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 in view of the amendments filed May 11th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends claim 1 and argues the combined referenced teachings of Labonté and Pruitt do not teach the features of amended claim 1. In particular, applicant argues Pruitt does not disclose or suggest anything related to computing proportions of constituents to impart a respective desired property to the material of each zone of a plurality of zones and to produce a plurality of zones of a skate boot with the respective desired properties of those zones. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejection of claim 1 is based on a combination of Labonté and Pruitt, wherein Labonté discloses a method of making a skate boot for a skate ([0008]), the method comprising determining a desired property ([0104-0105, 0110-0111]; a property of a subshell of shell 30, such as stiffness or density, is configured by selection of the polymeric material) of a material for each zone of a plurality of zones of the skate boot ([0104-0105]; materials of the subshells of shell 30). While Labonté discloses a desired property of the material of the zone is configured by selection of the polymeric material ([0104-0105, 0110-0111]), Labonté does not explicitly disclose the determining of the desired property comprises computing proportions of the constituents to impart the desired property to the material of the zone of the skate boot and injecting according to the computed proportions. However, Pruitt teaches a method of reaction injection molding ([0012]) with a molding apparatus (Fig. 7; [0178]; molding assembly 700) comprising processing a desired property of a material of a part to compute proportions of the constituents to impart the desired property to the material of the part ([0046, 0119]; properties of the finished parts can be varied by blending amounts of each different polyol as directed by the control or processing circuit that provide the part fabrication instructions, wherein the user can input planned runs with identified molds, and the control or processing circuitry associated with the machine can generate the amount of reactant material needed to fabricate those runs). Pruitt further teaches controlling the proportions of respective ones of the constituents ([0114]; the mixing ratios of reactants are controlled) to impart the desired property ([0046, 0114]; a property of the finished part can be varied by selection of reactant materials and mixing ratio) to a molded article ([0046]; the molded finished part). From these teachings of Pruitt one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that modifying Labonté with these teachings would allow a user to input a desired boot with a desired property and control or processing circuits associated with the injection molding machine can generate the amount and ratios of the reactant materials required to impart the desired property as instructions and control the injection molding process according to those instructions to produce the plurality of zones with the respective desired properties. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). As such, Labonté, in view of these teachings of Pruitt, provides the cumulative limitations of amended claim 1.
Applicant’s amendments to the previous claims and new claims 175-177 necessitate a newly updated grounds of rejection provided below.
Newly Updated Grounds of Rejection
Claim Objections
Claims 174 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 174, line 3, “each zone the skate boot” should say “each zone of the skate boot” to correct a grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a desired property of a material” in line 5. Specification pages 54 and 56 provide an example of the desired property being a desired stiffness or rigidity of an obtained polymer. Under broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation will be interpreted as any physical and/or chemical property of a material.
The claims recite the limitation “respective ones of the constituents”. Per specification pages 54-56, this limitation is understood to be a selection of constituents from the group of “constituents that are different”.
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, 5-16, 18, 19, 22-25 and 174-177 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the zone” in lines 6 and 8. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because even though prior to these citations the claim recites “each zone of a plurality of zones”, the claim does not define an individual “zone” to provide antecedent basis for the cited “the zone”. Accordingly, clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the second material of the second zone” and “the first material of the first zone” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-16, 18, 19, 22-25 and 174-177 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labonté et al. (US 20190045879 A1; hereafter Labonté), in view of Pruitt et al. (US 20180065286 A1; hereafter Pruitt).
Regarding claim 1, Labonté discloses a method of making a skate boot for a skate ([0008]), the skate boot being configured to receive a foot of a user ([0008]; the skate boot defining a cavity to receive a foot of a user), the method comprising:
- providing a molding apparatus ([0008, 0011]; providing injection molding apparatus) for receiving constituents that are different (Fig. 22; [0140]; molding apparatus receives two or more constituents of a given polymeric material);
- for each zone of a plurality of zones ([0104-0105]; subshells of shell 30 defining portions of the skate boot) of the skate boot, determining a respective desired property ([0104-0105, 0110-0111]; a property of a subshell of the shell 30, such as stiffness or density, is configured by selection of the polymeric material) of a material of the zone ([0104-0105]; materials of the subshells of the shell 30);
- injecting respective ones of the constituents ([0139-0140]; injecting two or more constituents of a given polymeric material) to produce the plurality of zones with the respective desired properties.
