DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 Information Disclosure Statement, filed 22 September 2025 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Claims 12 and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-19 are pending.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-19 are rejected, grounds follow.
THIS OFFICE ACTION IS FINAL, see additional information at the conclusion of this action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 7, filed 08 July 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of Claim 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of Claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 7 et seq, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Bischof et al., (DE 10 2016 22 287) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that none of the references applied in the non-final rejection of 11 April 2025 appear to teach the amended limitations regarding “at least two vibration sensors… mounted on a tool-carrying spindle and … a workpiece carrying spindle” as required by the independent claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made, further in view of Frutiger, US Pg-Pub 2019/0308297. Please see below for detailed rejection.
Examiner notes for clarity of the record that the amendments necessitated certain 35 USC 112(b) rejections due to antecedent basis being canceled or altered by the amendment. Please see below for detailed rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 9, 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8, 9, and 16 recite the limitations:
"the at least one vibration sensor" in Claim 8 line 2.
“the vibration sensor” in Claim 9 line 3.
“the at least one vibration sensor” in Claim 16 lines 1-2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. (in particular because claim 1 recites “at least two vibration sensors” it is not clear to which sensor of the at least two these limitations refer, or if they are meant to refer to each sensor of the at least two vibration sensors, severally.)
Regarding Claim 15, this claim inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischof et al., German Patent Application Publication DE 10 2016 22 287 (Citations to machine translation courtesy Espacenet.) in view of Frutiger, US Pg-Pub 2019/0308297.
Regarding Claim 1, Bischof teaches:
A method for producing a plurality of transmission components of a transmission component type, (e.g. gears, see [0002] “Gear Manufacturing” and [0007] “if a gear is to be used in a transmission of a passenger car”) the method comprising the steps of: manufacturing the transmission components (workpiece 2) in a manufacturing machine, ([0014] “Fig. 1 shows a highly schematic view of a machine tool 1 with a workpiece 2 to be machined on the machine tool 1.”)
mounting […a] vibration sensor (sound sensor 4) on the manufacturing machine, ([0017] “vibrations of the machine tool 1 are determined during machining of the workpiece 2 with tool 3. This is done… with the aid of a sound sensor 4, preferably designed as a structure-borne sound sensor…”)
detecting vibrations (i.e. sound waves on the machine) during manufacture of the transmission components in the manufacturing machine by the […] vibration sensor, ([0017] “…structure-borne sound sensor, which detects sound waves on the machine tool 1 during the machining of the workpiece 2 with the tool 3 of the machine tool 1.”)
evaluating the detected vibrations in each case by a computer unit, ([0018] “The sound waves detected by the sound sensor 4 are provided as an input variable to a control unit 5, which evaluates the sound waves”)
classifying the transmission components in each case by the computer unit into one of at least two classes of the transmission component type depending on […] the detected and evaluated vibrations ([0019] “if this is the case, i.e. if at least one oscillation frequency is an integer multiple or an approximately integer multiple of a first movement frequency of the workpiece 2… the machining of workpiece 2 is aborted” i.e. two classes: suitable and scrap. See also [0024] “the subsequent use of the workpiece takes into account tolerances in tool machining that are permissible for subsequent use” [0025] “for example, if a workpiece is used in a gearbox of a passenger car, a lower machining tolerance is permissible for later use [than] in a commercial vehicle.” i.e. two classes: passenger and commercial.)
Bischof differs from the claimed invention in that:
Bischof articulates one vibration sensor, not at least two vibration sensors
Bischof does not appear to clearly articulate wherein the at least two vibration sensors are arranged on a plurality of spindles of the manufacturing machine;
Bischof does not appear to clearly articulate wherein a first vibration sensor of the at least two sensors is mounted on a tool-carrying spindle and a second vibration sensor of the at least two sensors is mounted on a workpiece-carrying spindle.
However, Frutiger teaches a grinding machine (see fig. 1 and [0005]) which arranges a first vibration sensor on a tool-carrying spindle ([0101] “An acceleration or structure-borne sound sensor 36 is represented schematically on the spindle head 18.” ) and a second vibration sensor on a workpiece-carrying spindle ([0101] “ A corresponding structure-borne sound sensor 36 may also be arranged, for instance additionally, on the workpiece carrier 42 or on the workpiece carrier 42′.” ) and analyzes the sensor data from both spindles together ([0108] “[0108] When the workpiece 24 is being machined, for instance ground or polished, by the tool 20, the signals that can be sensed by the structure-borne sound sensors 36, i.e. the structure-borne sound of the machine tool 10, change. The control device 40 in this case can record a so-called actual spectrum 54, i.e. can read-out the signals of the structure-borne sound sensors 36 and transform them into the frequency domain. The reference spectrum 50 can then be subtracted from the thus obtained actual spectrum 54, in order to obtain a differential spectrum 56.”) to evaluate the resulting quality of the production process ([0018] It is a further object of the present disclosure to present a machine tool having a monitoring arrangement that enables instant or nearly instant reaction to potentially defective events.)
Frutiger and Bischof are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of vibration monitoring for manufacturing processes; and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each operates a manufacturing tool to perform a manufacturing procedure on a workpiece; each monitors the manufacturing procedure with vibration sensors.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Bischof to attach vibrational sensors to the workpiece holding spindle and the tool carrying spindle of Bischof, as suggested by Frutiger.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine a position or region of a vibrational structure-borne sound source, as suggested by Frutiger (see e.g. [0055] “It is conceivable to arrange a plurality of microphones in a distributed manner at the machine tool, in order to enable positions or regions to be determined in relation to sound sources, or vibration sources, by means of a direction characteristic.” [0098] “Clearly, it is also conceivable to arrange a plurality of these sensors 36 on the machine tool 10, for instance close to the workpiece 24 to be machined.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof further teaches:
wherein, depending on the classification into a class of the transmission component type, installing the transmission components in a predetermined transmission device type for the class. ([0020] “the decision [is made] as a function of a later use of the workpiece 2…” [0024] “the subsequent use of the workpiece takes into account tolerances in tool machining that are permissible for subsequent use” [0025] “for example, if a workpiece is used in a gearbox of a passenger car, a lower machining tolerance is permissible for later use [than] in a commercial vehicle.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof further teaches:
wherein, depending on the evaluation of the detected vibrations, performing an intervention in the controller of the manufacturing machine by the computer unit. ([0019] “if at least one oscillation frequency is an integer multiple or an approximately integer multiple of a first movement frequency of the workpiece 2, the respective first movement frequency of the workpiece 2 is changed or, alternatively, the machining of the workpiece 2 is aborted. The control unit 5 influences the operation of the machine tool 1 accordingly via an output variable.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof further teaches:
wherein the classification of the transmission components by the computer unit in each case into one of at least two classes of the transmission component type depending on the detected vibrations is carried out depending on a vibration behavior at a predetermined vibration frequency ([0019] “oscillation frequency is an integer multiple or an approximately integer multiple of a first movement frequency” ) or depending on a vibration behavior at a plurality of predetermined vibration frequencies. ([nb.] integer multiples, e.g. 2x, 3x, 4x, etc. would be a plurality of predetermined frequencies.)
Regarding Claim 6, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Frutiger further teaches:
wherein the detected vibrations and/or an evaluation of the detected vibrations by the computer unit are displayed on a display. ([0071] “the machine tool comprises an output unit, for example a monitor screen, a status indicator, e.g. in the manner of a set of traffic lights, a loudspeaker or a printer, which is configured to receive from the control device and to output a value derived from the time behavior of the power of the differential spectrum.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Bischof to include a monitor for displaying output information of the vibrational data, as suggested by Frutiger.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate in-process monitoring by an unskilled worker/operator, and record when the machine is operated outside of the admissible range, as suggested by Frutiger ([0071] “Simple in-process monitoring by a worker/operator is thereby possible, even when the worker is considerably unskilled. Operation of the machine tool outside of the admissible range can easily be identified and also recorded, if necessary.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof further teaches:
the detected vibrations are stored in the form of a vibration spectrum ([0019] “a frequency-dependent amplitude spectrum of the sound waves and thus of the vibrations of the machine tool 1”) for each component, ([0017] “sound sensor 4, preferably designed as a structure-borne sound sensor, which detects sound waves on the machine tool 1 during the machining of the workpiece 2”) wherein a condition of the manufacturing machine (i.e. the vibration condition of the machine tool 1 during machine) is determined by a control routine or a user on the basis of the stored vibration spectra. ([0019] “control unit 5, which evaluates the sound waves, in particular by determining a frequency-dependent amplitude spectrum of the sound waves and thus of the vibrations of the machine tool 1 from the sound waves, such a frequency-dependent amplitude spectrum containing frequencies of the vibrations and the associated amplitudes of the vibrations”)
Regarding Claim 11, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 5,
Bischof further teaches:
wherein the classification is carried out depending on acceleration amplitude values ([0019] “a frequency-dependent amplitude spectrum”) at a predetermined vibration frequency or at a plurality of predetermined vibration frequencies. ([0019] “oscillation frequency is an integer multiple or an approximately integer multiple of a first movement frequency” )
Regarding Claim 17, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof further teaches:
wherein the at least two classes comprises different quality classes including an in order class (IO) and a not in order class (NiO). ([0019] “if this is the case, i.e. if at least one oscillation frequency is an integer multiple or an approximately integer multiple of a first movement frequency of the workpiece 2… the machining of workpiece 2 is aborted” i.e. two classes: suitable and scrap.)
Regarding Claim 18, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof further teaches:
further comprising, on the basis of measured vibrations of the component being manufactured, ([0019] “the vibrations are evaluated… if this is the case…”) increasing parameters of the manufacturing process, ([0019] “…i.e., if at least one oscillation frequency is an integer multiple… the respective first movement frequency of the workpiece 2 is changed”)
wherein the parameters include at least one of rotation speed ([0015] “the workpiece 2 to be machined is driven with two first movement frequencies, namely in the direction of arrow 7 with a first rotational frequency and in the direction of arrow 8 with a first stroke frequency.”) or feed rate, such that quality or speed of the manufacturing process is adapted dynamically. ([0027] “when a change in the first speed frequency is made as a result of the vibration analysis of the machine tool 1 described above, it is changed in such a way that the ratio between the first speed frequency and the second speed frequency is still neither an integer nor approximately an integer.” [0033] “it is possible to detect the machining quality already during the machining of a workpiece 2 on the machine tool 1 and either to improve the machining quality by changing at least a first movement frequency of the workpiece 2”)
Regarding Claim 19, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof further teaches:
wherein the tool-carrying spindle is a grinding spindle or a spindle of a dressing wheel. (See Claim 3 “Grinding tool”)
(In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Frutiger also teaches a grinding spindle, see Frutiger [0089]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischof in view Frutiger, further in view of Adams et al., US Pg-Pub 2023/0053666.
Regarding Claim 2, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof differs from the claimed invention in that:
Bischof does not clearly articulate depending on the classification into a class of the transmission component type, positioning the transmission components at a predetermined storage location for the class.
However, Adams teaches a manufacturing system (see fig. 1) including an inspection ( [0037] The controller 139 may include a Quality Management (QM) system module 139a to identify, for example, from the carriage system 125, the identity of the built parts P1, P2, P3, P4 entering the inspection flow.) which also classifies parts ([0063] “the QC part handling system 140 may assess the results of the comparison and determine whether the built parts meet the required quality standards.”) and positions the parts at predetermined storage locations (see fig. 5, QC Passed Station 140p and Waste Station 140w) based on that classification ([0063] “If so, the QC part handling system 140 may direct the carriage system 125 to carry the part the QC pass station 140p for provision for its intended use. On the other hand, if the comparison does not satisfy the required quality standards, such that a defect in the built part is identified, the QC part handling system 140 may decide to discard the built part to waste station 140w.”)
Adams is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the same problem confronted by applicant of how to keep separate parts with different classifications in a manufacturing process.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Bischof to include directing the gears into different storage locations based on their resultant classification, as suggested by Adams.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to segregate parts into different sales categories based on the results of an inspection and control quality of the sold parts, as suggested by Adams ([0016] “if the part measurements do not satisfy the required quality standards, the QC part handling 140 may decide to discard the built part as waste or move it in a different sales category. By performing sufficient metrology of the built parts sequentially in the inspection flow to assess whether or not the required quality standards for the different parts are satisfied on a part-by-part basis, the quality of the built parts can be adequately controlled.”)
Claim(s) 7, 8, 13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischof in view Frutiger, further in view of Prigent, US 5,668,741.
Regarding Claim 7, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof differs from the claimed invention in that:
Bischof does not clearly articulate: mounting further sensors on the manufacturing machine, wherein the further sensors comprise at least one of pressure, temperature, or flow rate sensors,
Bischof does not clearly articulate: detecting properties by the further sensors during manufacture of the transmission components in the manufacturing machine,
Bischof does not clearly articulate: evaluating the properties detected by the further sensors in each case by the computer unit,
Accordingly, Bischof does not clearly articulate: classifying the transmission components in each case by the computer unit into one of the at least two classes of the transmission component type depending on all of the detected and evaluated properties of the further sensors.
(that is, Bischof in view of Frutiger does not teach limitations relating to additional sensors beyond sound/vibration.)
However, Prigent teaches a manufacturing system which detects properties of sensors during manufacture of work pieces in the manufacturing machine (Col. 5 line 12 “This equipment monitors a complex manufacturing process continuously. The manufacturing process is carried out by a machine in order to transform a raw material into a final product”) to monitor the process and the work product (Col. 5 line 13 “In order to be able to monitor the manufacturing process, sensors are used which monitor the machine and the product at any stage in its processing.”) which mounts pressure, temperature, flow rate, and vibration sensors (Col. 5, line 16 “The disposition and nature of each of the sensors are chosen as to be able to monitor a fundamental element in the manufacturing process. Thus temperature, pressure, … vibration… flow rate… sensors may be used, together with any other type of sensor which may be judged useful for monitoring one of the fundamental elements of the manufacturing process.”) including evaluating the properties detected by the further sensors by a computer unit (Col. 5, line 45 “This makes it possible in particular to analyze the data received and to correlate the data coming from the various sensors. The monitor 12b may consist of a microcomputer of the PC 486 type or similar. Advantageously, this monitor makes it possible to feed a data base 14 so as to collect data relating to the manufacturing process and to set up a history for the purpose of subsequent use if necessary to study slow or cyclic deviations as a function of external parameters.”)
Prigent also teaches that the evaluation of vibration data may depend upon a measured temperature (Col. 9, line 31 “the transformation circuit 22 comprises other elements which make it possible to take account of the parameters influencing the measurement. In fact a vibration sensor may have at the output, for the same vibration, a first amplitude when it functions at a first temperature and a second, different amplitude when it functions at a second temperature. Each influencing parameter is measured by a sensor and its signal is sent to the circuit 22.”)
Prigent and Bischof are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of vibration monitoring for manufacturing processes; and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each operates a manufacturing tool to perform a manufacturing procedure on a workpiece; each monitors the manufacturing procedure with vibration sensors.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Bischof to include mounting a further at least temperature sensor; detecting and evaluating the properties of the further temperature sensor and using the detected and evaluated temperature properties to adjust the evaluation of the detected vibrational data as suggested by Prigent, in the carrying out of the classification of the transmission parts as taught by Bischof.
One of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to account for measurement variability due to external temperature, as suggested by Prigent. (Col. 9, line 33 “In fact a vibration sensor may have at the output, for the same vibration, a first amplitude when it functions at a first temperature and a second, different amplitude when it functions at a second temperature.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Bischof in view of Frutiger, further in view of Prigent teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 7,
Frutiger further teaches:
wherein the at least one vibration sensor and/or at least one further sensor are mounted in each case on a holder ([0101] “In the present case the tool 20 comprises a tool casing 46, this tool casing 46 being arranged on the spindle head 18 and at least partly surrounding the tool 20. An acceleration or structure-borne sound sensor 36 is represented schematically on the spindle head 18. A corresponding structure-borne sound sensor 36 may also be arranged, for instance additionally, on the workpiece carrier 42 or on the workpiece carrier 42′.”)
Regarding Claim 13, Bischof in view of Frutiger, further in view of Prigent teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 7,
Prigent further teaches:
wherein classification is carried out depending on combined sensor results of at least one vibration sensor and at least one further sensor. (Col. 9, line 33 “In fact a vibration sensor may have at the output, for the same vibration, a first amplitude when it functions at a first temperature and a second, different amplitude when it functions at a second temperature. Each influencing parameter is measured by a sensor and its signal is sent to the circuit 22.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Bischof in view of Frutiger, further in view of Prigent teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 8,
Frutiger further teaches:
wherein the holder is a spindle or shaft of the manufacturing machine. ([0101] “In the present case the tool 20 comprises a tool casing 46, this tool casing 46 being arranged on the spindle head 18 and at least partly surrounding the tool 20. An acceleration or structure-borne sound sensor 36 is represented schematically on the spindle head 18. A corresponding structure-borne sound sensor 36 may also be arranged, for instance additionally, on the workpiece carrier 42 or on the workpiece carrier 42′.”)
Regarding Claim 16, Bischof in view of Frutiger, further in view of Prigent teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 8,
Frutiger further teaches:
wherein the at least one vibration sensor and/or the further sensors are arranged on different holders ([0101] “In the present case the tool 20 comprises a tool casing 46, this tool casing 46 being arranged on the spindle head 18 and at least partly surrounding the tool 20. An acceleration or structure-borne sound sensor 36 is represented schematically on the spindle head 18. A corresponding structure-borne sound sensor 36 may also be arranged, for instance additionally, on the workpiece carrier 42 or on the workpiece carrier 42′.”)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischof in view of Frutiger, further in view of Hofer et al., US Pg-Pub 2011/0041611.
Regarding Claim 9, Bischof in view of Frutiger teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Bischof differs from the claimed invention in that:
Bischof does not clearly articulate: an electronic unit is provided between the vibration sensor and the computer unit, wherein at least an A/D conversion of signals of the vibration sensor is carried out by the electronic unit
However, Hofer teaches an electronic unit (fig. 1, A/D converter 6) provided between a vibration sensor (fig. 1, acoustic sensor 2) and a computer unit (fig. 1, Calculation unit 8) which carries out A/D conversion of signals of the vibration sensor ([0034] “the oscillation signal is converted into an electrical signal and output to an analogue-digital converter 6 by way of a line 5. The analogue-digital converter 6 converts the analogue electrical signal into a digital signal with a scanning frequency.” )
Hofer is analogous art because it is reasonable pertinent to the problem confronted by applicant of how to provide a useable signal from an acoustic-type vibration sensor to a computer for further analysis; and because it is representative of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art regarding the application of analog-to-digital signal converters.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; 2) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, at least because Hofer teaches that an A/D converter may be inserted between an acoustic vibration sensor and a computer system to convert an analog signal to a digital signal; and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable; at least because Hofer explicitly teaches the use of an A/D converter for converting the signal output of an acoustic vibration sensor to digital input for a computer (Hofer [0034]) and therefore the results of the combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2143.I.A)
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 JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights