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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on July 28, 2025. No claims have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Resultant of an election/restriction, claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-15, and 18-19 are non-elected and withdrawn from consideration at present. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-10, filed July 28, 2025 with respect to the U.S.C. 35 103 rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Bhatia (US PG Pub No. 20200317492) in view of Endo (US PG Pub No. 20090288888) have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Pages 2-5 of the applicant’s remarks provide a description of features of note regarding the applicant’s claimed apparatus.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, beginning on page 6, 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).
On page 6, the applicant remarks that Bhatia (examiner’s base reference in the previous rejection) fails to disclose the structure of the claimed load cells.
On page 7, the applicant points out Endo, which the examiner used as a teaching reference for a type of load cell that would be capable of measuring pressure distributed along a surface and having physical structure that meets the claimed sensor limitations, fails to have the scissor lifts entire structure, particularly jointed bars including upper and lower bars.
On pages 7-8, the applicant argues that the load cells 50/60 are fixed in relation to each other, however the examiner has pulled from Endo’s reference paragraph [0031], which discloses a moveable upper rail, which the examiner has equated to an upper portion.
On page 8, the applicant argues against the “hinging” and rotational movement of the sensors of Endo, however Bhatia was the reference that provided support for the limitation, disclosing the capacity to place sensors according to design needs, particularly at “the connection coupling” (see page 6 of the office action dated 06/13/2025).
On page 9, the applicant argues Endo failing to disclose a sensor housed in an articulation block, to which the examiner respectfully disagrees. The details provided regarding the articulation block, within the claims, are that a sensor is provided with said articulation block, the block has a first portion secured on a pivot axis and a second portion movable relative to the first, with the sensor between the two. And while Endo fails to explicitly disclose being concerned with vehicle user safety parameters, it does disclose a load sensor for safety systems utilizing measures of a passenger’s weight, which would be considering similar problem of force distribution and its effect on a person’s safety. The arguments are not found persuasive and rejection from the previous action is maintained.
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 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) 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia (US PG Pub No. 20200317492) in view of Endo et al. (US PG Pub No. 20090288888).
In regards to claim 1, Bhatia discloses
scissor lift cradle (lift device 10, fig. 1-11) comprising:
a frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7) able to rest on the ground by connecting members (plurality of tractive assemblies 40, fig. 1-7),
a platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7),
a device for lifting (lift assembly 14, fig. 1-7; [0024], [0028]) the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7), comprising a set of jointed bars (scissor layers 60, fig. 1-7; [0028]) supporting the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7), such that the elevation of the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7) relative to the frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7) is variable and controlled by the set of jointed bars (scissor layers 60, fig. 1-7; [0028]),
[0024] … shown as lift device 10, includes a chassis, shown as frame assembly 12. A lift device (e.g., a scissor assembly, a boom assembly, etc.), shown as lift assembly 14, couples frame assembly 12 to a platform, shown as platform 16. Frame assembly 12 supports lift assembly 14 and platform 16, both of which are disposed directly above frame assembly 12. In use, lift assembly 14 extends and retracts to raise and lower platform 16 relative to frame assembly 12 between a lowered position and a raised position.
[0028] Referring to FIG. 1, lift assembly 14 includes a number of subassemblies, shown as scissor layers 60, each including a first member, shown as inner member 62, and a second member, shown as outer member 64.
the set of jointed bars (scissor layers 60, fig. 1-7; [0028]) comprising four lower bars (see fig. 1 - ann. 1) defining parallel pairs connected to the frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7), the set of jointed bars (scissor layers 60, fig. 1-7; [0028]) also comprising four upper bars (see fig. 1 - ann. 1) defining parallel pairs connected to the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7).
Bhatia fails to explicitly disclose “four lower articulation blocks…four upper articulation blocks…” that the parallel pairs of lower and upper bars are respectively “hinged” to the corresponding articulation blocks.
While Bhatia discloses load sensors 120, which are capable of measuring weight/load, understood as a reaction force
([0038]: …includes a load sensor, a weight sensor, a strain gauge, etc., shown as load sensor 120…configured to measure a current weight of platform 16… and the amount of load (e.g., weight due to workers, equipment, tools, etc., being present on platform 16)),
Bhatia fails to explicitly disclose “at least four” sensors, each one located in a respective of the four lower articulation blocks and/or in one of the four upper articulation blocks along a vertical axis of the scissor lift cradle.
Bhatia is also silent to the housing of the sensors, understood as “articulation blocks”, wherein each articulation block provided with a sensor comprises a first portion secured to a pivot axis hinged to one of the lower or upper bars, respectively, and a second portion which is movable relative to the first portion and in contact with a surface of the frame or the platform, respectively.
Further, Bhatia fails to explicitly disclose that each sensor is inserted between the first portion and the second portion of the articulation block in which the sensor is mounted so as to measure a force exerted by the second portion on the first portion corresponding to the reaction force.
Bhatia does disclose the sensor types considered within their disclosure, as well as possible locations:
[0038] Lift device 10 includes a load sensor, a weight sensor, a strain gauge, etc., shown as load sensor 120… In some embodiments, controller 104 can receive the measured load/weight from load sensor 120 and determine the maximum allowable height of platform 16 based on the measured load/weight of platform 16…
[0039] Load sensor 120 can be configured to measure weight of platform 16, or can be configured to measure weight of both platform 16 and lift assembly 14. In some embodiments, load sensor 120 is or includes a collection of load/weight sensors. For example, a first load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and platform 16, while a second load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and frame assembly 12. Load sensor 120 can be positioned anywhere else on lift device 10 such that load sensor 120 can measure weight of operators, equipment, parts, tools, etc., or any other objects or persons on platform 16.
So while Bhatia doesn’t explicitly disclose four sensors, it does provide teaching for a plurality of sensors and the capacity to locate according to design needs, specifically at the “connection coupling” between the lift assembly and platform and/or the lift assembly and frame assembly, meeting the sensor being connected in “hinged” manner.
With regards to the other elements not explicitly disclosed by Bhatia, please see Endo, which is considered analogous to the claimed invention in employing a load sensor, housed within structure assembly understood as an articulation block, slidingly mountable, and used for determining whether a vehicle user is operating within safety parameters.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0031] As shown in FIGS. 1, 2, and 3… Both of the seat-sliders 2 comprise a fixed lower rail 3 which extends in a front-and-rear direction of the vehicle and is fixed to the floor of the passenger compartment, and a movable upper rail 4 which is engaged with the fixed lower rail 3 to be slidable in a front-and-rear direction on the fixed lower rail 3 with respect to the fixed lower rail 3.
[0038] As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, a load sensor 50 is mounted on the front end of the upper surface of the left movable upper rail 4, and a load sensor 60 is mounted on the rear end of the upper surface of the left movable upper rail 4. The load sensors 50 and 60 detect the load as an electrical signal.
[0039] The left front load sensor 50 will be described with reference to FIG. 5. FIG. 5 is a perspective view showing the left front load sensor 50. As shown in FIG. 5, the left front load sensor 50 comprises a column-shaped sensing unit 52 which detects the load, a plate-like frange 51 which horizontally extends in a front direction and in a rear direction from the bottom end of the sensing unit 52, a load input rod 53 which extends upward from an upper end of the sensing unit 52, and a connector 54 which extends from the sensing unit 52 to become horizontal with the frange 51… Moreover, the sensing unit 52 incorporates a strain gauge, and the load is converted to an electrical signal by the strain gauge.
[0040] FIG. 6 is an exploded perspective view showing a rear end of the left movable upper rail 4. As shown in FIG. 6, similar to the left front load sensor 50, the left rear load sensor 60 comprises a frange 61, a sensing unit 62, a load input rod 63, and a connector 64. References having the same last single digit are assigned to the corresponding parts of the left front load sensor 50 and the left rear load sensor 60, and the description for each part of the left rear load sensor 60 is omitted.
[0041] The left rear load sensor 60, as shown in FIG. 6, is disposed on the rear end of the left movable upper rail 4. The lower surface of the frange 61 abuts the upper surface of the left movable upper rail 4, and the male screws 67 and 67 which penetrate the movable upper rail 4 from bottom up engage with the circular holes 65 and 65... In such way, the load sensor 60 is fixed to the upper surface of the movable upper rail 4.
[0051] As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the sub frame 110 in a shape of a rectangle frame which becomes a part of the seat cushion frame is mounted and fixed on the four load sensors 50, 60, 70, and 80. The sub frame 110 comprises a left patch member 111 ....
[0052] The patch member 111 is a metal material having a web 115 and left and right franges 116 and 117, and is U-shaped in section.
[0068] In the passenger's weight measurement device 1 configured as described above, when a passenger sits on the seat cushion, the weight (body weight) of the passenger is applied to the load sensors 50, 60, 70, and 80 through the sub frame 110, and the weight of the passenger is detected by the load sensors 50, 60, 70, and 80 as an electrical signal.
In regards to claim 2, Bhatia as modified discloses
the scissor lift cradle according to claim 1, wherein in each articulation block (assembly as taught by Endo fig. 6 - ann. 1) equipped with a sensor, the first portion of the articulation block (assembly as taught by Endo fig. 6 - ann. 1) comprises a surface perpendicular to the vertical axis (see fig. 6 – ann. 2), and the second portion of the articulation block (assembly as taught by Endo fig. 6 - ann. 1) comprises a surface perpendicular to the vertical axis and opposite the surface of the first portion (see fig. 6 – ann. 2),
PNG
media_image2.png
642
1240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the first portion and the second portion being translatable relative to one another along the vertical axis,
Endo [0055] The sub frame 110 which is assembled as described above is disposed to the load sensor 50, 60, 70, and 80 as described below. The load input rod 53 of the left front load sensor 50 is inserted into the mounting hole 121 of the left patch member 111 from bottom up and the front end of the left patch member 111 is mounted on the sensing unit 52.
Endo [0058] The sub frame 110 is assembled by welding in advance before disposing to the load sensor 50, 60, 70, and 80. However, when the sub frame 110 is assembled, the patch member 111, the patch member 112, the cross pipe 113, and the front member 114 are fixed by the jig so that each of the mounting holes 121 to 124 can fit to the load input rods 53, 63, 73, and 83, respectively. Therefore, the load input rods 53, 63, 73, and 83 can be matched and inserted into each of the mounting holes 121 to 124, respectively, without deforming the assembled sub frame 110.
and wherein the sensor is a compression sensor (load sensor 120 is under compression due to weight of objects supported) and is inserted between the surface of the first portion and the surface of the second portion (Endo [0055] and [0058]).
In regards to claim 3, Bhatia as modified discloses
the scissor lift cradle according to claim 2, wherein the second portion of each articulation block (assembly as taught by Endo fig. 6 - ann. 1) equipped with a sensor respectively forms an upper or lower zone of the articulation block (assembly as taught by Endo fig. 6 - ann. 1; see Endo fig. 6 – ann. 3), and is inserted into an upper or lower housing (side frames 141 and 142 of Endo, welded onto sub frame 110) formed on the first portion of the articulation block (assembly as taught by Endo fig. 6 - ann. 1).
In regards to claim 6, Bhatia as modified discloses
the scissor lift cradle according to claim 1, wherein at least two of the lower articulation blocks, hinged on two parallel lower bars, are slidingly connected (Endo [0031], [0038-0041]) to the frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7) by a pad (Endo frange 61, fig. 6) which is provided on the second portion of the at least two of the lower articulation blocks and which is bearing against a surface of a rail (Endo rail 4 connected by fixed rail 3, fig. 6) attached to the frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7), and
wherein at least two of the upper articulation blocks, hinged on two parallel upper bars, are slidingly connected to the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7) by a pad (Endo frange 61, fig. 6) which is provided on the second portion of the at least two of the upper articulation blocks and which is bearing against a surface of a rail (Endo rail 4 connected by fixed rail 3, fig. 6) attached to the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7).
In regards to claim 7, Bhatia as modified discloses
the scissor lift platform according to claim 1, but fails to disclose explicitly “at least four sensors are provided in the lower articulation blocks.”
Bhatia discloses “[0039] Load sensor 120…is or includes a collection of load/weight sensors. For example, a first load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and platform 16, while a second load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and frame assembly 12. Load sensor 120 can be positioned anywhere else on lift device 10…” Bhatia discloses the capacity for a plurality of sensors and at a multitude of locations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide four sensors in the lower articulation blocks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to claim 8, Bhatia as modified discloses
the scissor lift platform according to claim 1, but fails to disclose explicitly “at least four sensors are provided in the upper articulation blocks.”
Bhatia discloses “[0039] Load sensor 120…is or includes a collection of load/weight sensors. For example, a first load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and platform 16, while a second load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and frame assembly 12. Load sensor 120 can be positioned anywhere else on lift device 10…” Bhatia discloses the capacity for a plurality of sensors and at a multitude of locations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide four sensors in the upper articulation blocks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to claim 11, Bhatia as modified discloses
a method for determining the stability of the scissor lift cradle (lift device 10, fig. 1-11) according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises a step consisting, in an electronic unit (controller 104, fig. 1-2, 8-11; [0035-0036]) of the cradle (lift device 10, fig. 1-11), in calculating the sum of two of the reaction forces ([0038]) induced by the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7) in one of the four lower articulation blocks (see fig. 1 - ann. 2) or
of two of the reaction forces ([0038]) induced by the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7) in one of the four upper articulation blocks (see fig. 1 - ann. 2), and comparing said sum to a threshold value ([0038]: maximum allowable load), and if said sum is below the threshold value, in triggering actions limiting tipping risk.
[0047] The weight of platform 16 (i.e., w.sub.platform), the pitch angle θ.sub.pitch (i.e., pitch angle 206), and the extension of lift assembly 14 (e.g., distance 202, or h.sub.platform) can result in a platform tipping/pitching moment M.sub.platform,pitch. Likewise, the weight of lift assembly 14 (i.e., w.sub.lift), the pitch angle θ.sub.pitch (i.e., pitch angle 206) and the extension of lift assembly 14 (e.g., distance 202 or h.sub.platform) may result in a lift assembly tipping moment M.sub.lift,pitch. Weight of frame assembly 12 (i.e., w.sub.base) produces a counter-moment M.sub.base,pitch that facilitates preventing lift device 10 from tipping or rolling.
[0052] Controller 104 also receives a measured weight of platform 16, w.sub.platform, from load sensor 120, according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, controller 104 uses the weight of platform 16, w.sub.platform, as measured by load sensor 120 (or a collection of load sensors 120) to determine a load that is applied at platform 16.
In regards to claim 12, Bhatia as modified discloses
the method according to claim 11, wherein the actions limiting tipping risk comprise at least activating an alarm or blocking movements of the scissor lift cradle (lift device 10, fig. 1-11) in a direction corresponding to the reaction forces whose sum is lower than the threshold value.
[0055] Controller 104 is configured to generate and provide control signals (e.g., display signals) to HMI 102 to operate HMI 102. The display signals can be provided to HMI 102 to cause HMI 102 to display various imagery, notifications, visual alerts, aural alerts, etc., described herein. Controller 104 can generate and provide display signals to HMI 102 in response to receiving a user input from HMI 102, in response to determining a value (e.g., determining the maximum allowable height of platform 16), etc., as described herein.
In regards to claim 14, Bhatia as modified discloses
the scissor lift cradle according to claim 2, wherein at least two of the lower articulation blocks, hinged on two parallel lower bars, are slidingly connected (Endo [0031], [0038-0041]) to the frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7) by a pad (Endo frange 61, fig. 6) which is provided on the second portion of the at least two of the lower articulation blocks and which is bearing against a surface of a rail (Endo rail 4 connected by fixed rail 3, fig. 6) attached to the frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7), and
wherein at least two of the upper articulation blocks, hinged on two parallel upper bars, are slidingly connected to the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7) by a pad (Endo frange 61, fig. 6) which is provided on the second portion of the at least two of the upper articulation blocks and which is bearing against a surface of a rail (Endo rail 4 connected by fixed rail 3, fig. 6) attached to the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7).
In regards to claim 15, Bhatia as modified discloses
the scissor lift cradle according to claim 3, wherein at least two of the lower articulation blocks, hinged on two parallel lower bars, are slidingly connected (Endo [0031], [0038-0041]) to the frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7) by a pad (Endo frange 61, fig. 6) which is provided on the second portion of the at least two of the lower articulation blocks and which is bearing against a surface of a rail (Endo rail 4 connected by fixed rail 3, fig. 6) attached to the frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7), and
wherein at least two of the upper articulation blocks, hinged on two parallel upper bars, are slidingly connected to the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7) by a pad (Endo frange 61, fig. 6) which is provided on the second portion of the at least two of the upper articulation blocks and which is bearing against a surface of a rail (Endo rail 4 connected by fixed rail 3, fig. 6) attached to the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7).
In regards to claim 18, Bhatia as modified discloses
the scissor lift platform according to claim 2, but fails to disclose explicitly “at least four sensors are provided in the lower articulation blocks.”
Bhatia discloses “[0039] Load sensor 120…is or includes a collection of load/weight sensors. For example, a first load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and platform 16, while a second load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and frame assembly 12. Load sensor 120 can be positioned anywhere else on lift device 10…” Bhatia discloses the capacity for a plurality of sensors and at a multitude of locations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide four sensors in the lower articulation blocks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to claim 19, Bhatia as modified discloses
the scissor lift platform according to claim 3, but fails to disclose explicitly “at least four sensors are provided in the lower articulation blocks.”
Bhatia discloses “[0039] Load sensor 120…is or includes a collection of load/weight sensors. For example, a first load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and platform 16, while a second load sensor 120 can be disposed at the connection/coupling between lift assembly 14 and frame assembly 12. Load sensor 120 can be positioned anywhere else on lift device 10…” Bhatia discloses the capacity for a plurality of sensors and at a multitude of locations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide four sensors in the lower articulation blocks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia (US PG Pub No. 20200317492) and Endo et al. (US PG Pub No. 20090288888) in further view of Puszkiewiez (US PG Pub No. 20040045768).
In regards to claim 13, Bhatia as modified discloses
the method according to claim 11. However, Bhatia fails to disclose a step consisting in calculating, in the electronic unit (controller 104, fig. 1-2, 8-11; [0035-0036]), “the location of a center of gravity” of the scissor lift cradle (lift device 10, fig. 1-11) by using the values of the reaction forces induced by the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7) in one of the four lower articulation blocks (see fig. 1 - ann. 2) or of the reaction forces induced by the platform (platform 16, fig. 1-7) in one of the four upper articulation blocks (see fig. 1 - ann. 2), and
“as a function of the position of the center of gravity relative to a stability envelope in a horizontal plane” defined by the frame (frame assembly 12, fig. 1-7), authorizing or blocking movements ([0035]-[0035]) of the scissor lift cradle (lift device 10, fig. 1-11).
However, Puszkiewiez, which is also a scissor lift with height limiting/tipping safety parameters, teaches:
[0011] The interface module determines the vertical load on the platform by summing the signals from the plurality of load sensing pins. In this context, the interface module is programmed to prevent movement of the platform via the scissors arm assembly when a rated load of the platform is exceeded. Additionally, the interface module may be further programmed to activate an alarm when the rated load of the platform is exceeded. A tilt sensor may be secured to one of the base or the platform that communicates with the interface module. The tilt sensor detects a tilt of the scissors lift, wherein the interface module adjusts the signals from the load sensing pins according to the tilt of the scissors lift. The interface module may additionally determine a center of gravity and/or a stability condition based on the load sensing pin signals.
Puszkiewiez and Bhatia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of scissor lifts with sensors and tilt alarms and safeties. 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 Bhatia and provide a step of determining the center of gravity based off values from the plurality of sensors as taught by Puskiewiez, order to protect user and equipment from damage (Puskiewiez abastract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723