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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 28, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg (EP 3 444 911) in view of Köppendörfer et al (DE102017221115), herein referred to as Köppendörfer, and further in view of Ezaki et al (US Patent 5,142,121), herein referred to as Ezaki. Regarding claim 1, Sorg discloses a method for removing a section of a cable film from an end section of a cable (translation, para. 0084), comprising the following steps:
- providing an end section (e.g., the portion of the cable depicted in figs. 3-8) of a cable (1) having a cable axis (M), wherein the cable (1) comprises a cable jacket (i.e., cable sheath 6) and at least one electrically conductive conductor structure (inner conductor 2 and outer conductor 4) and which comprises a cable film (e.g., composite cable foil 5 with outer layer 9 and inner layer 10) made from a plastic (translation, para. 0107, lines 10-12) and applied onto one of the conductor structures (e.g., translation, para. 0105, lines 5-7);
- generating (translation, para. 084, lines 8-10) a defined damaged region (annotated fig. 17,” “11r”) in the provided end section (section “A”) by heating at least a portion of the cable film (translation, para. 0114, 0115 and 0117-0119); - cutting the cable jacket at least partially circumferentially in a position (annotated figs. 16) that is arranged closer to a cable end of the end section than the damaged region (i.e., exemplary damaged region 11r as identified in annotated fig. 17);
- moving (translation, para. 084, lines 11-13) the cable film (5) relative to one of the conductor structures (2, 4), wherein a crack (11) is formed by the relative movement in the damaged region (RP) that separates the section (fig. 6; section “A” with arrows indicating movement) of the cable film (5) to be removed from a section (i.e., portion of cable 1 on right side of fig. 7) of the cable film (5) remaining on the cable (Sorg, translation, para. 0127). Generally, Sorg relies on precutting the outer cable jacket (6) to provide clearance for the thermal treatments to access the cable foil (5), as depicted in fig. 3. In other words, Sorg discloses the outer cable jacket (6) is initially cut to partially expose the cable foil (5). Additionally, Sorg states in translation, para. 0008, lines 3-4, “when attempting to cut through the cable foil, it is difficult in practice to avoid the underlying components of the cable being cut or scratched at least superficially and thus damaged.” Thus, a heavy-handed or otherwise inexperienced user might cut through both the outer cable jacket (6) and the cable foil (5) and damage the underlying components of the cable.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• Sorg fails to specifically disclose the damaged region is formed by inductively heating the at least that conductor structure on which the cable film is applied such that the cable film applied onto the heated conductor structure is at least partially thermally damaged in the damaged region, and cutting the cable jacket at least partially circumferentially in a position that is arranged closer to a cable end of the end section than the damaged region, wherein the crack separates the section of the cable film to be removed from a section of the cable film remaining on the cable and the crack is located beneath the cable jacket. However, the following references provide teaching pertinent to these limitations: First, Köppendörfer (DE102017221115) teaches it is known in the art of removing a portion of a cable sheath to use an induction coil (22) to inductively heat a portion of a cable foil (28) beneath the outer cable sheath (4). Köppendörfer teaches the induction coil (22) induces currents in the shield (8), which leads to heating thereof. By heat conduction, the inner side 12 of the jacket 4 is heated in the section 28 and softens there (para. 0046). The teaching of Köppendörfer suggests the damaged region disclosed by Sorg can be formed by induction heating without having to remove the cable jacket first to expose the underlying cable foil. Second, Ezaki teaches it is known in the art of removing a section of outer cable jacket and underlying cable film from a cable to cut and remove the cable jacket (7) to partially expose the cable film (4) for further processing, i.e., cutting the cable film (4) for removal from an underlying insulating layer (3). This mode of removing the cable film from an end section of a cable is similar to that disclosed by Sorg. Ezaki states in col. 1, lines 53-64, “as shown in FIG. 16, there are problems that fragments 4b of Al shielding tape are scattered owing to tearing off of Al shielding tape 4 and since tape peeling blade is pressed to Al shielding tape 4, inner foamed insulant 3 might be indirectly damaged and thus sufficient insulation cannot be ensured. There are further problems that correction of terminal 4a of Al shielding tape 4 requires time due to variation of residual length of Al shielding tape 4 and besides, size of connector and the like provided at terminal portion of cable must be large considering variation of residual length.” The background disclosure of Ezaki suggests one having an ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the drawbacks of having exposed, torn off terminal portions (4a) of the cable film (4) when assembling the cable into an electrical components (e.g., fig. 17). The teaching of Ezaki suggests it would be beneficial to locate the “damaged” region beneath the cable jacket (4) to mitigate the undesirable effects of having loose, exposed portions of cable foil extending out from the location at which the cable jacket is cut (i.e., at the position arranged closer to the cable end of the end section of the cable).
Additionally, Ezaki teaches heating cable film (4), “[a]s shown in FIG. 8, stress and elongation at rupture of heat-cured [i.e., damaged] Al shielding tape 4 become about 1/3 and 1/4 times those of Al shielding tape before heat-cured, respectively, and thus cutting and peeling of Al shielding tape 4 can be easily performed.” The method taught by Ezaki allows for more uniform terminal end portions (4a) and provides further evidence supporting the disclosure of Sorg that damaging the cable film helps to facilitate removal of the cable jacket. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Sorg with the teaching of Köppendörfer such that the damaged region is formed by any known type of thermal treatment, including inductively heating at least that conductor structure on which the cable film is applied such that the damaged region is formed by inductively heating the at least that conductor structure on which the cable film is applied such that the cable film applied onto the heated conductor structure is at least partially thermally damaged in the damaged region (as taught by Köppendörfer), and cutting the cable jacket at least partially circumferentially in a position that is arranged closer to a cable end of the end section than the damaged region (i.e., at the position depicted in Sorg, annotated figs. 16 and 17), wherein the crack separates the section of the cable film to be removed from a section of the cable film remaining on the cable and the crack is located beneath the cable jacket (as suggested by Ezaki) since the induction heating method of thermal treatment is taught by Köppendörfer produces the same effect disclosed by Sorg while eliminating the need to precut the cable jacket as well as mitigating the associated risks of damaging fragile interior components of the electrical cable and eliminating the adverse effects of leaving exposed cable film at the end of the cable with respect to installation in electrical components. Thus, as modified, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the crack formed by the relative movement forms in the cable film (5) below the cable jacket (Sorg, translation para. 0069-71).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the at least one conductor structure (3) consists of an inner conductor (Sorg, 2) and at least one outer conductor structure (Sorg, 4), wherein the cable film (5) is applied to one of the outer conductor structures (4).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the outer conductor structure (Sorg, 4) onto which the cable film (Sorg, 5) is applied is formed as a metal film (Sorg, translation, para. 0093, lines 6 and 10-12).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the outer conductor structure (Sorg, 4) embodied as a metal film (Sorg, translation, para. 0093, lines 6 and 10-12) is structurally weakened (Sorg, translation, paragraph 0033-0034) by the inductive heating in the damaged region (Sorg, translation, para. 0043).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the inductive heating is carried out by means of an inductive coil (Köppendörfer, 22), by means of which inductive coil (16, 28) an electromagnetic alternating field is generated (Köppendörfer, translation, para. 0046, lines 5-6), wherein at least the damaged region of the cable is arranged inside the inductive coil during the inductive heating (Köppendörfer, fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the cable jacket (6) is cut at least partially circumferentially during or after the defined damaged region is produced (Sorg, translation paragraph 0132).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the cable jacket (6) is cut at least partially circumferentially before the defined damaged region is produced (Sorg, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the cable jacket (6) is divided (e.g., Sorg, fig. 3) into a section (“cable section A”) of the cable jacket (6) to be removed (leftside of Sorg, fig. 7) and a remaining section (right side of Sorg, fig. 7) of the cable jacket (6) by an at least partially circumferential cut (Sorg, 8), and the section of the cable jacket (6) to be removed is moved in the direction of the cable axis (M; Sorg, fig. 4), wherein the section of the cable film to be removed, which is at least partially attached to the cable jacket, is stripped by the movement (leftside of Sorg, fig. 7). Regarding claim 13, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the at least one conductor structure (2, 4) onto which the cable film (5) is applied is inductively heated to a temperature of greater than or equal to 80°C (Sorg, translation, para. 0117).
Claims 12, 14, 15 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg (EP 3 444 911), Köppendörfer (DE102017221115) and Ezaki (US Patent 5,142,121) in further view of Pollitt (US Patent 3,765,276). Regarding claim 12, the modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the following [steps] are performed in “a device for the automated removal of a cable foil from a cable section of an electrical cable” (Sorg, translation, para. 0002) a processing space of a processing device: - inductive heating of at least that conductor structure on which the cable film (5) is applied (as taught by Köppendörfer); - at least partially circumferential cutting of the cable jacket (Sorg, fig. 3); - jointly removing a section of the cable jacket and the section of the cable film to be removed (Sorg, fig. 7). The modified method of Sorg substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the following [steps] are performed in a processing space of a processing device. However, Pollitt teaches it is known in the art of processing devices (10) for thermally treating (fig. 4) and stripping (fig. 5) a protective layer (i.e., insulation 11) from a conductor (12) of an electrical cable to provide a processing space (interior of frame 13; fig. 1) which encloses each of the components configured to perform the processing steps (figs. 3-6) of the processing device.
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Sorg substantially disclosed above such that the aforementioned steps are performed within the processing space of the processing device in order to “insure the production of uniform lengths of bare end sections” (Pollitt, col. 2, lines 48-49) and to provide “facilities for preventing the wire and [processing components] from being subjected to harmful stresses during the operation of the device” (Pollitt, col. 1, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 14, the modified processing device of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes a processing device (Sorg, translation para. 0002) for performing a method according claim 1 (and as set forth above in the 103 rejection for claim 12), comprising: - a processing space (Pollick, interior of frame 13; fig. 1) for accommodating an end section of a cable (Sorg, 1) to be processed, wherein the cable comprises a cable jacket (Sorg, 6) and at least one electrically conductive conductor structure (Sorg, 2, 4) and a cable film (Sorg, 5) made of a plastic and applied on one of the conductor structures (4); - an induction coil (as taught by Köppendörfer 22) arranged in the processing space (as set forth above in the 103 rejection of claim 12), wherein the induction coil (22) is configured to inductively heat at least a portion of the conductor structure (Köppendörfer, translation para. 0046) located in the induction coil (Köppendörfer, fig. 2A) during a processing operation (as taught by Köppendörfer), such that the cable film (Sorg 5) applied on the inductively heated portion of the conductor structure (Sorg 4) is at least partially thermally damaged in a defined damaged region (Köppendörfer, para. 0046, lines 8-9 and Sorg, translation, para. 0114-0120), wherein the defined damaged region determines a position along the cable where a crack forms in the cable film upon subsequent stripping (Sorg, translation 0069); a cutting unit (Sorg, schematically depicted by knife 7; fig. 3) for at least partially circumferentially cutting the cable jacket (6) of the cable (1), wherein the cutting unit is arranged in the processing space (Pollitt it is known in the art for a cutting unit, as depicted in fig. 6, to be located in the processing space, fig. 1); - a stripper (as taught by Pollitt 10) for stripping a section of the cable film defined by the damaged region to be removed (Sorg, translation, paragraph 0130, lines 5-7), wherein the cutting unit is arranged in the processing space relative to the induction coil such that an at least partially circumferential cut of the cable jacket is produced at a position closer to a cable end of the end section than to the defined damaged region (as depicted in Sorg, annotated figs. 16 and 17), so that the crack formed in the defined damaged region is located beneath the cable jacket (as suggested by Ezaki).
Regarding claim 15, the modified processing device of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes at least one clamping unit (Pollitt 18, 19) is arranged in the processing space (interior of frame 13 taught by Pollitt) to fix the end section (Pollitt, fig. 5) of the cable (1) during the processing operation. Regarding claim 20, the modified processing device of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the stripper (Pollitt 36, 37) contacts a section (leftside of Sorg, fig. 6) of the cable jacket (Sorg, 6) defined by the at least partially circumferential cut (Sorg, 8) and, the stripper removes the section (leftside of Sorg, fig. 7) of the cable jacket (6) together with the section of the cable film (Sorg, 5) via a stripping motion (Sorg, translation, para. 0130).
Regarding claim 21, the modified processing device of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the stripper (Pollitt, 36, 37) is arranged in the processing space (as taught by Pollitt, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, the modified processing device of Sorg substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the stripper comprises a grip element (Sorg, 18) to grip the cable jacket or the cable film (Sorg, fig. 9), a motion device to move the grip element relative to the at least one electrically conductive conductor structure (Sorg, translation, para. 0127-0128), wherein the grip element (18) and the motion device (Sorg, fig. 9) are designed to produce the crack in the cable film during stripping by fixing the section of the cable film to be removed directly or indirectly to the grip element (Sorg, translation para. 0127) and moving the grip element relative to the at least one electrically conductive conductor structure (with movements indicated in Sorg, fig. 6; translation, para. 0128).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg (EP 3 444 911), Köppendörfer (DE102017221115), Ezaki (US Patent 5,142,121) and Pollitt (US Patent 3,765,276) in further view of Ulrich et al (US Patent 9,318,884), herein referred to as Ulrich.
Regarding claim 18, the modified processing device of Sorg substantially disclosed above includes the processing space (interior of Pollitt’s frame 13) has an insertion opening (portion of frame 13 through which cable 12 enters) for inserting the end section of the cable (1) into the processing space (Pollitt, fig. 1). The teaching of Pollitt fails to disclose the induction coil (Ulrich 28) is arranged between the cutting unit (Pollitt, figs. 1 and 6) and the insertion opening (through wall of Pollitt’s frame 13). However, Ulrich teaches it is known in the art of using an induction coil to inductively heat a conductive portion of a cable to help remove a cable covering thereon to arrange the induction coil (28) immediately adjacent to an opening (72) for guiding the cable (18) into the processing space thereof. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the processing device of Sorg substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Ulrich such that the induction coil (Ulrich 28) is arranged between the cutting unit and the insertion opening in order to help accurately locate the cable relative to the induction coil since the field induced within the cable and the heat generated by said field is affected by the distance of the material being heated to the induction coil.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 3, lines 21-25 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “Sorg only discloses heating methods that require a heated tool placed directly adjacent to the (exposed) cable foil, like a heater wire (paragraph [0051]), a heated coil (same paragraph), or a heated forming tool (paragraph [0050]). All these heating methods rely on electrical resistance heating and require that the cable jacket be removed to expose the cable foil before the heat treatment can begin.” Examiner acknowledges that Sorg requires the removal of the cable jacket before the exposed portion of the cable foiled can be heat treated. However, as noted at the bottom of page 3 of the present Office Action, Examiner notes “a heavy-handed or otherwise inexperienced user might cut through both the outer cable jacket (6) and the cable foil (5) and damage the underlying components of the cable.” This consideration given with regards to para. 0008, lines 3-4 of the translation in which Sorg states, “when attempting to cut through the cable foil, it is difficult in practice to avoid the underlying components of the cable being cut or scratched at least superficially and thus damaged.” On page 3, lines 26-31 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “Sorg discloses neither inductive heating of a conductive structure that is still covered by the cable jacket nor teaches that the position of the cut/incision in the cable jacket relative to the damaged region of the cable foil is chosen so that the crack in the cable foil forms beneath the cable jacket. In fact, Sorg teaches the complete opposite, namely exposing the cable foil before electrical resistance heating, which results in the cable foil cracking in the region of the exposed conductor, as annotated in FIG. 6 of Sorg, reproduced below.” Further, on page 4, lines 1-4 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “Sorg does not teach or suggest ‘a crack is formed in the damaged region of the cable film by the exerted relative motion, wherein the crack separates the section of the cable to be removed from a section of the cable film remaining on the cable and the crack is located beneath the cable jacket’ as recited in claim 1.” Examiner does not contend these arguments. However, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Köppendörfer provides teaching and suggestion to one having an ordinary skill in the art that it would have been obvious to utilize inductive heating such that “the damaged region is formed by inductively heating the at least that conductor structure on which the cable film is applied such that the cable film applied onto the heated conductor structure is at least partially thermally damaged in the damaged region.” Meanwhile, Ezaki provides teaching and suggestion to one having an ordinary skill in the art that it would have been obvious to locate the damaged region at any reasonable location, including at a position where “the crack separates the section of the cable film to be removed from a section of the cable film remaining on the cable and the crack is located beneath the cable jacket.” On page 4, lines 5-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “Köppendörfer teaches using induction heating, merely to soften an inner part of the cable jacket that is contacting the shield. However, Köppendörfer teaches this to specifically remove a cable jacket that is directly applied to the shield without a cable film used as an intermediate layer, as it suggests to reduce adhesion bonding between cable jacket and shield by heating the cable jacket.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The teaching of Köppendörfer is used to show it was known in the art of cable sheath removal to utilize induction heating to heat a specific portion of the cable below an outer, protective sheath thereof. Moreover, the teaching of Köppendörfer suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art can apply heat in a variety of ways. Köppendörfer states in para. 0017, “[t]he heating of the section can be done, for example, by hot air or by electromagnetic radiation, for example infrared radiation, and in particular from the outside. Furthermore, resistance heating can be achieved, either from the outside or by applying current to an internal electrically conductive component of the cable” [emphasis added]. Köppendörfer continues, stating in para. 0018, “…heating is carried out inductively by inductively heating a component located in the line and thereby heating the jacket. Inductive heating leads to a targeted heat input, especially at the interface between the sheath and the cable core. Especially when using shielded cables, inductive heating leads to a targeted heating of the shielding, so that the surface areas towards the inside of the sheath are heated directly. The softening of the sheath material therefore takes place specifically in the area of the adhesion between the cable core and the sheath material.” Critically, the disclosure of Sorg provides a description of the cable foil. In para. 0079 of the translation, Sorg states, “it can be provided in particular that a composite film made of a plastic, preferably PET (polyethylene terephthalate), and a metal, preferably aluminum, is used, wherein the outer layer is formed by a single layer of the plastic and the inner layer is formed by a further single layer of the metal.” Furthermore, Sorg states in para. 0080 of the translation, “[a] cable foil designed in this way can therefore have a brittle inner layer (e.g. a copper or aluminum layer) and a mechanically durable plastic outer layer (e.g. B. PET). The method according to the invention is particularly advantageous and effective for such composite films, which are frequently used in electrical cables, since preferably the durable outer layer can be removed by one or more variants of the method according to claim 1 or at least manipulated in such a way that it becomes brittle. Since the inner layer of such a composite film is sensitive to mechanical stress without the protective outer layer, the cable film can then be easily removed at the intended tear position after removing the outer layer.” Given this disclosure and the aforementioned teaching of Köppendörfer, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize inductive heating to specifically heat the metal layer of the cable foil without to induce damage in the mechanically durable plastic outer layer of the cable foil since the teaching of Köppendörfer suggests inductive heating is a known alternative to direct external application of heat to damage the foil which requires the added method step of removing the outer cable sheath. On pages 5-6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “[e]ven though Ezaki teaches that the aluminum foil 5 may tear 4 while being removed, Ezaki clearly fails to teach that a damaged section of the aluminum foil 5 covered by polyester resin 6, where a crack forms, could be located beneath the ‘cable jacket,’ which corresponds to the foamed outer insulant 7. In fact Ezaki present a solution that teaches clearly away from the claimed subject matter, as both laser beam radiation and heated peeling blades requires exposure of the aluminum foil 5 covered by polyester resin 6, both measures equally aim at removing the foamed outer insulant 7 before the aluminum foil 5 covered by polyester resin 6 becomes accessible and can be removed.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific structural and method features disclosed by Ezaki are not being imported into the rejection. Rather, as noted on page 5 of the present Office Action, “[t]he background disclosure of Ezaki suggests one having an ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the drawbacks of having exposed, torn off terminal portions (4a) of the cable film (4) when assembling the cable into an electrical components (e.g., fig. 17). The teaching of Ezaki suggests it would be beneficial to locate the ‘damaged’ region beneath the cable jacket (4) to mitigate the undesirable effects of having loose, exposed portions of cable foil extending out from the location at which the cable jacket is cut (i.e., at the position arranged closer to the cable end of the end section of the cable).” On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “A person of ordinary skill in the art might replace the heating means of Sorg with the heating means of Ezaki to create a damaged region in the exposed aluminum foil 5 covered by polyester resin 6 (or cable foil 5,6 respectively). However, both methods taught by Ezaki are incompatible with induction heating, as induction heating the aluminum foil 5 would not be able to only heat cure the polyester resin 6 and simultaneously remove the outer insulation 7 by melting it. In contrast, the heat induced in the foil would damage (and melt) the thin polyester resin 6 in a relatively large area, before the heat would melt even a part of the surrounding outer insulation 7.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the specific structural and method features taught by Ezaki are not being imported into the rejection. In response to Applicant's argument that the methods taught by Ezaki are incompatible with induction heating, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm EST.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571)270-3818. 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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 September 20, 2025
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724