DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 24 December 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-10 have been cancelled, and claims 11-27 have been added. Thus, claims 11-27 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality:
Line 2: “…delimited on by a wall part…” should read “…delimited by a wall part…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As set forth in MPEP § 2163.05(II), The introduction of claim changes which involve narrowing the claims by introducing elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure is a violation of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Whenever the issue arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, inventor was in possession of the invention as now claimed [MPEP § 2163.02].
Claim 11 recites “the bottom of the gap extends only at one angle in the wedge-shaped cross-section”, however, the specification as originally filed does not appear to provide sufficient support for such a limitation. The frustoconical recess (64) in the piston end face, as shown in figs. 3-5 and as described in the specification, does have an angled bottom 70, but also includes a circular rim 84 at the transition between the outer delimiting ring 58 and the bottom 70, wherein this circular rim defines the maximum depth of the recess (see fig. 4; pg. 12, lines 11-15), and further includes a planar circular surface 86 at the center, defining the minimum depth (pg. 12, lines 15-19). Thus, the bottom of the gap would seem to extend at several angles, including at least the angle of the portion at 70, as well as that of the planar portions at the circular rim and planar circular surface.
Claim 11 further recites a limitation wherein “the angle is less than 15° with respect to a remainder of the end face of the separator piston”; claim 27 similarly recites that “the angle is greater than 0° and less than 15° with respect to the remainder of the end face of the separator piston.
A review of the application as originally filed does not reveal any written support for the limitation wherein “the angle is less than 15°” or wherein the angle is “greater than 0° and less than 15° degrees”. Furthermore, even if the original figures happened to show an angle within this range, there is nothing of record to currently suggest that the figures were intended to be to scale, and there is nothing which would reasonably convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art that applicant had possession of the particular ranges of “less than 15°” and “greater than 0° and less than 15° degrees”, respectively.
See MPEP § 2163.05(III): with respect to changing numerical range limitations, the analysis must take into account which ranges one skilled in the art would consider inherently supported by the discussion in the original disclosure.
See also Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1328, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[T]he specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that the inventors... considered the... ratio to be part of their invention.... There is therefore no force to Purdue’s argument that the written description requirement was satisfied because the disclosure revealed a broad invention from which the [later-filed] claims carved out a patentable portion").
Moreover, the “end face of the separator piston” is not uniform, even exclusive of the angled bottom portion. See, e.g., the beveled edges of the outer delimiting ring 58., so the bottom would not be understood as “less than 15° with respect to the remainder of the end face” as now claimed.
Claim 14 recites “the end wall part of the separator piston and the end wall part of the accumulator housing extend in parallel to each other;…, when the separator piston contacts an end stop at the accumulator housing: a width of the gap is constant”. The recitation in claim 14 of a constant gap with is understood to be a feature of embodiments shown, for example in figs. 1 & 2, where the recess in the piston is of constant depth. This feature is mutually exclusive with the arrangement already recited in claim 11 wherein the gap has a wedge-shaped cross-section which narrows toward an axis of the accumulator, wherein the bottom of the gap extends at one angle (i.e., a feature of embodiments shown in figs. 3-5).
As claim 14 depends from claim 11, the combination of features (besides being in apparent direct conflict) would result in a new embodiment which was not sufficiently described in the application as originally filed.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the separator piston is configured to come into abutment with the accumulator housing with a first piston part on an outer circumference of the separator piston and a second piston part on an inner circumference of the separator piston, while limiting the gap in an end position of the separator piston”. As best understood, this is a feature exclusive to the embodiment shown in fig. 1, not the embodiments having the wedge-shaped gap shown in figs. 3-5, to which claim 11 is directed. In these embodiments, by contrast, the specification states that the piston and closing part are in contact only at the outer delimiting rings, whereby the gap is permanently connected to the fluid channel (e.g., see pg. 14, line 27 – pg. 15, line 5 of the original specification).
As claim 17 depends from claim 11, the combination of features would result in a new embodiment which was not sufficiently described in the application as originally filed.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the separator piston includes an extension on the adjacent end face of the separator piston which faces the media opening; and the extension is configured to protrude into the media opening as part of the end-position cushioning when the flow resistance is built up which dampens the motion of the separator piston”. Claim 23 similarly recites “wherein the extension is a pin”. As best understood, these are features exclusive to the embodiment shown in figure 6, and are not disclosed as usable in combination with the wedge-shaped gap as shown in figs. 3-5, to which claim 11 is directed. It is also unclear if the wedge-shaped gap and pin-like extension, if provided together, would function as intended, since the narrow end of the gap would no longer open into an unrestricted media space.
As claims 18 & 23 depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 11, the combination of features would result in a new embodiment which was not sufficiently described in the application as originally filed.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
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 11-27 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.
As set forth in MPEP § 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 11 recites “the bottom of the gap extends only at one angle in the wedge-shaped cross-section”, wherein “the angle is less than 15° with respect to a remainder of the end face of the separator piston”, which raises several issues.
First, the specification as originally filed does not appear to describe the configuration as is now being claimed. The frustoconical recess (64) in the piston end face, as shown in figs. 3-5 and as described in the specification, does have an angled bottom 70, but also includes a circular rim 84 at the transition between the outer delimiting ring 58 and the bottom 70, wherein this circular rim defines the maximum depth of the recess (see fig. 4; pg. 12, lines 11-15), and further includes a planar circular surface 86 at the center, defining the minimum depth (pg. 12, lines 15-19). Thus, the bottom of the gap would seem to extend at several angles, including at least the angle of the portion at 70, as well as that of the planar portions at the circular rim and planar circular surface.
Moreover, the “end face of the separator piston”, apart from the angled bottom, is not uniform (see, e.g., the beveled edges of the outer delimiting ring 58), so the angle of the bottom of the gap would not reasonably be understood as extending only at an angle of “less than 15° with respect to the remainder of the end face” as now claimed.
In view of the above issues, the scope of the claim takes on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 14 recites “the adjacent end face of the separator piston is on an end wall part of the separator piston” which raises several issues.
First, it is unclear if “the adjacent end face of the separator piston” is referring to the “end face of the separator piston” established in claim 11, or a different end face. The end face in claim 11 is not recited to be an “adjacent” end face and it is unclear what it is required to be “adjacent” to.
Additionally, it is unclear in view of the specification how to interpret the end face of the separator piston being on an “end wall part”. As best understood in the specification, the terms “end wall” and “end face” are used interchangeably in several instances.
Claim 14 further recites “the adjacent end face of the accumulator housing is on an end wall part of the accumulator housing” which raises several issues.
First, “the adjacent end face of the accumulator housing” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims, and it is unclear what this face is required to be “adjacent” to.
Additionally, it is unclear in view of the specification how to interpret the end face of the accumulator housing being on an “end wall part”. As best understood in the specification, the terms “end wall” and “end face” are used interchangeably in several instances.
Claim 14 further recites: “the end wall part of the separator piston and the end wall part of the accumulator housing extend in parallel to each other; and the piston accumulator is configured such that, when the separator piston contacts an end stop at the accumulator housing: a width of the gap is constant”. This limitation appears to be in direct conflict with the limitation of claim 11 wherein the gap has a wedge-shaped cross section such that the gap narrows toward a longitudinal axis of the piston accumulator, causing the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
As best understood, the limitations recited in claim 14 refer to features of the embodiment shown in figs. 1 & 2, which are mutually exclusive with the recited limitations in claim 11, directed to features of the embodiments shown in figs. 3-5.
Claim 16 recites “wherein: the recess is defined into the adjacent end face of the separator piston and the adjacent end face of the accumulator housing” which raises several issues.
First, “the recess” and “the adjacent end face of the accumulator housing” lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
With respect to “the adjacent end face of the separator piston”, while an “end face” of the separator piston is recited in claim 11, it is not described as an “adjacent” end face.
It is also unclear what these “adjacent end faces” are required to be adjacent to.
Claim 16 further recites “the adjacent end face of the separator piston is on an end wall of the separator piston; and the adjacent end face of the accumulator housing is on an end wall of the accumulator housing”. It is unclear in view of the specification how to interpret the end faces of the separator piston and accumulator housing, respectively, being on an “end wall” of the separator piston and accumulator housing. As best understood in the specification, the terms “end wall” and “end face” are used interchangeably in several instances.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the separator piston is configured to come into abutment with the accumulator housing with a first piston part on an outer circumference of the separator piston and a second piston part on an inner circumference of the separator piston”. As best understood in view of the specification, this is a feature exclusive to the embodiment shown in fig. 1, not the embodiments having the wedge-shaped gap shown in figs. 3-5, to which claim 11 is directed. In these embodiments, by contrast, the specification states that the piston and closing part are in contact only at the outer delimiting rings, whereby the gap is permanently connected to the fluid channel (e.g., see pg. 14, line 27 – pg. 15, line 5 of the original specification).
The conflict between the specification and claims in this instance causes the scope of the claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 18 recites “the adjacent end face of the separator piston”. It is unclear if this referring to the “end face of the separator piston” established in claim 11, or a different end face. The end face in claim 11 is not recited to be an “adjacent” end face and it is unclear what it is required to be “adjacent” to.
Claim 18 further recites “wherein the separator piston includes an extension on the adjacent end face of the separator piston which faces the media opening; and the extension is configured to protrude into the media opening as part of the end-position cushioning when the flow resistance is built up which dampens the motion of the separator piston”. Claim 23 similarly recites “wherein the extension is a pin”. As best understood, these are features exclusive to the embodiment shown in figure 6, and are not disclosed as usable in combination with the wedge-shaped gap as shown in figs. 3-5, to which claim 11 is directed.
The conflict between the specification and claims in this instance causes the scope of the claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the angle is greater than 0° and less than 15° with respect to the remainder of the end face of the separator piston”, which renders the claim indefinite for reasons corresponding to those already set forth for the limitation of the angle being “less than 15° with respect to the remainder of the end face of the separator piston” in claim 11.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the angle is greater than 0° and less than 15° with respect to the remainder of the end face of the separator piston”. However, claim 11, from which claim 27 depends, already defines the angle as “less than 15°” and the angle is already implicitly required by claim 11 to be greater than 0°, as claim 11 recites that gap “has a wedge-shaped cross section such that the gap narrows toward a longitudinal axis of the piston accumulator” which, as understood, would not be the case if the angle were 0° or less. As a result, claim 27 is improper for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 11-13, 15, 19-22, 24, 25 & 27 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren (GB 2 420 380 A) in view of Wilke et al. (US 6,612,339; hereafter Wilke).
Regarding claim 11, Lindgren discloses (fig. 1) a piston accumulator comprising:
an accumulator housing (10);
a separator piston (20) configured to: (i) be moved longitudinally in the accumulator housing (as shown); and (ii) separate media spaces from each other; and
an end-position cushioning between the separator piston and the accumulator housing,
wherein: the end-position cushioning includes a gap (i.e., see gap between piston and end wall 50 in fig. 1A & 1B) configured to build up a flow resistance which dampens a motion of the separator piston (i.e., see fig. 1D vs 1E vs 1F, etc.; the reduced gap cross section would narrow the flow path into the media opening 51, increasing flow resistance and dampening piston motion);
the gap has a wedge-shaped cross section such that the gap narrows toward a longitudinal axis of the piston accumulator (see fig. 1A), and the gap has a bottom which is defined in an end face of the separator piston (as shown; bottom comprising the shallow-angled conical portion extending inward from the deepest part of the gap);
the bottom of the gap (i.e., as defined beginning at the deepest part of the gap and extending inward) extends only at one angle in the wedge-shaped cross section (as shown).
Lindgren does not explicitly disclose the specific angle at which the bottom of the gap extends, however, as set forth in MPEP §2144.05(II), it has been generally held that where the difference between the prior art and a claimed invention involves only changes of form, proportions or degree, such a difference is unpatentable even where such changes may produce better results than prior inventions [Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) & In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)].
In the instant case, the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention would be the particular angle at which the bottom of the gap extends, i.e., a change in form or proportion.
To promote compact prosecution, however, the following additional teaching is provided.
Wilke teaches (e.g., figs. 1-3) a separator piston (30) for an accumulator (10) comprising a recess (46) in an end face (44) of the separator piston defining a wedge-shaped cross section, the recess having a bottom (57) which extends at an angle (a; see fig. 2) in the wedge-shaped cross section (i.e. relative to an end face plane p), wherein the angle a is in the range from about 9 degrees to about 11 degrees (see col. 3, lines 5-11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piston accumulator of Lindgren such that the bottom of the gap extends at an angle of less than 15° with respect to a remainder of the end face of the separator piston (i.e., within the range of 9 to 11 degrees), in view of the teachings of Wilke, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a bottom of a piston face recess to have an angle of less than 15°, e.g., between 9 and 11 degrees; as in Wilke) to improve a similar device (i.e., the separator piston of the accumulator of Lindgren) in the same way (e.g., providing for a desired gap geometry to control a flow behavior upon the piston approaching the end stop, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, the piston accumulator of Lindgren, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the gap is annular and surrounds a media opening (51); and the media opening is configured to media-conveyingly connect an interior of one of the media spaces and an exterior of the piston accumulator (as shown; see figs. 1A-1F).
Regarding claim 13, the piston accumulator of Lindgren, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the gap is configured to open into the media opening (51), and an outer circumference of the gap is delimited on by a wall part of the accumulator housing or a wall part of the separator piston (see fig. 1A; the outer circumference of the gap is delimitated by a wall part of the separator piston).
Regarding claim 15, the piston accumulator of Lindgren, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein a width of the gap decreases continuously in a direction of the media opening (see fig. 1A; from the deepest part of the gap, the decrease is continuous toward the media opening).
Regarding claim 19, the piston accumulator of Lindgren, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein at least a part of the gap is conical or frustoconical (see fig. 1A; the part of the gap extending from the deepest part toward the media opening is reasonably seen as being conical or frustoconical).
Regarding claim 20, the piston accumulator of Lindgren, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the accumulator housing is defined by at least:
a housing wall (i.e., as indicated at 10 in fig. 1A; “cylinder” in the specification); and
a closing part (50; “hydraulic fluid cap”) which includes the media opening (51).
Regarding claims 21 & 22, the piston accumulator of Lindgren, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the media opening (51) is configured to media-conveyingly connect the interior of the one of the media spaces and a media-conveying component of a technical system (as in claim 21), wherein the technical system is hydraulic (as in claim 22). See, e.g., pg. 1, lines 13-14: “The hydraulic fluid port 51 is connected to a hydraulic system (not shown)”.
Regarding claims 24 & 25, the piston accumulator of Lindgren, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the housing wall (10) is cylindrical (as in claim 24), wherein the closing part (50) is cylindrical (as in claim 25).
In particular, the housing wall (10) is explicitly described as “cylinder 10” and the closing part (50), being configured to fit within and seal the end of the cylinder, would be reasonably understood as cylindrical as well.
Regarding claim 27, the piston accumulator of Lindgren, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the angle is greater than 0° and less than 15° with respect to the remainder of the end face of the separator piston (i.e., between 9 and 11 degrees, as taught by Wilke).
Claims 16 & 26 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren in view of Wilke as applied to claims 11 & 20, respectively, above, and further in view of Elmer (US 3,613,734).
Regarding claim 16, the piston accumulator of Lindgren reads on the additional limitations wherein the recess is defined into the adjacent end face of the separator piston, wherein the adjacent end face of the separator piston is on an end wall of the separator piston; and the adjacent end face of the accumulator housing is on an end wall of the accumulator housing (as shown).
Lindgren does not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein the recess is defined into the adjacent end face of the separator piston and the adjacent end face of the accumulator housing.
Elmer teaches a piston accumulator comprising a separator piston (7) and an accumulator housing (incl. 1 & 3), wherein a recess is provided in both an end face of the separator piston (i.e., outward of feature 12 as shown) and in an adjacent end face of the accumulator housing (see annular recess in closing portion 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piston accumulator of Lindgren, as otherwise modified above, such that the recess is defined into the adjacent end face of the separator piston and the adjacent end face of the accumulator housing, in view of the teachings of Elmer, to provide for a desired gap volume without requiring the entirety of the volume to be defined in the piston, which may enable the piston to be smaller, etc.).
Regarding claim 26, Lindgren does not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein the closing part is configured to be screwed into the housing wall.
Elmer teaches a piston accumulator comprising a separator piston (7) and an accumulator housing (incl. 1 & 3), the accumulator housing comprising a housing wall (3) and a closing part (1) including a media opening (2), wherein the closing part is configured to be screwed into the housing wall (see fig; see also col. 2, lines 64-66: “A housing cylinder 3 is threadedly connected to end wall 1…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piston accumulator of Lindgren such that the closing part is configured to be screwed into the housing wall, in view of the teachings of Elmer, as the use of a known technique (i.e., connecting a closing part of a piston accumulator to the housing wall by screw threads, as in Elmer) to improve a similar device (i.e., the piston accumulator of Lindgren) in the same way (e.g., enabling the closing part to be removably attached to the housing wall in a well-known / conventional manner).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 December 2025 have been fully considered, however, applicant’s amendments cancelling all previously pending claims and adding new claims 11-27 have rendered moot the grounds of rejection set forth in the previous action.
New grounds of rejection have been applied to the claims in this action, as necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
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 Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights