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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5 August 2025 fails to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each document/reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the lined-through information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
claim 1, 13 rotating unit which has been interpreted as a roller including a first roller and a second roller and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in pages 7 and 8 of the specification. Note: at least one roller does not appear to be sufficient structure for the claimed functions associated therewith
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 2 sliding driving module which further recites a moving block and a cylinder; claim 12 gas supply module wherein gas supply has been interpreted as sufficient structure and gas damper module wherein gas damper has been interpreted as sufficient structure; claims 1 and 13: chamber unit wherein chamber has been interpreted as sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claims 1 and 13 recite the feature “wherein the at least one roller and the reactor come in contact via a structure of convex and concave portions fitted to each other”. The limitation is unclear at least because it is not how the structure relates to the at least one roller and the reactor and to each other, e.g., is “the structure” separate from the reactor and/or the at least one roller and also are the concave and convex portions separate from each other, or not. Further, the rotating unit appears to require more than one roller. In order to expedite examination, although not clear as presently recited, Examiner has assumed the claim was intended to be inclusive of a feature such as “wherein the at least one roller, including a first roller and a second roller, includes a concave structure and the reactor includes a convex structure such that the at least one roller and the reactor may be fitted to each other using the concave structure of the at least one roller and the convex structure of the reactor” or similar and has examined accordingly. Claim 11 was also examined based on this assumption, and would need clarifications to align therewith if this interpretation and language are adopted.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first roller and the second roller each have a sleeve configured to form a diameter adaptive to a variable diameter of the reactor” (emphasis added). As written, it is unclear whether the claim refers to sleeves for use with a single reactor with a variable diameter (e.g. the reactor has a tapered cylindrical shape) or use with different reactors, wherein the diameters of the different reactors may be variable/different. Based on Examiner’s understanding of the disclosed invention and Applicant’s most recent remarks, the claim is meant to refer to the latter. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was intended to be inclusive of a feature such as “wherein the first roller and the second roller each have a sleeve configured to form a dimeter be usable with other reactors having different diameters, such that the reactor may be replaced with the other reactors having a different diameter” or similar, as described in the disclosure, and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested. Any clarification and/or correction should be inclusive of consideration of Applicant’s perspective of the claimed and disclosed inventions, rather than solely on Examiner’s interpretation for purpose of expediting examination.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by U.S. Patent No. 3,187,715 to Wellard in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,161,950 to Christensen.
Regarding claim 1: Wellard discloses a coating apparatus capable of coating powder/substrate substantially as claimed and comprising: a reactor (Figs. 1-3, 15) configured to rotate in order to improve reactivity of powder/substrate accommodated therein; a rotating unit including a first roller and a second roller (17 on opposite sides of reactor diameter) which are positioned at a lower portion of the reactor and configured to rotate while in direct contact with the reactor to cause the reactor to rotate; and a chamber unit (e.g., 11 and 65) configured to at least partially accommodate the reactor and the rotating unit and create a predetermined environment for a deposition reaction of the powder/substrate inside the reactor, wherein the chamber unit includes an openable/closable lid (65) to allow the reactor to be replaced with a new reactor.
However, Wellard fails to disclose wherein the at least one roller, including the first roller and the second roller, includes a concave structure and the reactor includes a convex structure such that the at least one roller and the reactor may be fitted to each other using the concave structure of the at least one roller and the convex structure of the reactor.
Christensen disclose at least one roller (e.g. 17-19, another is not shown), including a first roller and a second roller, includes a concave structure (not numbered, e.g., area accommodating v-shaped surface of 15 and 16) and the reactor includes a convex structure (15 and 16) such that the at least one roller and the reactor may be fitted to each other using the concave structure of the at least one roller and the convex structure of the reactor for the purpose of mutual engagement enabling rotation and therefore providing the capability to maintain continuous agitation of the charge (commensurate to claimed powder) in the reactor (see, e.g., page. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Wellard the at least one roller, including the first roller and the second roller, includes a concave structure and the reactor includes a convex structure such that the at least one roller and the reactor may be fitted to each other using the concave structure of the at least one roller and the convex structure of the reactor in order to provide mutual engagement enabling rotation and therefore providing the capability to maintain continuous agitation of the charge as taught by Christensen et al.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Wellard, Wellard discloses the roller includes a first roller disposed at one side of a lower portion of the reactor and a second roller at another side of the lower portion of the reactor and the first roller and the second roller are disposed at positions of capable of not interfering with replacement of the reactor with a new reactor. See, e.g., Figs. 1 and 3 and accompanying text.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Wellard, the reactor of Wellard includes a liner (e.g., 37 and 39) configured to narrow an accommodation space therein configured to accommodate the powder.
With respect to claim 11, in modified Wellard, the first roller and the second roller would come in contact with the reactor via the convex structure and the concave structure, wherein the structure of the concave structure and the convex structure include at least one groove and at least one protrusion that come in contact to engage the first roller and the second roller with the reactor in order to prevent longitudinal movement of the reactor.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wellard as applied to claims 1, 8-9 and 11 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2010/0086383 to Lee et al.
Modified Wellard disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as provided above.
However, with respect to claims 2 and 3, modified Wellard fails to disclose the chamber unit further comprise a sliding and driving module (interpreted as or having a moving block configured to move along a transfer line extending in one direction and a cylinder configured to push the lid upward to open the lid) configured to slide the lid from a closing position to an opening position.
Lee et al. disclose a sliding and driving module (interpreted as or having a moving block [630] configured to move along a transfer line extending in one direction and a cylinder [650] configured to push the lid upward in order to open the lid) for the purpose of enabling easy management and repair of interior equipment (see, e.g., Figs 32-35C and paras. 164-179), wherein the moving block is configured to move along a transfer line (640 and 672) extending in one direction; and the cylinder is provided on the moving block (via body 640) and configured to push the lid upward and open the lid.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Wellard a sliding and driving module (interpreted as or having a moving block and a cylinder) as claimed in order to enable easy management and repair of interior equipment as taught by Lee et al.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Wellard, Lee et al. further discloses the moving block includes a plurality of moving blocks (630, see, e.g., Figs 32-35C and paras. 164-179) placed on the transfer line, a body (640) configured to provide a space for mounting the plurality of blocks, and an auxiliary guide (640) coupled to the body (676) to aid in alignment when sliding occurs.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wellard as applied to claims 2-4 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2008/0035056 to Okubo et al.
Modified Wellard discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, with respect to claims 5 and 6, modified Wellard fail to disclose the chamber unit further includes an upper heater configured to heat the reactor placed therein from above the reactor, wherein the upper heater is coupled to the lid through a fastener and pushed upward along with the lid while the lid is pushed upward by the cylinder, and wherein in the state in which the lid is at the opening position, an upper portion of the reactor is completely exposed through an upper side of the chamber unit.
Okubo et al. teach providing a chamber unit including a heater wherein the heater is provided for the purpose of heating a reactor provided in the interior of the chamber unit, and wherein the heater is attached to a door by a fastener (a fastener will necessarily be provided for the disclosed attaching) such that the both the heater and a reactor within the chamber unit are exposed when the door is opened to provide for ease of maintenance (see, e.g., Figs. 5-7 and paras. 14, 65-66, 98, 129, 182-190).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Wellard the chamber unit further includes an upper heater configured to heat the reactor placed therein from above the reactor, wherein the upper heater is coupled to the lid through a fastener and pushed upward along with the lid while the lid is pushed upward by the cylinder, and in the state in which the lid is at the opening position, an upper portion of the reactor is completely exposed through an upper side of the chamber unit for the purposes of heating the reactor in the interior of the chamber unit and ease of maintenance as taught by Okubo et al.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wellard as applied to claims 5-6 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0024736 to Gangakhedakar et al.
Modified Wellard discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Wellard fails to disclose explicitly disclose a robot arm configured to perform driving to grip the exposed reactor; withdraw the gripped reactor vertically upward, and mount the withdrawn reactor on a holder.
Gangakhedakar et al. teach providing an apparatus capable of coating powder with a robot for the purpose of loading and unloading a reactor containing particles to be coated (see, e.g., para. 37). Any part, surface, etc. for receiving the reactor when it is removed is considered a holder.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the apparatus having a robot in order to load and unload the reactor by gripping the reactor, withdrawing the gripped reactor upward and mounting the withdrawn reactor on a holder as taught by Gangakhedakar et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellard as applied to claims 1, 8-9 and 11 above and further elaborated below.
Modified Wellard disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as provided above.
However, Modified Wellard fails to disclose the first roller and the second roller each have a sleeve configured to form a diameter be usable with other reactors having different diameters, such that the reactor may be replaced with the other reactors having different diameters.
Note: this limitation is considered to be recitation based on selecting a size and axial shape with respect to a surface of the first roller or the second roller (i.e. the sleeve) on which reactor is supported for rotation.
The courts have ruled: where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); and In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to select a sleeve diameter for the first and second roller enabling the claimed functions thereof as also taught by modified Wellard.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellard as applied to claims 1, 8-9 and 11 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2019/0143293 to Dobbyn et al.
Modified Wellard disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as provided above.
However, modified Wellard fail to disclose the chamber unit further comprises a gas supply module configured to supply a process gas to one side of the reactor; and a gas damper module configured to come in close contact with the other side of the reactor and serve as an impact absorber.
Dobbyn et al. disclose a gas supply module (Fig. 1A, 104 and 106a) configured to supply a process gas to one side of the reactor and a gas for flushing prior to reaction; and a gas damper module (104b) configured to come in close contact with the other side of the reactor serving as an impact absorber (by nature of weight) and sealing for the reactor (see, e.g., paras. 57-58 and 72).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the chamber unit having a gas supply module in order to supply a process gas to one side of the reactor and a gas for flushing prior to reaction as taught by Dobbyn et al.; and a gas damper module configured to come in close contact with the other side of the reactor serving as an impact absorber (by nature of weight) and sealing for the reactor also as taught by Dobbyn et al.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,187,715 to Wellard in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 20100086383 to Lee et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0024736 to Gangakhedakar et al. and
Wellard discloses a coating apparatus capable of coating powder/substrate substantially as claimed and comprising: a reactor (Figs. 1-3, 15) configured to rotate and improve reactivity of powder/substrate accommodated therein; rotating unit including a first roller and a second roller (17 on opposite sides of reactor diameter) which are positioned at a lower portion of the reactor and in order to rotate while in direct contact with the reactor in order to cause the reactor to rotate; and a chamber unit (e.g., 11 and 65) configured to accommodate the reactor and at least part of the rotating unit and create a predetermined environment for a deposition reaction of the powder/substrate inside the reactor, wherein the chamber unit includes an openable/closable lid (65) to allow the reactor to be replaced with a new reactor.
However, Wellard fails to explicitly disclose the lid is configured to slide in a first in order to cause an upper portion of the reactor disposed therein to be exposed to an outside.
Lee et al. disclose use of a sliding and driving module for moving a lid in a first direction for the purpose of enabling easy management and repair of interior equipment (see, e.g., Figs 32-35C and paras. 164-179).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Wellard a sliding and driving module in order to cause an upper portion of the reactor disposed therein to be exposed to an outside and enable easy management and repair of interior equipment as taught by Lee et al.
Wellard further fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus further disclosing a robot arm configured to slide in a second direction in order to withdraw the exposed reactor in a third direction.
Gangakhedakar et al. teach providing an apparatus capable of coating powder with a robot for the purpose of loading and unloading a reactor containing particles to be coated (see, e.g., para. 37). The robot is provided access through a lid at top of the apparatus such that it will slide downward in a second direction and an upward third direction to perform loading and unloading of reactor, respectively.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the apparatus having a robot in order to load and unload the reactor by sliding in a second and third direction respectively as taught by Gangakhedakar et al.
However, Wellard fails to disclose wherein the at least one roller, including the first roller and the second roller, includes a concave structure and the reactor includes a convex structure such that the at least one roller and the reactor may be fitted to each other using the concave structure of the at least one roller and the convex structure of the reactor.
Christensen disclose at least one roller (e.g. 17-19, another is not shown), including a first roller and a second roller, includes a concave structure (not numbered, e.g., area accommodating v-shaped surface of 15 and 16) and the reactor includes a convex structure (15 and 16) such that the at least one roller and the reactor may be fitted to each other using the concave structure of the at least one roller and the convex structure of the reactor for the purpose of mutual engagement enabling rotation and therefore providing the capability to maintain continuous agitation of the charge (commensurate to claimed powder) in the reactor (see, e.g., page. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Wellard the at least one roller, including the first roller and the second roller, includes a concave structure and the reactor includes a convex structure such that the at least one roller and the reactor may be fitted to each other using the concave structure of the at least one roller and the convex structure of the reactor in order to provide mutual engagement enabling rotation and therefore providing the capability to maintain continuous agitation of the charge as taught by Christensen et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The above rejections have been modified to account for Applicant’s claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 3,517,644 discloses a deposition apparatus including a reactor and a rotating unit including concave and convex portions.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716