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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the two Munk references are nonanalogous because they are not concerned with air laid cellulosic fibers, but both references are concerned with organ/ wood fibers or paper, all of which are composed of cellulosic fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art would certainly be cognizant of molding techniques that are utilized for highly similar material. As to applicant’s other arguments as to the alleged missing features, the examiner has provided where he believes these features are taught and applicant does not provide any argument against the citations specifically, but merely provided a conclusory statement. Should applicant disagree with the examiner’s interpretation they should articulate what exactly this disagreement is.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11020883 in view of Munk (US 3166617) and Munk (US 3975127) referred to as Munk 2.
As to claim 8 and 17, 11020883 recites these limitations in claim 1-3.
Munk teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [col 1 line 10-25] wherein both the first and second molds have forming members and the 2nd mold have pressing members (in this case either springs or hydraulic means) positioned between the forming member and the 2nd mold base structure [Fig 1,2, 4, 5, col 4 line 44-col 5 line 35] and that this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses [col 2 line 28-52]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson and had multiple pressure members/springs to one mold part and operate/move the forming members relative to the base of the mold thus establishing the forming pressure upon movement of the 2nd element through interaction from the pressure member, as suggested by Munk, as this this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses.
Munk 2 teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [Abstract] wherein a singular molds contain numerous cavities [Fig 1] which allow for several articles to be formed simultaneously [col 3 line 25-60, col 4 line 7- 62]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 11020883 and utilized multiple cavities, as suggested by Munk, in order to form multiple articles simultaneously.
The combination of 11766810, Munk, Munk II teach the limitations of this claim except for the multiple pressure members on a single forming element.
Lee Spring teaches multiple types of springs including compression springs (coil/helical springs) and Belleville disc spring washers (ie disc springs) and notes that disc springs can support high loads with relatively small deflection/height compared to coil/helical springs [first paragraph]. Moreover, stacking disc springs (ie using multiple) can dynamically increase in load and deflection to tailor the springs to the application [Belleville washers in use and stacking]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention by using a stack of disc springs, as suggested by Lee Spring, in order to allow for dynamic adjustment of load and deflection.
Claim 8, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11766810 in view of Munk (US 3166617) and Munk (US 3975127).
As to claim 8 and 17, 11766810 recites these limitations in claim 1 and 3.
Munk teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [col 1 line 10-25] wherein both the first and second molds have forming members and the 2nd mold have pressing members (in this case either springs or hydraulic means) positioned between the forming member and the 2nd mold base structure [Fig 1,2, 4, 5, col 4 line 44-col 5 line 35] and that this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses [col 2 line 28-52]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson and had multiple pressure members/springs to one mold part and operate/move the forming members relative to the base of the mold thus establishing the forming pressure upon movement of the 2nd element through interaction from the pressure member, as suggested by Munk, as this this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses.
Munk 2 teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [Abstract] wherein a singular molds contain numerous cavities [Fig 1] which allow for several articles to be formed simultaneously [col 3 line 25-60, col 4 line 7- 62]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 11766810 and utilized multiple cavities, as suggested by Munk, in order to form multiple articles simultaneously.
The combination of 11766810, Munk, Munk II teach the limitations of this claim except for the multiple pressure members on a single forming element.
Lee Spring teaches multiple types of springs including compression springs (coil/helical springs) and Belleville disc spring washers (ie disc springs) and notes that disc springs can support high loads with relatively small deflection/height compared to coil/helical springs [first paragraph]. Moreover, stacking disc springs (ie using multiple) can dynamically increase in load and deflection to tailor the springs to the application [Belleville washers in use and stacking]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention by using a stack of disc springs, as suggested by Lee Spring, in order to allow for dynamic adjustment of load and deflection.
Claims 8, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11717993 in view of Munk (US 3166617) and Munk (US 3975127).
As to claim 8 and 17, 11717993 recites these limitations in claim 1, 2, 8.
Munk teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [col 1 line 10-25] wherein both the first and second molds have forming members and the 2nd mold have pressing members (in this case either springs or hydraulic means) positioned between the forming member and the 2nd mold base structure [Fig 1,2, 4, 5, col 4 line 44-col 5 line 35] and that this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses [col 2 line 28-52]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson and had multiple pressure members/springs to one mold part and operate/move the forming members relative to the base of the mold thus establishing the forming pressure upon movement of the 2nd element through interaction from the pressure member, as suggested by Munk, as this this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses.
Munk 2 teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [Abstract] wherein a singular molds contain numerous cavities [Fig 1] which allow for several articles to be formed simultaneously [col 3 line 25-60, col 4 line 7- 62]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 11717993 and utilized multiple cavities, as suggested by Munk 2, in order to form multiple articles simultaneously.
The combination of 11717993, Munk, Munk II teach the limitations of this claim except for the multiple pressure members on a single forming element.
Lee Spring teaches multiple types of springs including compression springs (coil/helical springs) and Belleville disc spring washers (ie disc springs) and notes that disc springs can support high loads with relatively small deflection/height compared to coil/helical springs [first paragraph]. Moreover, stacking disc springs (ie using multiple) can dynamically increase in load and deflection to tailor the springs to the application [Belleville washers in use and stacking]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention by using a stack of disc springs, as suggested by Lee Spring, in order to allow for dynamic adjustment of load and deflection.
Claims 8, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11839999 in view of Munk (US 3166617) and Munk (US 3975127).
As to claim 8 and 17, 11839999 recites these limitations in claim 1-3.
Munk teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [col 1 line 10-25] wherein both the first and second molds have forming members and the 2nd mold have pressing members (in this case either springs or hydraulic means) positioned between the forming member and the 2nd mold base structure [Fig 1,2, 4, 5, col 4 line 44-col 5 line 35] and that this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses [col 2 line 28-52]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson and had multiple pressure members/springs to one mold part and operate/move the forming members relative to the base of the mold thus establishing the forming pressure upon movement of the 2nd element through interaction from the pressure member, as suggested by Munk, as this this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses.
Munk 2 teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [Abstract] wherein a singular molds contain numerous cavities [Fig 1] which allow for several articles to be formed simultaneously [col 3 line 25-60, col 4 line 7- 62]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 11839999 and utilized multiple cavities, as suggested by Munk 2, in order to form multiple articles simultaneously.
The combination of 11839999, Munk, Munk II teach the limitations of this claim except for the multiple pressure members on a single forming element.
Lee Spring teaches multiple types of springs including compression springs (coil/helical springs) and Belleville disc spring washers (ie disc springs) and notes that disc springs can support high loads with relatively small deflection/height compared to coil/helical springs [first paragraph]. Moreover, stacking disc springs (ie using multiple) can dynamically increase in load and deflection to tailor the springs to the application [Belleville washers in use and stacking]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention by using a stack of disc springs, as suggested by Lee Spring, in order to allow for dynamic adjustment of load and deflection.
Claims 8, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12134214 in view of Munk (US 3166617) and Munk (US 3975127).
As to claim 8 and 17, 12134214 recites these limitations in claim 1 and 5.
Munk teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [col 1 line 10-25] wherein both the first and second molds have forming members and the 2nd mold have pressing members (in this case either springs or hydraulic means) positioned between the forming member and the 2nd mold base structure [Fig 1,2, 4, 5, col 4 line 44-col 5 line 35] and that this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses [col 2 line 28-52]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson and had multiple pressure members/springs to one mold part and operate/move the forming members relative to the base of the mold thus establishing the forming pressure upon movement of the 2nd element through interaction from the pressure member, as suggested by Munk, as this this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses.
Munk 2 teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [Abstract] wherein a singular molds contain numerous cavities [Fig 1] which allow for several articles to be formed simultaneously [col 3 line 25-60, col 4 line 7- 62]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 12134214 and utilized multiple cavities, as suggested by Munk 2, in order to form multiple articles simultaneously.
The combination of 12134214, Munk, Munk II teach the limitations of this claim except for the multiple pressure members on a single forming element.
Lee Spring teaches multiple types of springs including compression springs (coil/helical springs) and Belleville disc spring washers (ie disc springs) and notes that disc springs can support high loads with relatively small deflection/height compared to coil/helical springs [first paragraph]. Moreover, stacking disc springs (ie using multiple) can dynamically increase in load and deflection to tailor the springs to the application [Belleville washers in use and stacking]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention by using a stack of disc springs, as suggested by Lee Spring, in order to allow for dynamic adjustment of load and deflection.
Claims 8, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12134215 in view of Munk (US 3166617) and Munk (US 3975127).
As to claim 8, 12134215 recites these limitations in claim 1.
Munk teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [col 1 line 10-25] wherein both the first and second molds have forming members and the 2nd mold have pressing members (in this case either springs or hydraulic means) positioned between the forming member and the 2nd mold base structure [Fig 1,2, 4, 5, col 4 line 44-col 5 line 35] and that this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses [col 2 line 28-52]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson and had multiple pressure members/springs to one mold part and operate/move the forming members relative to the base of the mold thus establishing the forming pressure upon movement of the 2nd element through interaction from the pressure member, as suggested by Munk, as this this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses.
Munk 2 teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [Abstract] wherein a singular molds contain numerous cavities [Fig 1] which allow for several articles to be formed simultaneously [col 3 line 25-60, col 4 line 7- 62]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 12134214 and utilized multiple cavities, as suggested by Munk 2, in order to form multiple articles simultaneously.
The combination of 12134215, Munk, Munk II teach the limitations of this claim except for the multiple pressure members on a single forming element.
Lee Spring teaches multiple types of springs including compression springs (coil/helical springs) and Belleville disc spring washers (ie disc springs) and notes that disc springs can support high loads with relatively small deflection/height compared to coil/helical springs [first paragraph]. Moreover, stacking disc springs (ie using multiple) can dynamically increase in load and deflection to tailor the springs to the application [Belleville washers in use and stacking]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention by using a stack of disc springs, as suggested by Lee Spring, in order to allow for dynamic adjustment of load and deflection.
Claims 8, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12138830 in view of Munk (US 3166617) and Munk (US 3975127),.
As to claim 8, 12138830 recites these limitations in claim 1, 2, 10.
Munk teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [col 1 line 10-25] wherein both the first and second molds have forming members and the 2nd mold have pressing members (in this case either springs or hydraulic means) positioned between the forming member and the 2nd mold base structure [Fig 1,2, 4, 5, col 4 line 44-col 5 line 35] and that this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses [col 2 line 28-52]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson and had multiple pressure members/springs to one mold part and operate/move the forming members relative to the base of the mold thus establishing the forming pressure upon movement of the 2nd element through interaction from the pressure member, as suggested by Munk, as this this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses.
Munk 2 teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [Abstract] wherein a singular molds contain numerous cavities [Fig 1] which allow for several articles to be formed simultaneously [col 3 line 25-60, col 4 line 7- 62]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 12134214 and utilized multiple cavities, as suggested by Munk 2, in order to form multiple articles simultaneously.
The combination of 12138830, Munk, Munk II teach the limitations of this claim except for the multiple pressure members on a single forming element.
Lee Spring teaches multiple types of springs including compression springs (coil/helical springs) and Belleville disc spring washers (ie disc springs) and notes that disc springs can support high loads with relatively small deflection/height compared to coil/helical springs [first paragraph]. Moreover, stacking disc springs (ie using multiple) can dynamically increase in load and deflection to tailor the springs to the application [Belleville washers in use and stacking]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention by using a stack of disc springs, as suggested by Lee Spring, in order to allow for dynamic adjustment of load and deflection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (US 2019/0070819) in view of Munk (US 3166617), Munk (US 3975127) referred to as Munk 2, Lee Spring (Belleville Disc Spring Washers).
As to claims 8 and 17, Larsson teaches a method for forming a plurality of discrete three- dimensional cellulose products from an air-formed cellulose blank structure in a multi-cavity forming mould system, wherein the forming mould system comprises a first mould part and a second mould part arranged for cooperating with each other during forming of the cellulose products, wherein the first mould part comprises a plurality of first forming elements and the second mould part comprises a plurality of corresponding second forming elements (exterior surface of the membrane), wherein the second forming elements are movably arranged in relation to a base structure of the second mould part (ie by the filling of the membrane), wherein each second forming element is arranged for interacting with a pressure media (the membrane and pressurizing fluid) arranged in the base structure [0076], wherein the method comprises the steps: providing the air-formed cellulose blank structure, wherein the cellulose blank structure is air-formed from cellulose fibers, and arranging the cellulose blank structure between the first mould part and the second mould part [claim 1,0070, 0119, 0120, Fig 2a-3b, 5a-9c]; establishing a plurality of forming cavities for the cellulose blank structure between each first forming element and corresponding second forming element [00700119, 0120, 0076, Fig 2a-3b, 5a-9c]; and establishing a forming pressure in each forming cavity onto the cellulose blank structure during forming of the cellulose products [0119, 0120, 0076, Fig 2a-3b, 5a-9c]. The examiner notes that mold parts may comprise a plurality of cavities [0068, 0120]; multiple mold cavities/elements. This limitation is just a duplication of part which is generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.04. Larsson does not explicitly state establishing the forming pressure upon movement of each second forming element in relation to the base structure through interaction from the pressure member.
Munk teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [col 1 line 10-25] wherein both the first and second molds have forming members and the 2nd mold have pressing members (in this case either springs or hydraulic means) positioned between the forming member and the 2nd mold base structure [Fig 1,2, 4, 5, col 4 line 44-col 5 line 35] and that this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses [col 2 line 28-52]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson and had multiple pressure members/springs to one mold part and operate/move the forming members relative to the base of the mold thus establishing the forming pressure upon movement of the 2nd element through interaction from the pressure member, as suggested by Munk, as this this configuration allow for uniform compressive strength even when the article(s) has/have different thicknesses.
Munk 2 teaches a method of making molded articles from fibrous material [Abstract] wherein a singular molds contain numerous cavities [Fig 1] which allow for several articles to be formed simultaneously [col 3 line 25-60, col 4 line 7- 62]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson and utilized multiple cavities, as suggested by Munk, in order to form multiple articles simultaneously.
Larsson teaches comprising moving the first mould part and the second mould part in a direction towards each other after arranging the cellulose blank structure between the first mould part and the second mould part for establishing the plurality of forming cavities for the cellulose blank structure [0076, Fig 2a-3b, 5a-9c].
Larsson teaches the forming mould system comprises a heating unit, wherein the method further comprises heating the cellulose blank structure to a forming temperature in the range of 100 C. to 300 C. during forming of the cellulose products [0076, Fig 2a-3b, 5a-9c]. Larsson teaches further comprising establishing a forming pressure level in the range of 4-20 MPa in each forming cavity through interaction from the pressure member [0076, Fig 2a-3b, 5a-9c]. As Larsson teaches the same pressure and temperature range the formation of the hydrogen bonds would result, see MPEP 2112.
Larsson in combination with Munk and Munk 2 teaches the pressure member comprises a plurality of spring units arranged between the base structure and the plurality of second forming elements, wherein the spring units are establishing the forming pressure in each forming cavity onto the cellulose blank structure as explained above.
The combination of Larsson, Munk, and Munk 2 do not explicitly state that there are multiple pressure units connected to a single 2nd forming element and utilizes a coil a spring as the pressure member.
Lee Spring teaches multiple types of springs including compression springs (coil/helical springs) and Belleville disc spring washers (ie disc springs) and notes that disc springs can support high loads with relatively small deflection/height compared to coil/helical springs [first paragraph]. Moreover, stacking disc springs (ie using multiple) can dynamically increase in load and deflection to tailor the springs to the application [Belleville washers in use and stacking]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Larsson by using a stack of disc springs, as suggested by Lee Spring, in order to allow for dynamic adjustment of load and deflection.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights