Detailed Action
The communications received 10/30/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1 and 3--12 are pending. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-9 are amended.
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 .
Examiner’s Notes
In claim 2 and dependent claims, there are the limitations “a great light amount value” and “a small light amount value” which appears to correspond to “a local maximum light amount value” and “a local minimum light amount value”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments filed 10-30/2025 have successfully overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 112.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A lighting device (a device for lighting) in claim 1 which although not structurally defined in the specification, is a term of the art.
An imaging device (a device for imaging) in claims 1, and 8-9 which is tied to a camera or its functional equivalent in the specification [pg. 20 par. 0039-40].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al (US 2019/0025227 cited by the Applicant in the IDS filed 03/24/2023) hereinafter YAM.
As for claim 1, YAM teaches a cardboard sheet defect detection device that detects a defect in a corrugated core bonded to a liner [Title; Abstract; Fig. 2 #40], the device comprising:
a lighting device that lights the core (radiating device) [Fig. 2 #45; 0109];
an imaging device [Fig. 2 #46; 0109] that captures an image of a lighting section of the light in the core;
a processor (control device) [Fig. 2 #47; 0109; 0112] that defines a change degree of a light amount value along a conveyance direction of a cardboard sheet, based on a captured image captured by the imaging device (by detecting lengths of light and dark portions and averaging them) [0132; 0.136];
and determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet (assessing device module used to compare the light section length) that (by determining quality) by comparing the change degree of the light amount value along a conveyance direction with a first preset determination value [Fig. 2 #52; 0109; 0112; 0132; 0.136],
the first preset determination value has at least one of a maximum value determination value and a minimum value determination value, where the light amount value is lower than the maximum value determination value (an upper bound and lower bounds of a range used to determine whether the cardboard is defective) [0123; 0.135-138],
define a light amount value when an increasing light amount value decreases, as a great light amount value (this could be where the light amount value has more bands than shadow bands and transitions to the opposite), defines a light amount value when a decreasing light amount value increases (this could be where the light amount value has less bands than shadow bands and transitions to the opposite) [0136], as a small light amount value,
and then compare the great light amount value with the maximum value determination value and the small light amount value with the minimum value determination value (by comparing the count of each as an average to a predetermined value range) [0136-138],
and determining that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet when the great light amount fails to meet a condition of the maximum value determination value or when the small light amount value fails to meet a condition of the minimum value determination value (by being outside of the range) [0136-138],
As for claim 3, YAM teaches claim 2 and the first preset determination value is a first determination region (a range) that includes an upper and lower limit, and
The processor is further configured to determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet when the high light intensity value fails to satisfy the first determination region of the maximum value, or when the small light intensity value fails to satisfy the condition of the first determination region of the minimum value determination value (by being outside of the range) [0136-138].
As for claim 4, YAM teaches claim 3 and wherein as a reference value, the processor is configured to define a maximum light amount value having a largest light amount in the plurality of great light amount values in a preset predetermined length (understood to be when the averages are being taken of the light values via predetermined numbers of lengths) [0136-138], sets a lower limit value of the first determination region by subtracting a margin from the reference value, and sets an upper limit value of the first determination region by adding a margin to the reference value (as the acceptable range is generated based on adding and subtracting a margin) [0026].
As for claim 5, YAM teaches claim 3 wherein as a reference value, the processor is configured to define a minimum light amount value having a smallest light amount in a plurality of the small light amount values in a preset predetermined length (understood to be when the averages are being taken of the dark values via predetermined numbers of lengths) [0136-138], sets a lower limit value of the first determination region by subtracting a margin from the reference value, and sets an upper limit value of the first determination region by adding a margin to the reference value (as the acceptable range is generated based on adding and subtracting a value) [0026].
As for claim 8, YAM teaches claim 1 and wherein the processor is configured to:
define a bright section and a dark section along the conveyance direction of the cardboard sheet, based on the captured image captured by the imaging device, and to determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet by comparing at least one of a length of the bright section and a length of the dark section with a second preset determination value [0123; 0136-138], and determines that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet, when at least one of a determination result obtained by comparing with the first preset determination value and the second preset determination value [0123; 0136-138].
As for claim 9, YAM teaches claim 1 and wherein the processor is configured to define a bright section and a dark section along the conveyance direction of the cardboard sheet, based on the captured image captured by the imaging device (by defining bright and dark sections and their lengths and averaging them to obtain moving average values) [0136-138], and to determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet by comparing at least one of a length of the bright section and a length of the dark section with a second preset determination value, and perform determination processing by comparing with the second preset determination value, when the determination result obtained by comparing with the first preset determination value is a quality sheet [0136-138].
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.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAM as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bailey et al (US 5,885,340) hereinafter BAI.
As for claim 6, YAM teaches claim 1 and that differences between reference points and maximum and minimum ranges are taken into account to determine whether the cardboard sheet is of sufficient quality [0136-138] however, YAM does not teach that this different in lighting is used to determine wetting.
BAI teaches that in the production of paper that one manner of detecting defects and correcting the application of a coating is by comparing a maximum positive gradient of light against a greatest negative gradient to determine a wetting and subsequent drying of a coating [Abstract; col. 7 l. 35-52]. BAI teaches that by employing its coating and correction that high quality images can be imparted onto the cardboard sheet and the smoothness of the sheet can be improved in a manner that is both cost effective and in an improved quality of the application layer [col. 1 l. 13-col. 2 l. 9].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the coater and coating correction based on light intensity changes of BAI to the method of YAM in order to provide for printing image improvements and smoothness improvements to the cardboard in a manner that is cost effective and of high quality. As both YAM and BAI pertain to the production of paper/cardboard webs they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAM/BAI as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Ritoniemi et al (US 2019/0049381) hereinafter RIT.
As for claim 7, YAM/BAI teaches claim 6 and YAM further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet caused by deformations [0146-147], wherein at least one of the difference between the great light amount value and the maximum value determination value and the difference between the small light amount value and the minimum value determination value is smaller than the preset determination difference [0136-138]. However YAM/BAI do not teach using light to determine/detect wrinkles as deformations.
RIT teaches that a defect in a paper web (wood fiber web) which can be determined via lighting and imaging is a wrinkle defect [Abstract; 0008].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used light imaging to detect a wrinkle defect in the cardboard of YAM/BAI as taught by RIT in order to detect and address more defects. As the manner of detecting using the light system of YAM/BAI depends on the comparison of great/small light amount values and maximum/minimum value determination values, it is understood that the defects would be determined in a similar manner especially because this manner of detection has a lower false positive rate [0025-27]. As both YAM/BAI and RIT pertain to the production of paper/cardboard webs they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 8-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,002,686 hereinafter ‘686. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct for the reasons below.
As for claim 1, ‘686 teaches a cardboard sheet defect detection device that detects a defect in a corrugated core bonded to a liner [claim 1], the device comprising:
a lighting device that lights the core (radiating device) [claim 1];
an imaging device that captures an image of a lighting section of the light in the core;
a processor (image processing device with a memory) that defines a change degree of a light amount value along a conveyance direction of a cardboard sheet, based on a captured image captured by the imaging device (by detecting lengths of light and dark portions and averaging them) [claims 1, 8-16];
and determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet (assessing device module used to compare the light section length) that (by determining quality) by comparing the change degree of the light amount value along a conveyance direction with a first preset determination value [claims 1, 8-16],
the first preset determination value has at least one of a maximum value determination value and a minimum value determination value, where the light amount value is lower than the maximum value determination value (an upper bound and lower bounds of a range used to determine whether the cardboard is defective) [claims 1, 8-16],
define a light amount value when an increasing light amount value decreases, as a great light amount value (this could be where the light amount value has more bands than shadow bands and transitions to the opposite), defines a light amount value when a decreasing light amount value increases (this could be where the light amount value has less bands than shadow bands and transitions to the opposite) ) [claims 1, 8-16], as a small light amount value,
and then compare the great light amount value with the maximum value determination value and the small light amount value with the minimum value determination value (by comparing the count of each as an average to a predetermined value range) [claims 1, 8-16],
and determining that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet when the great light amount fails to meet a condition of the maximum value determination value or when the small light amount value fails to meet a condition of the minimum value determination value (by being outside of the range) [claims 1, 8-16].
As for claim 3, ‘686 teaches claim 2 and the first preset determination value is a first determination region (a range) that includes an upper and lower limit, and
The processor is further configured to determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet when the high light intensity value fails to satisfy the first determination region of the maximum value, or when the small light intensity value fails to satisfy the condition of the first determination region of the minimum value determination value (by being outside of the range) [claims 1, 8-16].
As for claim 4, ‘686 teaches claim 3 and wherein as a reference value, the processor is configured to define a maximum light amount value having a largest light amount in the plurality of great light amount values in a preset predetermined length (understood to be when the averages are being taken of the light values via predetermined numbers of lengths) [claims 1, 8-16], sets a lower limit value of the first determination region by subtracting a margin from the reference value, and sets an upper limit value of the first determination region by adding a margin to the reference value (as the acceptable range is generated based on adding and subtracting a margin) [claims 1, 8-16].
As for claim 5, ‘686 teaches claim 3 wherein as a reference value, the processor is configured to define a minimum light amount value having a smallest light amount in a plurality of the small light amount values in a preset predetermined length (understood to be when the averages are being taken of the dark values via predetermined numbers of lengths) [claims 1, 8-16], sets a lower limit value of the first determination region by subtracting a margin from the reference value, and sets an upper limit value of the first determination region by adding a margin to the reference value (as the acceptable range is generated based on adding and subtracting a value) [claims 1, 8-16].
As for claim 8, ‘686 teaches claim 1 and wherein the processor is configured to:
define a bright section and a dark section along the conveyance direction of the cardboard sheet, based on the captured image captured by the imaging device, and to determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet by comparing at least one of a length of the bright section and a length of the dark section with a second preset determination value [claims 1, 8-16], and determines that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet, when at least one of a determination result obtained by comparing with the first preset determination value and the second preset determination value [claims 1, 8-16].
As for claim 9, ‘686 teaches claim 1 and wherein the processor is configured to define a bright section and a dark section along the conveyance direction of the cardboard sheet, based on the captured image captured by the imaging device (by defining bright and dark sections and their lengths and averaging them to obtain moving average values) [claims 1, 8-16], and to determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet by comparing at least one of a length of the bright section and a length of the dark section with a second preset determination value, and perform determination processing by comparing with the second preset determination value, when the determination result obtained by comparing with the first preset determination value is a quality sheet [claims 1, 8-16].
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 8-16 of ‘686 in view of BAI.
As for claim 6, ‘686 teaches claim 1 and that differences between reference points and maximum and minimum ranges are taken into account to determine whether the cardboard sheet is of sufficient quality [claims 1 and 8-16] however, ‘686 does not teach that this different in lighting is used to determine wetting.
BAI teaches that in the production of paper that one manner of detecting defects and correcting the application of a coating is by comparing a maximum positive gradient of light against a greatest negative gradient to determine a wetting and subsequent drying of a coating [Abstract; col. 7 l. 35-52]. BAI teaches that by employing its coating and correction that high quality images can be imparted onto the cardboard sheet and the smoothness of the sheet can be improved in a manner that is both cost effective and in an improved quality of the application layer [col. 1 l. 13-col. 2 l. 9].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the coater and coating correction based on light intensity changes of BAI to the method of ‘686 in order to provide for printing image improvements and smoothness improvements to the cardboard in a manner that is cost effective and of high quality. As both ‘686 and BAI pertain to the production of paper/cardboard webs they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 8-16 of ‘686 and BAI as applied to claim 6 in further view of RIT and YAM.
As for claim 7, ‘686/BAI teaches claim 6 and ‘686 further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine that the cardboard sheet is a defective sheet caused by deformations [claims 1, 8-16], wherein at least one of the difference between the great light amount value and the maximum value determination value and the difference between the small light amount value and the minimum value determination value is smaller than the preset determination difference [claims 1, 8-16]. However ‘686/BAI do not teach using light to determine/detect wrinkles as deformations.
RIT teaches that a defect in a paper web (wood fiber web) which can be determined via lighting and imaging is a wrinkle defect [Abstract; 0008].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used light imaging to detect a wrinkle defect in the cardboard of ‘686/BAI as taught by RIT in order to detect and address more defects. As the manner of detecting using the light system of ‘686/BAI depends on the comparison of great/small light amount values and maximum/minimum value determination values, it is understood that the defects would be determined in a similar manner especially because in accordance with YAM this manner of detection has a lower false positive rate [YAM: Abstract; 0025-27’ 0136-138]. As both ‘686/BAI and RIT and YAM pertain to the production of paper/cardboard webs they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the introduced limitations overcome YAM. However the Examiner notes that as currently claimed, the averaging of light profiles can constitute a light intensity measurement and therefore along with its controlling device, the limitations are met as outlined in the rejections 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 Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748