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 .
Rule 105 Request/ Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner thanks the Applicant for reviewing publications referred to in the specification and seeking out any potential prior art and submitting it in the I.D.S. filed 03/02/2026 which has been reviewed herein.
Specification
Examiner thanks the Applicant for reviewing the lengthy specification and Applicant’s attempt in correcting any errors in the specification.
The substitute specification filed 03/02/2026 has been entered
Claim Interpretation
The term “superficial” means existing or occurring on the surface or directly beneath it, or not deep. No precise dimensions of what constitutes as “superficial” in claim 1 are defined in the claim or the specification thus superficial is interpreted as on the surface or directly beneath it.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite because it requires the marking to be “superficial” and “engraved” is etched, having grooves, inscribed, impressed, having raised portions/indented portions relative to a specific plane. It is unclear how a superficial, engraved marking is supposed to be examined. There are no clear dimensions set forth for the marking and Figures 1-6 all appear to show the marking within the glass plate 1, at least to some extent.
Claims 8, 10,-13 and 36 are indefinite at least for depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamate (US 2005044895) and Rainer (EP 0535620) and alternatively by Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525).
Regarding claims 1 and 36, Yamate discloses providing a glass with color through x-ray irradiation [0007] or [0022] thus considered the claimed “laser-induced marking” thus considered the claimed “laser-induced marking…the marking is a superficial, engraved surface marking on a glass sheet surface” and may be a float glass sheet [0024]. Yamate then discloses erasing the color, or marking, [0091]-[0093].
In analogous art of laser operating, Rainer discloses
polishing pre-ground surfaces from workpieces made of glass, in which the surface to be treated is selectively and successively applied with a laser beam and thereby specifically with the beam of a CO₂ laser, so as to punctually melt the glass of the workpiece even on rough surfaces, ie Maintaining a smooth surface structure, especially on pre-ground surfaces.
in re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to laser polish, or erase the marking as motivated to reuse the glass piece necessitating a different marking, or erase the marking due to a defective initial marking, or as indicated by Kupisiewicz [0009] to commit fraud, all of these motivation yield using a pre-existing glass sheet and thus obvious since it has been held that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities is common-sensical even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-14, 16-19, 21, 23, 26 and 36-39, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozanam (US 20190389767) and Rainer (EP 0535620) and alternatively by Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525).
Regarding claims 1, 14, Ozanam discloses a method of marking a glass plate via laser etching [0005] to obtain a machine readable code on a float glass sheet Ozanam discloses the laser is preferably pulsed, including nanosecond and femtosecond [0024]-[0025] considered ultrashort pulsed and
thus considered the claimed “laser-induced marking…the marking is a superficial, engraved surface marking on a glass sheet surface”.
Ozanam does not disclose erasing the marking.
In analogous art of laser operating, Rainer discloses
polishing pre-ground surfaces from workpieces made of glass, in which the surface to be treated is selectively and successively applied with a laser beam and thereby specifically with the beam of a CO₂ laser, so as to punctually melt the glass of the workpiece even on rough surfaces, ie Maintaining a smooth surface structure, especially on pre-ground surfaces.
in re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to laser polish, or erase the marking as motivated to reuse the glass necessitating a different marking, or erase the marking due to a defective initial marking, or as indicated by Kupisiewicz [0009] to commit fraud, all of these motivation yield using a pre-existing glass sheet and thus obvious since it has been held that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities is common-sensical even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves
Regarding claim 7, Ozanam discloses the laser etching is on the surface of the glass [0032] and as indicated by Rainer the erasing is laser polishing
Regarding claims 8, 38-39, Rainer discloses laser polishing of a wavelength of between approximately 8.5 and 11 micrometers
Regarding claim 10, Ozanam discloses the laser is a UV laser [0018] thus suitable for manipulating the glass in the method of Ozanman
Regarding claim 11, Ozanam discloses the symbol is less than 50 microns in depth thus overlapping the claimed ranges [0032]
Regarding claim 12, Ozanam discloses the laser is preferably pulsed [0024]
Regarding claim 13, Ozanam discloses the code is a QR code, barcode, and machine readable [0034]
Regarding claim 16, Ozanam discloses the laser is preferably pulsed, including nanosecond and femtosecond [0024]-[0025] considered ultrashort pulsed and
Rainer discloses laser polishing of a wavelength of between approximately 8.5 and 11 micrometers
Regarding claim 17, Ozanam discloses the symbol is less than 50 microns in depth thus overlapping the claimed ranges [0032]
Regarding claim 18, Ozanam discloses marking is carried out on the endless float glass ribbon before or after cutting and separating [0013]-[0014].
Regarding claims 19 and 36, Ozanam discloses marking is carried out on the endless float glass ribbon before or after cutting and separating [0013]-[0014], [0016]-[0017] thus marking while the ribbon is moving in the feed direction as a typical float glass does.
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an. automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves 'With wheel, was held to be obvious.
Ozanam discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating the laser being reversed and moving relative to the sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the relative movement of the sheet and the laser since it have been held that a mere reversal of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to reverse the relative movement of the sheet and the laser for the purpose of etching the code on a desired location of the glass.
Regarding claim 21, Ozanam discloses a wavelength of 100-400 nm[0018], and picosecond pulse [0024]-[0025]
Regarding claim 23, Ozanam discloses an example of a beam yielding etched spots of diameters of 50-120 microns thus a skilled artisan would readily expect the diameter of the focused beam to overlap the claimed range of 10-100 microns
Regarding claim 26, Ozanam discloses the code is a QR code, barcode, and machine readable [0034].
Regarding claim 27, Ozanam discloses the float sheets formed on molten tin [0009], given its broadest reasonable interpretation this is a coating.
Regarding claim 37, The combination of Ozanam and Rainer make obvious float glass ribbon before or after cutting and separating [0013]-[0014], [0016]-[0017] and laser polish smoothing analogous to erasing said marking (Rainer- see rejection of claim 1)
Claim(s) 27 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozanam (US 20190389767) and Rainer (EP 0535620) and alternatively by Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525) as applied above and further in view of Kutilek (US 20010007698)
Regarding claim 27, Ozanam does not clearly indicate the coated glass sheets being marked by the laser etching.
In an analogous art of forming glass for vehicles (Fig 8) via the float method (claim 16), Kutilek discloses coating with a metal oxide [0046].
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method of Ozanam and Rainer with a coating of Kutilek on the atmosphere face as motivated to provide a fade zone or privacy zone on the glass [0051]
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozanam (US 20190389767) and Rainer (EP 0535620) and alternatively by Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525) as applied above and further in view of Araki et al. (US 20120061020)
Regarding claim 27, Ozanam does not clearly indicate the coated glass sheets being marked by the laser etching.
In an analogous art of forming glass for vehicles via the float method [0017] Araki discloses coating with a ceramic to yield superior wind blast strength, impact strength, heat cracking resistance [0017].
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method of Ozanam on the atmosphere face with a coating of Araki as motivated to provide superior wind blast strength, impact strength, heat cracking resistance known in the art. It follows that the laser polishing, or unmarking, taught by Rainer would be on the atmosphere side where the marking of Ozanam resides.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 12-14, 16 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gugger et al. (US 4769310) Rainer (EP 0535620) and alternatively by Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 14, Gugger discloses providing glass (Col 4; line 53) and forming a marking of numerical symbols measurable variables linear marking, thus capable of being a barcode, QR code, marking (Col 4; lines 21-59) with a laser (Col 4; lines 13-16).
Gugger fails to indicate the removal of the marking with laser polishing.
In analogous art of laser operating, Rainer discloses
polishing pre-ground surfaces from workpieces made of glass, in which the surface to be treated is selectively and successively applied with a laser beam and thereby specifically with the beam of a CO₂ laser, so as to punctually melt the glass of the workpiece even on rough surfaces, ie Maintaining a smooth surface structure, especially on pre-ground surfaces.
in re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to laser polish, or erase the marking as motivated to reuse the glass necessitating a different marking, or erase the marking due to a defective initial marking, or as indicated by Kupisiewicz [0009] to commit fraud, all of these motivation yield using a pre-existing glass sheet and thus obvious since it has been held that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities is common-sensical even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves
Regarding claims 8, 38-39, Rainer discloses laser polishing of a wavelength of between approximately 8.5 and 11 micrometers
Regarding claim 12 and 16, the laser is either pulsed or continuous.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11-14, 16-19 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeRossett Jr. (US 5298717) and Rainer (EP 0535620) and alternatively by Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, DeRossett discloses a glass sheet (Fig 9-10) (abstract) (Col 2; lines 62-68) and marking the glass with a VIN, barcode, or indicia (Col 4; lines 28-40).
DeRossett Jr. does not disclose erasing the marking.
In analogous art of laser operating, Rainer discloses
polishing pre-ground surfaces from workpieces made of glass, in which the surface to be treated is selectively and successively applied with a laser beam and thereby specifically with the beam of a CO₂ laser, so as to punctually melt the glass of the workpiece even on rough surfaces, ie Maintaining a smooth surface structure, especially on pre-ground surfaces.
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to laser polish, or erase the marking as motivated to reuse the glass necessitating a different marking, or erase the marking due to a defective initial marking, or as indicated by Kupisiewicz [0009] to commit fraud, all of these motivation yield using a pre-existing glass sheet and thus obvious since it has been held that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities is common-sensical even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves
Regarding claim 8, Rainer discloses laser polishing of a wavelength of between approximately 8.5 and 11 micrometers
Regarding claim 11, DeRossett discloses optimizing the laser beam power for etching such that it penetrates the glass surface to yield etching but not deep enough to weaken the structural integrity of the glass.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality
DeRossett discloses the present invention except for the penetration depth of the laser. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to penetrate the glass with the laser deep enough to etch, or engrave, the glass without impairing the structural integrity of the glass.
Regarding claim 12, DeRossett discloses the surface marking laser may be pulsed (Col 6; lines 15-16) or not thus continuous.
Regarding claim 13, DeRossett discloses a VIN, barcode, or indicia (Col 4; lines 28-40) having data thus machine readable
Regarding claim 16, DeRossett discloses a glass sheet (Fig 9-10) (abstract) (Col 2; lines 62-68) and marking the glass with a VIN, barcode, or indicia (Col 4; lines 28-40).
Rainer discloses laser polishing of a wavelength of between approximately 8.5 and 11 micrometers
Thus the combined teachings of DeRossett and Rainer make obvious the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, DeRossett discloses optimizing the laser beam power for etching such that it penetrates the glass surface to yield etching but not deep enough to weaken the structural integrity of the glass.
DeRossett discloses the present invention except for the penetration depth of the laser. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to penetrate the glass with the laser deep enough to etch, or engrave, the glass without impairing the structural integrity of the glass.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues Yamate does not relate to surface marking on a glass sheet surface as recited in claim 1 of the present disclosure,
In response to this as indicated in the claim interpretation a marking that is simultaneously superficial to the surface and engraved in the surface is interpreted as on the surface and adjacent thereto within the material given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification of the present application.
The argument that there is no laser polishing disclosed in the method of Yamate is moot in view of the present rejection required do to amendments.
Applicant argues the method in claim 1 of the present disclosure in part recites that the surface marking in glass sheets is erased by means of laser polishing and Prior art Ozanam describes laser etching of codes into a glass surface with the removal of the codes not being mentioned at all.
In response to this argument, Examiner relies on Ozanam for making obvious laser polishing for removal of markings taught in Ozanam.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues Ozanam discloses the laser etching is on the surface of the glass [0032] and Rainer's process only serves to refine the surface finish. Rainer explicitly describes that the process does not destroy any existing surface structures but rather utilizes a mechanism of controlled partial melting to smooth a surface while retaining the existing cut patterns/structures. “This is made clear, for example, in col. 3, lines 15-19 of Rainer.”
In response to this citation, Examiner does not know where this citation of Rainer is from. The machine translation of Rainer EP 0535620 as provided on 11/04/2025. Does not have Columns.
Applicant further argues Rainer clearly relates to optical finishing and not to erasing existing engraved markings. Contrary to the opinion set forth by the Office Action, Rainer does not disclose erasing a marking. Instead, the optical polishing disclosed by Rainer is not suitable for removing a marking at all. Rainer also does not include any hint or suggestion that would lead a skilled person to assume that Rainer's described optical polishing might be usable for this purpose.
In response to this argument in the paragraph above, this is a mere attorney conclusion. Examiner agrees that the laser polishing taught by Rainer can yield optical finishing. Rainer states:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rainer need not recognize the precise words of “removing a marking” The combination of Ozanam with Rainer yields smoothing the surface thus removing the marking taught by Ozanam.
The Applicant believes that the asserted combination of Ozanam with Rainer is improper because the references address different objectives and the believes the modification is driven by hindsight.
In response to this argument, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, examiner has established motivation and suggestion as follows:
not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to laser polish, or erase the marking as motivated to reuse the glass necessitating a different marking, or erase the marking due to a defective initial marking. A skilled artisan would know it would be desirable to remove, or smooth, a surface marking of Ozanam to reuse the marked glass as motivated to be economically efficient and/or ecologically efficient by reusing glass or as indicated by Kupisiewicz [0009] to commit fraud, all of these motivation yield using a pre-existing glass sheet and thus obvious since it has been held that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities is common-sensical even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves
Examiner maintains there is sufficient motivation to create a marking and erase a marking on glass with the use of lasers.
Applicant did not address Kupisiewicz.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Memering are moot because this reference has been withdrawn
Applicant argues DeRossett Jr. fails to disclose or make obvious the erasing of a laser- induced superficial, engraved surface marking via any method including the Applicant's claimed laser polishing. Rather, DeRossett Jr. is focused on making indicia "permanent" and "non-removable" (see DeRossett Jr., at least in col. 1, lines 13-27; col. 2, lines 22- 24). Thus, DeRossett Jr. teaches away from the Applicant's claimed method.
Examiner does not believe the term “permanent” in the citations teaches away. DeRossett Jr. desires an indicia that can stay on the glass however does not teach away from the overall desire to recycle or reuse the glass.
Examiner maintains that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results process that is more desirable, for example because it is cheaper or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves." Recycling and Reuse of already manufactured glass plate by polishing a previous marking off is obvious for the above motivation.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clement (US 5206496) laser sub-surface machine readable marking (Col 1; line 41), of glass with a laser to the depth of the desired mark (Col 2; line 32)
US 20200204791 [0023] laser etching patterns on glass
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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights