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
Applicant’s 10-8-2025 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 13-14, 17, 19, and 20 were amended. Claims 2, 8, 10, and 11 were cancelled. New Claims 21-24 were presented. Claim 1, 3-7, 9, 12-24 are pending and examined in this action.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “operation space” in claim 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. “non-operational” space in Claim 21 lacks proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “intake opening,” “exhaust opening,” “ventilation opening,” “first ventilation exit opening,” “second ventilation exit opening,” “first duck exhaust opening,” and “second duct exhaust opening,” used throughout the claims lacks antecedent basis.
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 1, 3, 9, 16-19 and 21 are 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.
In re Claim 1, “an exhaust opening for causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust collection box to be discharged to the space that is outside of the dust collection box and is provided in a rear part of the dust collection box,” is indefinite. As best understood, the exhaust opening is 84e (see applicant’s Fig. 11). As such, as best understood, the exhaust opening is a hole between the tool cover and the dust collection box. The Examiner notes that the claims are directed to the structure of the tool and not the method of use of the tool. The claims were interpreted as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 9, “ wherein the ventilation opening is configured to include a duct for causing the air flow to branch,” is indefinite. it is unclear if this is the first ventilation opening or the second ventilation opening. Additionally, “the branched airflows” and “the other of the branched air flows” are indefinite in view of the term “duct.” It is unclear how a single duct can discharge branched airflows and the other of the branched airflows. As best understood, as lest two ducts would be required. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 3,882,644 to Cusumano.
In re Claim 1, Duncan teaches a work machine (see Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a motor that drives a tip tool for performing cutting forward with respect to a machining material (a motor is in the housing #16);
a fan that rotates due to driving of the motor (see Fig. 1, #38);
a tool cover that has a left wall covering at least a portion of a left side of the tip tool and has a right wall covering at least a portion of a right side of the tip tool (see Fig. 1, #22 which has a left and right wall with the blade between the left and right wall – see also Fig. 3); and
a dust collection box that is connected to the tool cover (see Fig. 1, #40/34),
wherein a space is provided between the left wall and the right wall, and the space include an operation space in which at least a portion of the tip tool operates (see e.g., Fig. 3, showing tip tool #14 operating in an operational space between the left and right walls of #28);
wherein the dust collection box includes an intake opening for causing an air flow generated due to rotating of the fan or an air flow generated due to cutting to flow into the dust collection box and being provided in a front part of the dust collection box (see annotated Fig. 1, below, see also arrows in Fig. 3), and
PNG
media_image1.png
602
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Duncan teaches a single opening and therefore does not teach : an exhaust opening for causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust collection box to be discharged to the space outside of the dust collection box and being provided in a rear part of the dust collection box, and wherein the intake opening and the exhaust opening are apart from each other in a forward-rearward direction.
However, Cusumano teaches that it is known in the art of dust extraction to provide multiple openings surrounding the blade (see Cusumano, Fig. 3, #38). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide multiple openings surrounding the blade, as taught by Cusumano, since it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, adding more apertures would capture the dust at points surrounding the perimeter of the saw blade instead of at a single point, thus capturing more dust.
The Examiner notes that “Exhaust opening” was interpreted as an opening between the tool cover and the dust collection box. Adding additional openings between the tool cover and the dust collection box in Duncan would read on an exhaust opening for causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust collection box to be discharged to the space outside of the dust collection box and being provided in a rear part of the dust collection box, and wherein the intake opening and the exhaust opening are apart from each other in a forward-rearward direction (The Examiner notes that openings surrounding the perimeter of the blade would read on one pending spaced apart from another opening i the forward-rearward direction – additionally all openings allow for the dust to flow back and forth between the dust box and the tool cover).
In re Claim 3, modified Duncan, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the tool cover has a ventilation opening connected to the intake opening (see Duncan, Fig. 1, #32, which is connected to the intake opening on #34 – see annotated Fig. 1, above), and the air flow generated by the fan or the air flow generated by cutting is sent to the intake opening by the ventilation opening (see Duncan, Fig.3 ).
In re Claim 16, modified Duncan, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Duncan, Figs. 1-3, #14), and the tool cover is configured to cover an upper part of the circular saw blade (see Duncan, Figs. 1-3, #14), and wherein a measurement of the dust collection box in an upward-downward direction is set to be smaller than a measurement thereof in a forward-rearward direction (see Duncan, Fig. 3).
In re Claim 17, modified Duncan, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Duncan, Figs. 1-3, #14), wherein the intake opening is positioned in front of a rotation center of the circular saw blade (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and wherein the exhaust opening is positioned behind the rotation center of the circular saw blade (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 3,882,644 to Cusumano, and further in view of US 2010/0325903 to Patel.
In re Claim 18, Duncan does not teach wherein a base for sliding on the machining material is provided below the tool cover, and wherein the dust collection box is attached to one side of the tool cover in a lateral direction.
However, Patel teaches that it is known in the circular bladed cutting structures to provide a base (see Patel, Fig. 1, #160). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a base to Duncan. Doing so allows the user to control the depth of cut (see Patel, Para. 0052).
Claim 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 3,882,644 to Cusumano, and further in view of US 2005/0160608 to Tanimoto.
In re Claim 19, modified Duncan, in re Claim 1, teaches a second ventilation exit opening for causing the air flow including the machining chips to flow out to the intake opening (see Duncan Fig. 1, #32, in view of Cusumano, multiple openings #38 in Fig. 3); wherein at least a part of the first ventilation exit opening is disposed on a side above the second ventilation exit opening or is disposed on a side in front of the second ventilation exit Opening (see Duncan Fig. 1, #32 in view of Cusumano, multiple openings 38, in Fig. 3, wherein the openings #38 are disposed above or below one another or in front or behind one another).
Duncan does not teach wherein the ventilation opening has a first ventilation exit opening for causing the air flow generated by the fan to flow out to the intake opening without passing through the operation space,
However, Tanimoto teaches that it is known to provide the ventilation opening has a first ventilation exit opening for causing the air flow generated by the fan to flow out to the intake opening without passing through the operation space (see Tanimoto Figs. 1-5 illustrating a pathway from the fan of the electric motor the a position “in front of the blade” which is a non-operation space surrounding the guard of the blade and is partitioned by a block portion -see Tanimoto, Fig. 4, #4a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to add the pathway taught by Tanimoto to the device of modified Duncan. Doing so provides fan wind that makes it possible to remove chips accumulated on the mark-off line on the front side in the cutting direction rather than the end part of the base, so that it is made possible to easily check the correlation between the guide part of the guide piece and the mark-off line (see Tanimoto, Fig. 1-5 and Para. 0011).
In re Claim 21, modified Duncan, in re Claim 21, teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Figs. 1-3, of Duncan). However, Duncan does not teach wherein the space has a non-operation space which is partitioned from the operation space by a block portion positioned at an outward side of the circular saw in the radial direction, wherein the air flow is discharged from the exhaust opening toward the non-operation space.
However, Tanimoto teaches that it is known to provide non-operation space surrounding the guard of the blade, which is partitioned from operation by a block portion position at an outward side of the circular saw in the radial direction (see Tanimoto Figs. 1-5 illustrating a pathway from the fan of the electric motor the a position “in front of the blade” which is a non-operation space surrounding the guard of the blade and is partitioned by a block portion -see Tanimoto, Fig. 4, #4a. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to add the pathway taught by Tanimoto to the device of modified Duncan. Doing so provides fan wind that makes it possible to remove chips accumulated on the mark-off line on the front side in the cutting direction rather than the end part of the base, so that it is made possible to easily check the correlation between the guide part of the guide piece and the mark-off line (see Tanimoto, Fig. 1-5 and Para. 0011).
Claims 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 4,675,999 to Ito.
In re Claim 4, Duncan teaches a work machine (see Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a motor that drives a tip tool performing cutting forward with respect to a machining material;
a fan that rotates due to driving of the motor (see Fig. 1, #38);
a tool cover that has a left wall covering at least a portion of the left side of the tip tool and has a right wall covering at least a portion of a right side of the tip tool (see Fig. 1, #22 which has a left and right wall with the blade between the left and right wall – see also Fig. 3); and
a dust collection box that is connected to the tool cover (see Fig. 1, #40/34),
wherein a space is provided between the left wall and the right wall, and the space include an operation space in which at least a portion of the tip tool operates (see e.g., Fig. 3, showing tip tool #14 operating in an operational space between the left and right walls of #28);
wherein the tool cover is provided with a ventilation opening for sending an air flow generated by rotating of the fan and an air flow generated by cutting to the dust collection box (see Figs. 1-3, #32),
wherein the dust collection box has
a case internally having a dust chamber for collecting machining chips generated during cutting (see Fig. 3, showing arrows moving through a “dust chamber”),
an intake opening connected to the ventilation part and causing the air flow to flow into the dust chamber (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and
Duncan does not teach an exhaust opening causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust chamber to be discharged to an inward side of the tool cover, and wherein the work machine further comprises an air passage that is configured to cause the air flow generated by the fan to flow into the dust collection box via the intake part and to be discharged to the inward side of the tool cover from the exhaust part.
However, Ito teaches that it is known in the art of dust collecting to provide an exhaust opening (see Figs. 3/7, #53) causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust chamber to be discharged to an inward side of the tool cover (see Ito, arrows in Fig. 7); wherein the work machine further comprises an air passage that is configured to cause the air flow generated by the fan to flow into the dust collection box via the intake part and to be discharged to the inward side of the tool cover from the exhaust part (see arrows in Fig. 7 of Ito).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the exhaust opening and the air passage, as taught by Ito, to the device of Duncan. Doing so would recirculate light partials of dust back to the cutting member cover (see Ito, Col.5 , ll. 45-52; see also Col. 5, ll. 8-45 and Col. 4, ll. 67 - Col. 5, ll. 7).
In re Claim 12, modified Duncan, in re Claim 4, teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Duncan, Figs. 1-3, #14), and the tool cover is configured to cover an upper part of the circular saw blade, and wherein a measurement of the dust chamber in an upward-downward direction is set to be smaller than a measurement thereof in a forward-rearward direction (see Duncan, Fig. 3).
In re Claim 13, modified Duncan, in re Claim 4, teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Duncan, Figs. 1-3, #14), wherein the intake opening is positioned in front of a rotation center of the circular saw blade (see annotated Fig. 1, above showing the intake opening “above” the rotation axis which during some use is “in front” ), and wherein the exhaust opening is positioned behind the rotation center of the circular saw blade (see Ito, Figs. 3/7, #53, is “below” the rotation axis which during some use is “behind”).
In re Claim 14, modified Duncan, in re Claim 4, does not teach teaches wherein the intake opening is positioned behind a front end of the circular saw blade (see Duncan #32 in Figs. 1-2), and wherein the exhaust opening is positioned in front of a rear end of the circular saw blade (see Duncan, Fig. 1, #46).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to reposition the intake opening and exhaust opening since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Here, there are only two locations each opening can be placed. Either “in front” of the axis of the blade or “behind” the axis of the blade. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to place the intake opening and exhaust opening in either position.
Claims 5-7, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 4,675,999 to Ito, and further in view of US 3,882,644 to Cusumano.
In re Claim 5, modified Duncan, in re Claim 4, teaches wherein the ventilation opening has a first ventilation exit opening (see Duncan, Fig. 1, #32) which is opened toward the dust collection box and is for causing the air flow generated by the fan to flow out to the intake opening
Modified Duncan does not teach the intake opening causing the air flow to flow without passing through an operation space, and a second ventilation exit opening which is opened toward the dust connection box and is causing the air flow generated by cutting to flow out to the intake opening.
However, Cusumano teaches that it is known in the art of dust extraction to provide multiple openings surrounding the blade (see Cusumano, Fig. 3, #38). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide multiple openings surrounding the blade, as taught by Cusumano, since it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, adding more apertures would capture the dust at points surrounding the perimeter of the saw blade instead of at a single point, thus capturing more dust.
Adding multiple #32 openings, in Fig. 1, of Duncan around the blade circumference would read on the intake opening causing the air flow to flow without passing through an operation space, and a second ventilation exit opening which is opened toward the dust connection box and is causing the air flow generated by cutting to flow out to the intake opening.
In re Claim 6, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the intake opening is opened toward the tool cover (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and wherein the first ventilation exit opening (see Duncan, Fig. 1, #32) and the second ventilation exit (see Cusumano, Fig. 3, #38 in view of Duncan Fig. 1, #32) are disposed adjacent to each other (see Cusumano, Fig. 3, #38 in view of Duncan Fig. 1, #32) so that both of the first ventilation exit opening and the second ventilation exit opening face the intake opening (see Cusumano, Fig. 3, #38 in view of Duncan Fig. 1, #32).
In re Claim 7, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the first ventilation exit opening and the second ventilation exit opening are opened toward the right direction (as best understood, Cusumano, Fig. 3, #38 applied to Duncan Fig. 1, are applied in the right direction – the claims were examined as best understood).
In re Claim 9, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the second ventilation exit opening communicates with the inside of the tool cover (see Duncan Fig. 1, #32 in view of Cusumano Fig. 3, #38), wherein the ventilation opening is configured to include a duct for causing the air flow to branch (see Ito, Fig. 7, #44a and arrows illustrating the air “branching”), and wherein the duct has a first duct exhaust opening for causing one of the branched air flows to be discharged to the first ventilation exit opening (see Cusumano Fig. 3, all the #38s in view of Duncan Fig. 1, #32), and a second duct exhaust opening for causing the other of the branched air flows to be discharged to the inside of the tool cover (see Ito, Fig. 7, #50/53), and the other of the branched air flows is discharged to the second ventilation exit part side by the second duct exhaust part (see Duncan Figs. 1-3 in view of Cusumano, Fig. 3, #38).
In re Claim 20, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein at least a part of the first ventilation exit opening is disposed on a side above the second ventilation exit opening or is disposed on a side in front of the second ventilation exit opening (see Duncan Figs 1-3, #32, in view of Cusumano, #Fig. 3, #38 showing some of the openings are above other openings).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 4,675,999 to Ito, and further in view of US 2010/0325903 to Patel.
In re Claim 15, modified Duncan, in re Claim 4, does not teach wherein a base for sliding on the machining material is provided below the tool cover, and wherein the dust collection box is attached to one side of the tool cover in a lateral direction.
However, Patel teaches that it is known in the circular bladed cutting structures to provide a base (see Patel, Fig. 1, #160). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a base to Duncan. Doing so allows the user to control the depth of cut (see Patel, Para. 0052).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 4,675,999 to Ito, and further in view of US 2005/0160608 to Tanimoto.
In re Claim 22, modified Duncan, in re Claim 4, does not teach wherein the motor and the fan are accommodated in a housing, wherein the housing has an intake port, and the air flow generated by the fan flowing into the housing from the intake port, and wherein the air flow generated by the fan flows to the intake opening from the housing.
However, Tanimoto teaches that it is known in the art of power tools to provide the motor and fan accommodated in the housing (see Tanimoto Fig. 5, #7, #2), wherein the housing has an intake port (see Tanimoto, Fig. 5, #9), and the air flow generated by the fan flowing into the housing from the intake port (see Tanimoto, arrows), and wherein the air flow generated by the fan flows to the intake opening from the housing (see Tanimoto, Fig. 5, arrows flowing into blade guard).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fan in the housing of modified Duncan, to “push” air through the devise opposed to “pulling” air through the device. Doing so is the substitution of one known air moving arrangement for another known air moving arrangement to achieve the results of passing air through the blade housing/guard. Doing so eliminates the need for a fan in the guard and saves costs.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 4,675,999 to Ito.
In re Claim 23, Duncan teaches a work machine (see Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a motor that drives a tip tool for performing cutting forward with respect to a machining material (a motor is in the housing #16);
a fan that rotates due to driving of the motor (see Fig. 1, #38);
a tool cover that has a left wall covering at least a portion of a left side of the tip tool and has right wall coverings at least a portion of a right side of the tip tool (see Fig. 1, #22 which has a left and right wall with the blade between the left and right wall – see also Fig. 3); and
a dust collection box that is connected to a right side of the tool cover (see Fig. 1, #40/34),
wherein a space is provided between the left wall and the right wall, and the space includes an operation space in which at least a portion of the tip tool operates (see e.g., Fig. 3, showing tip tool #14 operating in an operational space between the left and right walls of #28),
wherein the dust collection box includes an intake opening which is opened toward the left direction and is causing an air flow generated due to rotating of the fan or an air flow generated due to cutting to flow into the dust collection box (see annotated Fig. 1, below, see also arrows in Fig. 3), and
wherein the tool cover is provided with a ventilation opening for sending the air flow to the dust collection box from the tool cover (see Duncan, Fig. 1, #32).
Duncan teaches a single opening and therefore does not teach : an exhaust opening which is opened toward the left direction and is causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust collection box to be discharged to the space, and wherein the air flow flows into the dust collection box from the tool cover via the intake opening is returned to the tool cover via the exhaust opening.
However, Ito teaches that it is known in the art of dust collecting to provide an exhaust opening (see Figs. 3/7, #53) which is opened toward the left direction and is causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust collection box to be discharged to the space (see Ito, arrows in Fig. 7).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the exhaust opening and the air passage, as taught by Ito, to the device of Duncan. Doing so would recirculate light partials of dust back to the cutting member cover (see Ito, Col.5 , ll. 45-52; see also Col. 5, ll. 8-45 and Col. 4, ll. 67 - Col. 5, ll. 7).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 4,675,999 to Ito, and further in view of US 2005/0160608 to Tanimoto.
In re Claim 24, modified Duncan, in re Claim 23, teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Figs. 1-3, of Duncan). However, modified Duncan does not teach wherein the space has a non-operation space which is partitioned from the operation space by a block portion positioned at an outward side of the circular saw in the radial direction, wherein the air flow is discharged from the exhaust opening toward the non-operation space.
However, Tanimoto teaches that it is known to provide non-operation space surrounding the guard of the blade, which is partitioned from operation by a block portion position at an outward side of the circular saw in the radial direction (see Tanimoto Figs. 1-5 illustrating a pathway from the fan of the electric motor the a position “in front of the blade” which is a non-operation space surrounding the guard of the blade and is partitioned by a block portion -see Tanimoto, Fig. 4, #4a. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to add the pathway taught by Tanimoto to the device of modified Duncan. Doing so provides fan wind that makes it possible to remove chips accumulated on the mark-off line on the front side in the cutting direction rather than the end part of the base, so that it is made possible to easily check the correlation between the guide part of the guide piece and the mark-off line (see Tanimoto, Fig. 1-5 and Para. 0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Duncan does not teach “air which has flowed into the dust collection box to be discharged to the space. As best understood, this requires an opening. As illustrated above, US 3,882,644 to Cusumano teaches having multiple openings (see Fig. 3, #38) which would allow the air flow to move into the “space.”
Applicant argues that Duncan does not teach “exhaust opening causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust chamber to be discharged to the space” and “an air passage that is configured to cause the air flow generated by the fan to flow into the dust collection box via the intake opening.” The Examiner agrees but notes that US 4,675,999 to Ito (see Figs. 3/7, #54) teaches this limitation – See discussion above in re Claim 4.
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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights