DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on June 4th, 2026 is acknowledged. Three pages of amended claims were received on 6/4/2026. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended and Claim 20 is newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 3/13/2026. Claims 1, 16, and 20 are now objected to due to informalities as noted below. Claim 17 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to further limit the claim from which it depends, as noted below. Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 14-20 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Rotary Atomizer Species A in the reply filed on 7/15/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 6/27/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-13, which are cancelled, were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, Lines 11-15 should not be indented, in order to ensure clarity in the claim since the cartridge and rotating disc are not part of the one or more gas bearings.
In Claim 16 Line 4, “one or more gas bearings comprise” should be revised to “one or more gas bearings each comprise” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 20 Line 15, “the one or more gas bearings” should be revised to “the first gas bearing and the second gas bearing” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 states “The rotary atomizer of claim 16, further comprising a housing configured to align the one or more gas bearings with the stator”, however Claim 16 already states “wherein the one or more gas bearings comprise a porous material bonded to a housing that is configured to align the one or more gas bearings with the stator”, therefore Claim 17 does not appear to further limit Claim 16, since the housing in Claim 17 appears to be the same housing in Claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,344,092 B1 to Kim (“Kim”) in view of US PGPUB 2002/0067868 A1 to Lyon et al. (“Lyon”).
As to Claim 1, Kim discloses a rotary atomizer (See Fig. 1) comprising:
an electric motor (#10, See Col. 8 Lines 13-15 disclosing an inverter being used to reduce a speed of #10, thus #10 is an electric motor) having a stator (#11) and a rotor (#12);
a vertical shaft (#20, which includes #21 and #22);
one or more gas bearings (#43c. Per Col. 5 Lines 7-10 #43c is divided into an upper journal-side air bearing and a lower journal-side air bearing. #43c can be considered two gas bearings that include a lower gas bearing and an upper gas bearing as shown in Annotated Fig. 1) configured to provide frictionless radial and axial support to the vertical shaft (See Fig. 1 and See Col. 5 Lines 1-44);
a cartridge (#50) having a common gas supply (#120 and #100) configured to provide a gas of constant pressure (See Fig. 1 showing #100 as having compressed air. Furthermore, Col. 7 Lines 55-60 disclose that “compressed air storage tank 120 is filled with 55 compressed air. When the electronic shutter valve 121 is opened, automatically the compressed air filled inside the storage tank 120 flows into the compressed air inlet port 50 by means of its pressure”. Thus, based on the configuration of #120, #100, #121, and #50, the cartridge #50 is configured to provide gas of constant pressure to #43c at least for some period of time.) to the one or more gas bearings (See Col. 7 Lines 40-63 disclosing compressed air being provided from #100 and #120 to #50, which provides gas to the gas bearing #43c); and
a rotating disc (#30, which includes plates #31 and #32) installed at a lower end of the vertical shaft (#22), said rotating disc configured to spray liquid formed as fine particles (See Col. 3 Lines 44-47).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim does not disclose wherein the one or more gas bearings each comprise a plurality of detached segments, wherein the plurality of detached segments are arranged in a circle around the vertical shaft, wherein the circle defines a plane, and wherein the plurality of detached segments intersect the plane (See Annotated Fig. 1. The one or more gas bearings is made up of two bearings that include a monolithic upper gas bearing and a monolithic lower gas bearing).
However, Lyon discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary bearings (See Paragraph 0051 disclosing rotational motion), a rotary device (See Fig. 2) comprising one or more gas bearings (See a single bearing made up of segments #12) that each comprise a plurality of detached segments (See three segments #12 in Fig. 2 and See Paragraph 0051), wherein the plurality of detached segments are arranged in a circle around a vertical shaft (#14), wherein the circle defines a plane, and wherein the plurality of detached segments intersect the plane (See Fig. 2, the three segments #12 all have a shared plane on a circular end surface).
Furthermore, it has been held that when desirable to obtain access to an area, it would be obvious to make a component separable from another for such a purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary atomizer of Kim as applied to Claim 1 above such that the one or more gas bearings each comprise a plurality of detached segments, wherein the plurality of detached segments are arranged in a circle around the vertical shaft, wherein the circle defines a plane, and wherein the plurality of detached segments intersect the plane, as taught by Lyon, since doing so would utilize a known modular segmented bearing configuration to yield the predictable result of having a simple low cost bearing construction (See Lyon Paragraphs 0051-0052) where portions of each bearing can be serviced separately rather than servicing the entire bearing (See Lyon Fig. 2, by utilizing three individual segments #12 in one bearing, if damage is caused to one segment #12 of the bearing, a single segment #12 can be replaced and the entire bearing does not need to be serviced).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim discloses the rotary atomizer further comprising guide bushings (#43e and #43f, which are bearings that are equivalent to bushings that help guide #41 and #42) located radially to the vertical shaft (See Kim Fig. 1 and Col. 4 Lines 29-38. #43e and #43f are located radially outside of #21 of the vertical shaft).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim discloses the rotary atomizer further comprising a gap detection system (See Kim Annotated Fig. 1, the gap detection system is made up of #110, #130, #140, and #150) configured to monitor one or more parameters associated with a distance between the one or more gas bearings and the vertical shaft (See Col. 7 Lines 40 – Col. 8 Lines 15 disclosing sensor #110 detecting air flow rate, which can be associated with a distance between gas bearing #43c and the vertical shaft #20 since the gas bearings may touch the vertical shaft #40 to cause abrasion when detected air flow rate is too low).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim further discloses wherein the one or more gas bearings form a non-continuous surface covering an entirety of the vertical shaft (See Kim Annotated Fig. 1, the gas bearing that is #43c includes two segments of #43c, with gaps between the two segments. #43c surrounds a circumference of #20. Paragraph 00022 of Applicant’s Specification states “the porous gas bearings form a non-continuous surface covering the entirety of the rotating shaft (e.g., so as to form slots, grooves, holes, or other gapping)”. The gas bearing #43c of Kim covers a majority of #20 other than some gapping, thus the one or more gas bearings of Kim read on a broadest reasonable interpretation of “wherein the one or more gas bearings form a non-continuous surface covering an entirety of the vertical shaft” as claimed based on the claims and disclosure as a whole.).
As to Claim 20, Kim discloses a rotary atomizer (See Fig. 1) comprising:
an electric motor (#10, See Col. 8 Lines 13-15 disclosing an inverter being used to reduce a speed of #10, thus #10 is an electric motor) having a stator (#11) and a rotor (#12);
a vertical shaft (#20, which includes #21 and #22);
a first gas bearing (See the upper gas bearing in Annotated Fig. 1);
a second gas bearing (See the lower gas bearing in Annotated Fig. 1);
wherein the first gas bearing and the second gas bearing are configured to provide frictionless radial and axial support to the vertical shaft (See Fig. 1 and See Col. 5 Lines 1-44);
a cartridge (#50) having a common gas supply (#120 and #100) configured to provide a gas of constant pressure (See Fig. 1 showing #100 as having compressed air. Furthermore, Col. 7 Lines 55-60 disclose that “compressed air storage tank 120 is filled with 55 compressed air. When the electronic shutter valve 121 is opened, automatically the compressed air filled inside the storage tank 120 flows into the compressed air inlet port 50 by means of its pressure”. Thus, based on the configuration of #120, #100, #121, and #50, the cartridge #50 is configured to provide gas of constant pressure to #43c at least for some period of time.) to the one or more gas bearings (See Col. 7 Lines 40-63 disclosing compressed air being provided from #100 and #120 to #50, which provides gas to the gas bearing #43c); and
a rotating disc (#30, which includes plates #31 and #32) installed at a lower end of the vertical shaft (#22), said rotating disc configured to spray liquid formed as fine particles (See Col. 3 Lines 44-47).
Regarding Claim 20, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim as applied to Claim 20 above, Kim does not disclose wherein the first gas bearing comprises a first plurality of detached segments encircling the vertical shaft in a first circular arrangement, wherein the second gas bearing comprises a second plurality of detached segments encircling the vertical shaft in a second circular arrangement, and wherein the first plurality of detached segments are not coplanar with the second plurality of detached segments (See Annotated Fig. 1, the upper gas bearing and the lower gas bearing are not coplanar, however the upper gas bearing and lower gas bearing are monolithic and are not made up of detached segments).
However, Lyon discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary bearings (See Paragraph 0051 disclosing rotational motion), a rotary device (See Fig. 2) comprising a bearing (See a single bearing made up of segments #12) that comprises a plurality of detached segments (See three segments #12 in Fig. 2 and See Paragraph 0051), encircling a vertical shaft (#14) in a circular arrangement (See Fig. 2, the three segments #12 form a circular arrangement).
Furthermore, it has been held that when desirable to obtain access to an area, it would be obvious to make a component separable from another for such a purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary atomizer of Kim as applied to Claim 20 above such that the first gas bearing comprises a first plurality of detached segments encircling the vertical shaft in a first circular arrangement and the second gas bearing comprises a second plurality of detached segments encircling the vertical shaft in a second circular arrangement, as taught by Lyon, since doing so would utilize known modular segmented bearing configurations to yield the predictable result of having a simple low cost bearing construction (See Lyon Paragraphs 0051-0052) where portions of each bearing can be serviced separately rather than servicing the entire bearing (See Lyon Fig. 2, by utilizing three individual segments #12 in one bearing, if damage is caused to one segment #12 of the bearing, a single segment #12 can be replaced and the entire bearing does not need to be serviced). Making such a modification would result in the first plurality of detached segments are not coplanar with the second plurality of detached segments (See Kim Annotated Fig. 1, the upper gas bearing and the lower gas bearing are not coplanar, therefore the first plurality of detached segments and the second plurality of detached segments would not be coplanar).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lyon and US Patent 9,970,481 B1 to Van Der Steur et al. (“Van Der Steur”).
Regarding Claim 4, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim does not disclose wherein the cartridge further comprises one or more gaskets configured to allow the one or more gas bearings to maintain a gap between the one or more gas bearings and the vertical shaft in response to movement of the vertical shaft during operation of the rotary atomizer (See Kim Fig. 1, the cartridge #50 is not clearly shown as having any gaskets).
However, Van Der Steur discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary bearings (See Col. 1 Lines 5-10), a rotary atomizer (See Fig. 4) comprising a cartridge (See Fig. 4, the cartridge is made up of #60, #62, #64, and #14) having a common gas supply (#18) configured to provide gas (See Col. 6 Lines 52-60 disclosing air) to one or more gas bearings (#30, which includes porous segments #34), wherein the cartridge comprises one or more gaskets (#50 and #52, along with additional gaskets shown in Fig. 4 and disclosed in Col. 7 Lines 41-43) configured to allow the one or more gas bearings to maintain a gap between the one or more gas bearings and a vertical shaft (#44) in response to movement of the vertical shaft during operation of the rotary atomizer (See Col. 7 Lines 7-43 disclosing that #50 and #52 dampen vibrations of turbine #47 and shaft #44. Thus, the gaskets #50 and #52 along with the unnumbered gaskets in Fig. 4 help maintain a gap between #30 and #44 by preventing vibrations and maintaining a fluid seal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above by providing one or more gaskets on the cartridge of Kim, the one or more gaskets being configured to allow the one or more gas bearings of Kim to maintain a gap between the one or more gas bearings and the vertical shaft of Kim in response to movement of the vertical shaft during operation of the rotary atomizer, since doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Van Der Steur of providing O-rings on a cartridge to yield the predictable result of dampening vibrations while providing a fluid seal (See Van Der Steur Col. 7 Lines 7-43).
Claims 5 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lyon and US PGPUB 2013/0188895 A1 to Devitt (“Devitt”).
Regarding Claim 5, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 5 above, Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more gas bearings each comprise a plurality of gaskets coupled to each of the plurality of segments to independently maintain a gap between the one or more gas bearings and the vertical shaft in response to movement of the vertical shaft during operation of the rotary atomizer (See Fig. 1, there are no gaskets shown on the two segments of the gas bearing #43c).
However, Devitt discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary bearings (See Paragraph 0002), a rotary device (See Figs. 7A-7B) comprising a gas bearing (#711 with #703 attached) that comprises a plurality of gaskets (See two gaskets #702) coupled to a segment of the gas bearing (See Paragraph 0088, the gaskets #702 are coupled to #711 which is equivalent to a single segment) to independently maintain a gap between the gas bearing and a shaft in response to movement of the shaft during operation of the rotary device (See Figs. 7A-7B and See Paragraph 0088. The gaskets #702 couples #711 to shaft #701 and help maintain a gap at #705 while allowing rotation of #701).
Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above such that the gas bearing #43c of Kim as modified by Lyon comprise a plurality of gaskets coupled to each of the two segments of #43c to independently maintain a gap between the gas bearing #43c and the vertical shaft at #21 in response to movement of the vertical shaft during operation of the rotary atomizer, since doing so would provide multiple gaskets on a segment of a gas bearing as taught by Devitt to yield the predictable result of reducing tolerance concerns between the gas bearing and the vertical shaft while helping prevent damage to the gas bearing (See Devitt Paragraph 0088).
Regarding Claim 15, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the gas is nitrogen (See Kim Fig. 1 showing that the gas is compressed air from #100).
However, Devitt further discloses wherein nitrogen is used as a gas with a gas bearing (See Paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above such that the gas is the nitrogen of Devitt instead of compressed air, since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of introducing less oxygen during use of the rotary atomizer, thus reducing fire hazards and improving safety conditions (See Devitt Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 16, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more gas bearings comprise a porous material bonded to a housing that is configured to align the one or more gas bearings with the stator. (See Col. 4 Lines 48-58 disclosing that #43c can have a fine passageway made of carbon or ceramic which are porous to some extent, but a porous material being bonded to a housing is not disclosed.).
However, Devitt discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary bearings (See Paragraph 0002), a rotary device (See Figs. 7A-7B) comprising a gas bearing (See Fig. 7C) that comprises a porous material (#751, which Per Paragraph 0115 can be graphite) bonded to a housing (#752, which per Paragraph 0105 can be stainless steel and See Fig. 7C showing #751 bonded to #752. Paragraph 0009 also discloses the porous material being bonded to the nonporous housing.) that is configured to align the gas bearing with a stator (#712, See Figs. 7A-7B and Paragraph 0088).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice per In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 1 above such that the each segment of the gas bearing #43c of Kim comprise the graphite porous material of Devitt bonded to the stainless steel housing material of Devitt that is configured to align the gas bearing #43c of Kim with stator #11 of Kim, since doing so would utilize known durable materials suitable for a gas bearing in a rotary device to yield the predictable result of evenly distributing gas flow by using a desired porosity to restrict gas flow (See Devitt Paragraph 0009).
As to Claim 17, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon and Devitt as applied to Claim 16 above, Kim as modified by Lyon and Devitt further discloses the rotary atomizer comprising a housing configured to align the one or more gas bearings with the stator (See Kim Fig. 1. When the gas bearing #43c of Kim is modified such that each segment of #43c utilizes the housing and porous material of Devitt, the housing of each segment of #43c will allow #43c to be radially aligned with the stator #11 of Kim).
As to Claim 18, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon and Devitt as applied to Claim 16 above, Devitt further discloses wherein the porous material is graphite (See Devitt Paragraph 0115).
As to Claim 19, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon and Devitt as applied to Claim 16 above, Devitt further discloses wherein the housing is a stainless steel housing without pores (See Devitt Paragraph 0105).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lyon and EP-2826566-A1 to Thomsen (“Thomsen”).
Regarding Claim 7, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 6 above, Kim does not disclose wherein the gap detection system monitors a temperature of one or more gas bearings (See Kim Col. 7 Lines 40 – Col. 8 Lines 15 disclosing that the gap detection system monitors flow rate).
However, Thomsen discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary bearings (See Paragraph 0001), a rotary atomizer comprising a gap detection system configured to monitor temperature associated with a distance between a gas bearing and a vertical shaft (See Paragraphs 0005-0006 disclosing that bearing temperatures are monitored. Temperature is associated with a distance between the bearing and the vertical shaft because contact between the bearing and the vertical shaft results in friction which leads to increased temperatures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 6 above such that the gap detection system also monitors a temperature of the one or more gas bearings, since doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Thomsen to yield the predictable result of detecting bearing wear due to friction (See Thomsen Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 8, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 6 above, Kim does not disclose wherein the gap detection system monitors a resistance level associated with a distance between the one or more gas bearings and the vertical shaft when the vertical shaft rotates during operation of the rotary atomizer.
However, Thomsen discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary bearings (See Paragraph 0001), a rotary atomizer comprising a gap detection system that monitors a resistance level associated with a distance between a gas bearing and a rotating vertical shaft when the vertical shaft rotates during operation of the rotary atomizer (See Paragraphs 0005-0006 disclosing that bearing temperatures are monitored. Temperature is equivalent to a resistance level because elevated temperatures are due to increased friction due to physical resistance between the gas bearing and the vertical shaft, which is associated with a distance between the bearing and the vertical shaft because contact between the bearing and the vertical shaft results in more friction which leads to increased temperatures, while more distance between the bearing and the vertical shaft results in less friction, which leads to decreased temperatures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary atomizer of Kim in view of Lyon as applied to Claim 6 above such that the gap detection system also monitors a temperature of one or more gas bearings of the one or more gas bearings, thus resulting in the gap detection system monitoring a resistance level (temperature) associated with a distance between the one or more gas bearings and the rotating vertical shaft when the vertical shaft rotates during operation of the rotary atomizer, since doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Thomsen to yield the predictable result of detecting bearing wear due to friction (See Thomsen Paragraph 0006).
PNG
media_image1.png
729
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent Claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached on (571)-270-1814. 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights