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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-14, 16, and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki et al. (US 20150075285 A1, hereinafter Ariki) in view of Seshia et al. (GB 2561886 A, hereinafter Seshia) and Dong et al. (CN 103901225 A, hereinafter Dong).
As to claim 1, Ariki teaches an accelerometer (fig. 8; ¶54-55 teach that fig. 8 depicts an accelerometer) comprising:
a frame 11, 23-24 (see figs. 2 and 8);
[AltContent: textbox (18X)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 8)][AltContent: textbox (18Y)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
755
993
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first proof mass 18X (¶32) suspended from, and directly connected to the frame (see figs. 2-3) by one or more flexures 22 to move relative to the frame along a first axis X (¶32);
a second proof mass 18Y (¶35) suspended from, and directly connected to the frame (see figs. 2-3) by one or more flexures 22 to move relative to the frame along a second axis Y (¶35; the Examiner notes that ¶35 states “the first beam portion 22 that is springy in the Y-direction. This configuration enables the frame portion 18b to be displaced in the X-direction”; In view of the figures, one of skill in the art would understand that this portion of ¶35 contains a typographical error, and that the frame portion 18b is actually displaced in the Y-direction, since the first beam portion supporting frame portion 18b is springy in the Y-direction and not the X-direction),
wherein the second proof mass surrounds the first proof mass (see fig. 8).
Ariki does not teach a first resonant element assembly fixed between the frame and the first proof mass, and a third resonant element assembly fixed between the frame and the first proof mass, wherein movement of the first proof mass along the first axis relative to the frame exerts a strain on the first resonant element assembly that affects the resonant behaviour of the first resonant element assembly, and exerts a strain on the third resonant element assembly that affects the resonant behaviour of the third resonant element assembly, wherein the third resonant element assembly is substantially identical to the first resonant element assembly and is fixed on an opposite side of the first proof mass to the first resonant assembly in the direction of the first axis, wherein the first resonant element assembly is positioned between the first proof mass and at least one first strain amplifying lever linking the first proof mass to the first resonant element assembly, and wherein the third resonant element assembly is positioned between the first proof mass and at least one second strain amplifying lever linking the first proof mass to the third resonant element assembly;
a second resonant element assembly fixed between the frame and the second proof mass, wherein movement of the second proof mass along the second axis relative to the frame exerts a strain on the second resonant element assembly that affects the resonant behaviour of the second resonant element assembly;
wherein the second proof mass surrounds the first resonant element assembly,
and
wherein the first resonant element assembly and the at least one first strain amplifying lever are positioned inside a first recess of the first proof mass. and the third resonant element assembly and the at least one second strain amplifying lever are positioned inside a second recess of the first proof mass.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 8 of Seshia)][AltContent: textbox (RES2/R2/R4)][AltContent: textbox (RES1/R1/R3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
678
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Seshia teaches an accelerometer (title) wherein movement of a proof mass 110 is detected by a pair of resonant element assemblies RES1, RES2 (fig. 8a above; pg. 13 teaches, at lines 15-33, that the pair of resonant element assemblies is configured for differential sensing, for cancelling error from temperature and pressure fluctuations; note that pg. 13 teaches on lines 15-25 that the resonant element assemblies are connected to the proof mass through non-illustrated amplifying levers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ariki such that the deflection of each proof mass is differentially detected with a pair of resonant element assemblies connected via amplifying levers, as taught by Seshia, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of differential detection of proof mass deflection for another (see ¶43 of Ariki and pg. 13, at lines 15-33 of Seshia) for the predictable result that the negative effect of temperature is still successfully suppressed (see ¶43 of Ariki and pg. 13, at lines 15-33 of Seshia).
[AltContent: textbox (R2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (R1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (RE4x)][AltContent: textbox (RE2x)][AltContent: textbox (RE3x)][AltContent: textbox (RE1x)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
584
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dong teaches an accelerometer (title) comprising first and third resonant element assemblies RE1x, RE3x (fig. 1 above) in recesses of a proof mass 1, whose X-axis acceleration is detected by the first and third resonant element assemblies (¶33 and ¶45; see how the X and Y axes are defined in fig. 2; it is noted that each of the resonant element assmbliesRE1x-RE4x is provided in a recess of a proof mass), wherein each resonant element assembly is connected with the mass through respective amplifying levers (6a1, 6a2, etc.) such that each resonant element assembly is between the proof mass and its respective amplifying levers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ariki as modified such that the first and third resonant element assemblies are configured to be in recesses of the proof mass whose X-axis acceleration they measure, wherein the second and fourth resonant element assemblies are configured to be in recesses of the proof mass whose Y-axis acceleration they measure, and wherein the apparatus is configured such that each respective resonant element assembly is between its respective amplifying levers and the mass whose movement it measures, as taught by Dong, for the benefit of more efficiently using space (additionally, the more efficient use of space makes it possible to make the device more compact; additionally or alternatively, such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of configuring the resonant element assemblies and amplifying levers for another for the predictable result that differential measurement of acceleration in the X and Y directions is still successfully performed).
Ariki as modified still does not teach wherein the at least one first strain amplifying lever 6c1 (Dong) is positioned inside the first recess R1 (fig. 1 of Dong above) of the first proof mass, and the at least one second strain amplifying lever 6d1 (Dong) is positioned inside the second recess R2 (fig. 1 of Dong above) of the first proof mass.
However, such a difference between the prior art and claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record, at the time the application was filed, that shaping the proof masses, such that they have recesses that also contain the strain amplifying levers, was significant over the proof mass shape(s) of Ariki as modified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the relevant outer edges of the proof masses such that they have recesses that include the resonant element assemblies along with their associated amplifying levers, since such modifications would be mere changes in shape for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Ariki as modified teaches a first resonant element assembly (the modified Ariki comprises two pairs of Seshia’s resonant element assemblies RES1, RES2; for the sake of clarity, the two resonant element assemblies measuring the movement of the first proof mass will be referred to as R1 and R2, and the resonant element assemblies measuring the movement of the second proof mass will be referred to as R3 and R4; accordingly, resonant element assembly R1 is the first resonant element assembly- see fig. 8 of Seshia above) fixed between the frame (fig. 8 of Seshia shows the first resonant element assembly R1 fixed between a frame element 114 and proof mass 110, and this would similarly be the case in the modified Ariki) and the first proof mass 18X (Ariki), and a third resonant element assembly R2 (Seshia) fixed between the frame and the first proof mass, wherein movement of the first proof mass along the first axis X (Ariki) relative to the frame exerts a strain on the first resonant element assembly that affects the resonant behaviour of the first resonant element assembly (in Seshia, see pg. 6 line 20 to pg. 7 line 16 and pg. 13 lines 15-33, which teach that movement of a proof mass places the first resonant element assembly into tension or compression, which changes its resonant frequency), and exerts a strain on the third resonant element assembly that affects the resonant behaviour of the third resonant element assembly, wherein the third resonant element assembly R2 (Seshia) is substantially identical (as broadly recited) to the first resonant element assembly R1 (Seshia) and is fixed on an opposite side of the first proof mass to the first resonant assembly in the direction of the first axis (similar to the manner shown in fig. 8 of Seshia above), wherein the first resonant element assembly is positioned between the first proof mass and at least one first strain amplifying lever linking the first proof mass to the first resonant element assembly (in fig. 1 of Dong, the first and third resonant element assemblies are each between the proof mass whose acceleration they detect and a respective lever connecting them to the proof mass; accordingly, the modified Ariki teaches “wherein the first resonant element assembly is positioned between the first proof mass and at least one first strain amplifying lever linking the first proof mass to the first resonant element assembly“), and wherein the third resonant element assembly is positioned between the first proof mass and at least one second strain amplifying lever linking the first proof mass to the third resonant element assembly (in a similar manner to the first resonant element assembly discussed above);
a second resonant element assembly R3 (Seshia) fixed between the frame (fig. 8 of Seshia shows the second resonant element assembly R3 fixed between a frame element 114 and proof mass 110, and this would similarly be the case in the modified Ariki) and the second proof mass 18Y (Ariki), wherein movement of the proof mass (i.e. second proof mass) along the second axis relative to the frame exerts a strain on the second resonant element that affects the resonant behaviour of the second resonant element assembly (in Seshia, see pg. 6 line 20 to pg. 7 line 16 and pg. 13 lines 15-33, which teach that movement of a proof mass places the second resonant element assembly into tension or compression, which changes its resonant frequency);
wherein the second proof mass 18Y (Ariki) surrounds the first resonant element assembly R1 (Seshia), and
wherein the first resonant element assembly and the at least one first strain amplifying lever 6c1 (Dong) are positioned inside a first recess of the first proof mass (as discussed in the change-of-shape modification above), and the third resonant element assembly and the at least one second strain amplifying lever 6d1 (Dong) are positioned inside a second recess of the first proof mass (as discussed in the change of shape modification above).
As to claim 2, Ariki teaches wherein a centre of mass of the first proof mass is substantially coincident with a centre of mass of the second proof mass (see fig. 8 and ¶33-34).
As to claim 3, Ariki teaches wherein the first proof mass and the second proof mass are coplanar and lie in a plane defined by first and second axes (see figs. 2-3 and 8).
As to claim 4, Ariki teaches wherein the first and second axes X-Y (fig. 8) are orthogonal to one another.
As to claim 5, Ariki teaches wherein the first proof mass and second proof mass are of substantially equal mass (as broadly recited).
If Applicant argues that Ariki’s first and second masses do not have substantially equal masses,
it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant specification, lines 10-15 of pg. 3 state that the equal masses provide equal sensitivity along the first and second axes. In the case of the modified Ariki, the first and second proof masses each provide a degree of sensitivity along their respective sensitive axes. Accordingly, there is no evidence of record, at the time of filing, to show that a claimed device, having the first and second proof masses sized and/or dimensioned to have substantially equal masses, would perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ariki as modified such that the first and second proof masses have substantially equal masses, since such a modification would be a mere change in the relative sizes and/or dimensions of the first and second proof masses for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
As to claim 6, Ariki teaches wherein the accelerometer is a micro electrical mechanical systems (MEMS) device (¶27 teaches that fig. 1 illustrates a MEMS device, and ¶48-53 teach that figs. 4-8 are simply modifications of fig. 1, meaning that fig. 8 also illustrates a MEMS device).
If Applicant argues that fig. 8 of Ariki does not illustrate a MEMS device,
fig. 1 of Ariki illustrates a MEMS device (¶27 teaches that the device of fig. 1 is a “microstructure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ariki as modified (based on fig. 8 of Ariki) to be a microstructure, as taught by fig. 1 of Ariki, since such a modification would beneficially reduce the size and weight of the device, which provides the further benefits of fitting the device in small spaces, and producing more copies of the device with less material.
As to claim 7, Ariki teaches wherein the frame, first proof mass, second proof mass and flexures are formed from a single piece of semiconductor material (¶27 teaches that fig. 1 illustrates a device fabricated from a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate, and ¶48-53 teach that figs. 4-8 are simply modifications of fig. 1, meaning that fig. 8 also illustrates a device made from a SOI substrate; therefore, the frame, first proof mass, second proof mass and flexures are formed from a single piece of semiconductor material).
As to claim 8, Ariki as modified as modified teaches wherein the resonant element assemblies are formed (at least substantially formed) from the single piece of semiconductor material (in Seshia, the MEMS resonant sensor is formed such that the substrate, proof mass, flexures, microlevers and resonant elements are formed from a single crystal of silicon – see pg. 4 lines 5-7 of Seshia; lines 20-28 of pg. 6 of Seshia teach that fig. 1 shows an accelerometer formed from a single crystal of silicon; accordingly, when Ariki is modified in view of Seshia, the resonant element assemblies are at least substantially formed from the single piece of semiconductor material).
As to claim 11, Ariki as modified teaches a fourth resonant element assembly R4 (Seshia) fixed between the frame and the second proof mass, wherein movement of the proof mass along the second axis relative to the frame exerts a strain on the fourth resonant element that affects the resonant behaviour of the fourth resonant element assembly.
As to claim 12, Ariki as modified teaches wherein the fourth resonant element assembly R4 (Seshia) is substantially identical (as broadly recited) to the second resonant element assembly R3 (Seshia) and is fixed on an opposite side of the second proof mass to the second resonant assembly in the direction of the second axis (similar to the manner shown in fig. 8 of Seshia above).
As to claim 13, Ariki as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein one or more of the resonant element assemblies comprises a pair of coupled resonant elements.
Seshia further teaches wherein the resonator elements are DETFs (fig. 3 and lines 24-29 of pg. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ariki as modified such that the resonant element assemblies are configured with DETFs as taught by the further embodiment of Seshia since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of using resonant elements for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Ariki as modified teaches wherein one or more of the resonant element assemblies comprises a pair of coupled resonant elements (e.g., tines of a DETF as taught by fig. 3 in Seshia).
As to claim 14, Ariki teaches one or more electrodes 20 (figs. 9-11) adjacent the first proof mass or second proof mass (¶53-54 teach that electrodes 20 in figs. 9-11 detect Z deflection of mass 18c, which is adjacent to the first and second proof masses in fig. 8; accordingly, the one or more electrodes 20 are adjacent to the first or second proof mass) and spaced from the first proof mass or the second proof mass along a third axis Z (figs. 8-11) orthogonal to the first axis and the second axis (¶27 teaches that fig. 1 illustrates a device fabricated from a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate, and ¶48-53 teach that figs. 4-8 are simply modifications of fig. 1, meaning that fig. 8 also illustrates a device made from a SOI substrate; accordingly, the first and second proof masses are coplanar with third proof mass 18c, which lies above electrodes 20 across the Z-directional gap shown in figs. 9-11).
As to claim 16, Ariki as modified teaches wherein the first and third resonant element assemblies are aligned along the first axis which substantially intersects a centre of mass of the first proof mass (in light of Seshia).
As to claim 18, Ariki as modified wherein the second resonant element assembly R3 (Seshia) is positioned inside a first recess (in view of Dong) of the second proof mass, and wherein the second and fourth resonant elements are aligned along the second axis which substantially intersects a centre of mass of the second proof mass (similar to the arrangement shown in fig. 8 of Seshia), and the fourth resonant element assembly R4 (Seshia) is positioned inside a second recess (in view of Dong) of the second proof mass.
As to claim 19, Ariki as modified teaches wherein the second resonant element assembly R3 (Seshia) is positioned between the second proof mass and at least one third strain amplifying lever (e.g., lever 6a1 of Dong) linking the second proof mass to the second resonant element assembly (in view of Dong, the second resonant element assembly is between the second proof mass and a lever connecting the second resonant element assembly to the second proof mass), and wherein the fourth resonant element assembly R4 (Seshia) is positioned between the second proof mass and at least one fourth strain amplifying lever (e.g., lever 6b1 of Dong) linking the second proof mass to the fourth resonant element assembly (in a similar manner to the second resonant element assembly, as discussed above).
As to claim 20, Ariki as modified teaches wherein the second and fourth resonant elements are aligned along the second axis which substantially intersects a centre of mass of the second proof mass (in a similar to elements R3-R4 in fig. 8 of Seshia above; in Ariki as modified, the direction of alignment is along the second axis of Ariki).
As to claim 21, Ariki as modified teaches wherein the at least one third strain amplifying lever is positioned inside the first recess of the second proof mass, and the at least one fourth strain amplifying lever is positioned inside the second recess of the second proof mass (as a result of the change-in-shape modification described in the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 22, Ariki as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the at least one third strain amplifying lever and the at least one fourth strain amplifying lever are flush with an outer perimeter of the second proof mass.
However, such a difference between the prior art and claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record, at the time of filing, that shaping the proof masses, such that the at least one third strain amplifying lever and the at least one fourth strain amplifying lever are flush with an outer perimeter of the second proof mass, was significant over the proof mass shape(s) of Ariki as modified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the relevant outer edges of the second proof mass such that the at least one third strain amplifying lever and the at least one fourth strain amplifying lever are flush with an outer perimeter of the second proof mass, since such a modification would be a mere change in shape for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
As to claim 23, Ariki as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the at least one first strain amplifying lever and the at least one second strain amplifying lever are flush with an outer perimeter of the first proof mass.
However, such a difference between the prior art and claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record, at the time of filing, that shaping the proof masses, such that the at least one first strain amplifying lever and the at least one second strain amplifying lever are flush with an outer perimeter of the first proof mass, was significant over the proof mass shape(s) of Ariki as modified.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the relevant outer edges of the first proof mass such that the at least one first strain amplifying lever and the at least one second strain amplifying lever are flush with an outer perimeter of the first proof mass, since such a modification would be a mere change in shape for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki (under a second interpretation) in view of Seshia and Dong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawakubo et al. (US 20110234206 A1, hereinafter Kawakubo).
The Examiner notes that the second interpretation of Ariki differs in that the first and second proof masses are not considered to be equal in mass.
As to claim 5, Ariki teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the first proof mass and second proof mass are of substantially equal mass.
Kawakubo teaches acceleration sensors for detecting in the X and Y directions (fig. 16), wherein the acceleration sensors have proof masses 8X-8Y with at least substantially the same amount of mass (¶170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ariki as modified such that the first and second proof masses are at least substantially equal in mass, as taught by Kawakubo, for the benefit of reducing the complexity of processing the signals from the resonator elements in comparison with the proof masses having different masses (an additional or alternative benefit is that the amount of signal processing or relative signal scaling between the X and Y signal outputs is greatly reduced; alternatively or additionally, such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of setting the masses for another for the predictable result that accelerations are still successfully detected).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki in view of Seshia and Dong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brcic et al. (CA 2607068 A1, hereinafter Brcic).
As to claim 15, Ariki as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except for a gravimeter comprising an accelerometer according to claim 1.
Brcic teaches the concept of accelerometers adapted for use in or as gravimeters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the accelerometer of Ariki as modified for use in or as a gravimeter as taught by Brcic so that it can beneficially be used in geology and/or natural resource development and extraction (in Brcic, see pg. 3 at lines 10-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5 and 15-17 (pgs. 9-11) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection. The Examiner further notes that Applicant’s arguments regarding Dong on pgs. 10-11 are moot at least in view of the change-in-shape modification in claim 1, which is a new ground for rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, Applicant argues on pg. 11, regarding the claimed placement of the levers in the recesses, that “The technical effect of these features is that they provide for space efficiency and maximisation of the size/mass of the first proof mass within a set size cavity defined by the second proof mass surrounding the first proof mass. None of the cited prior art documents disclose this space-efficient arrangement of claim 1, nor is such a modification in view of Ariki obvious.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The alleged technical effect described by Applicant is not part of the original specification. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the modified Ariki to have the features cited by Applicant. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is proper.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 that claims 18-19 are allowable based on Applicant’s previous arguments.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s previous arguments are either unpersuasive or moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853