarn is a multifilament, and therefore, comprises a lining yarn), and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn (col. 2 lines 58-62, where the yarn is a multifilament, and therefore, comprises an intermediate yarn) that is knitted on both the front yarn and the lining yarn (col. 4, lines 9-11).
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 fiber sheet comprising the surface, inner, and intermediate layers of Cheney to comprise of a warp knitted fabric, and the surface layer comprises a front yarn, the inner layer comprises a lining yarn, and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn, as taught by Shiomura, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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 11, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 4. While Cheney discloses materials of the fiber sheet that are common in warp knitted fabrics (para. 5, where 70 is made of cotton and Lycra, 72 is made of polyester and spandex, and 80 is made of polyurethane film or an inelastic woven fabric), Cheney does not directly disclose wherein the fiber sheet comprises a warp knitted fabric, and the surface layer comprises a front yarn, the inner layer comprises a lining yarn, and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn that is knitted on both the front yarn and the lining yarn.
However, Shiomura teaches wherein the fiber sheet (Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 45-46 and 55-58, where layers 4, 5, and 7 make up a knitted fabric, and therefore, “a fiber sheet”) comprises a warp knitted fabric (col. 3 lines 4-6, Raschel knitting, which is a warp knitted fabric), and the surface layer comprises a front yarn (col. 2 lines 32-33), the inner layer comprises a lining yarn (col. 2 lines 58-62, where the yarn is a multifilament, and therefore, comprises a lining yarn), and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn (col. 2 lines 58-62, where the yarn is a multifilament, and therefore, comprises an intermediate yarn) that is knitted on both the front yarn and the lining yarn (col. 4, lines 9-11).
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 fiber sheet comprising the surface, inner, and intermediate layers of Cheney to comprise of a warp knitted fabric, and the surface layer comprises a front yarn, the inner layer comprises a lining yarn, and the intermediate layer comprises an intermediate yarn, as taught by Shiomura, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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 12, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 2, except for wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn.
However, Shiomura teaches wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn (col. 2 lines 58-61).
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 surface layer of Cheney to comprise of a monofilament yarn, as taught by Shiomura, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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 13, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 3, except for wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn.
However, Shiomura teaches wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn (col. 2 lines 58-61).
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 surface layer of Cheney to comprise of a monofilament yarn, as taught by Shiomura, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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 14, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 4, except for wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn.
However, Shiomura teaches wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn (col. 2 lines 58-61).
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 surface layer of Cheney to comprise of a monofilament yarn, as taught by Shiomura, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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 15, Cheney discloses the upper according to claim 5, except for wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn.
However, Shiomura teaches wherein at least a part of the surface layer comprises a monofilament yarn (col. 2 lines 58-61).
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 surface layer of Cheney to comprise of a monofilament yarn, as taught by Shiomura, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered. In view of Applicant's amendments, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant' s arguments drawn to the newly amended limitations have been considered but are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
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.
15Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