While Labonté discloses a desired property of the material of the zone of the skate boot is configured by selection of the polymeric material ([0104-0105, 0110-0111]), Labonté does not explicitly disclose the molding apparatus comprises a plurality of ports for receiving constituents that are different, the determining of the desired property comprises processing to compute proportions of the constituents to impart the desired property to the material of the zone and injecting based on the computed proportions.
However, Pruitt teaches a method of reaction injection molding ([0012]) with a molding apparatus (Fig. 7; [0178]; molding assembly 700) comprising a plurality of ports ([0105, 0178]; plural reactant materials tank engagement and fluid connection ports) for receiving constituents that are different ([0046, 0105, 0178]; ports receive different reactant materials from the different tanks). Pruitt further teaches processing a desired property of a material of a part to compute proportions of the constituents to impart the desired property to the material of the part ([0046, 0119]; properties of the finished parts can be varied by blending amounts of each different polyol as directed by the control or processing circuit that provide the part fabrication instructions, wherein the user can input planned runs with identified molds, and the control or processing circuitry associated with the machine can generate the amount of reactant material needed to fabricate those runs) and controlling proportions of respective ones of the constituents ([0114]; the mixing ratios of reactants are controlled) to impart a desired property ([0046, 0114]; a property of the finished part can be varied by selection of reactant materials and mixing ratio) to a molded article ([0046]; the molded finished part).
Labonté and Pruitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of reaction injection molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Labonté with the teachings of Pruitt to provide the molding apparatus comprises a plurality of ports for receiving constituents that are different, the determining of the desired property comprises processing to compute proportions of the constituents to impart the desired property to the material of the zone and injecting based on the computed proportions. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for precise control of the proportions of respective ones of the constituents (Pruitt [0114]) and therefore allow precise control of the desired property for the material of the body of the skate boot. The courts have 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. See MPEP 2144 (II). The precise control of the proportions would result in a more efficient reaction injection molding process for the skate boots by reducing material waste.
Regarding claim 5, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the material of the zone is a polyurethane (Labonté [0102]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the polyurethane is a polyurethane foam (Labonté [0103]; PU foam).
Regarding claim 7, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the constituents include an isocyanate (Labonté [0140]; isocyanate), a first polyol (Labonté [0140]; one polyol from the group of “polyols”), and a second polyol (Labonté [0140]; another polyol from the group of “polyols”).
Modified Labonté does not explicitly disclose the second polyol is different from the first polyol.
However, Pruitt teaches a method of reaction injection molding ([0012]) a polyurethane composition ([0043-0044]; polyurethane) comprising constituents of an isocyanate ([0046]; isocyanate), a first polyol ([0046]; a first polyol from the group of different polyols) and a second polyol different from the first polyol ([0046]; a second polyol from the group of different polyols).
Labonté and Pruitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of reaction injection molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Labonté with the teachings of Pruitt to provide the second polyol is different from the first polyol. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of skate boots with a greater variety of desired properties.
Regarding claim 8, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 7, wherein Pruitt further teaches the respective ones of the constituents include the isocyanate ([0046]; isocyanate), the first polyol ([0046]; a first polyol from the group of different polyols) and the second polyol ([0046]; a second polyol from the group of different polyols). Labonté and Pruitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of reaction injection molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Labonté with the teachings of Pruitt to provide the respective ones of the constituents include the isocyanate, the first polyol and the second polyol. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of skate boots with a greater variety of desired properties.
Regarding claim 9, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 8, wherein Pruitt further teaches a proportion of the first polyol is different from a proportion of the second polyol ([0114]; ratios of reactant materials can be in a range from about 1:1 to about 1:1000, therefore the proportion of the first polyol reactant can be different from the proportion of the second polyol reactant). Labonté and Pruitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of reaction injection molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Labonté with the teachings of Pruitt to provide a proportion of the first polyol is different from a proportion of the second polyol. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of skate boots with a greater variety of desired properties.
Regarding claim 10, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 7, wherein Pruitt further teaches the respective ones of the constituents include the isocyanate and the first polyol but not the second polyol ([0046]; polyol can comprise a single type of polyol, therefore there would be no second polyol). Labonté and Pruitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of reaction injection molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Labonté with the teachings of Pruitt to provide the respective ones of the constituents include the isocyanate and the first polyol but not the second polyol. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of skate boots with a greater variety of desired properties.
Regarding claim 11, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the desired property of the material of the zone is stiffness (Labonté [0110]; stiffness) of the material of the zone.
Regarding claim 12, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the stiffness is a modulus of elasticity (Labonté [0110]; modulus of elasticity) of the material of the zone.
Regarding claim 13, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: a first layer of a body of the skate boot (Labonté [0101]; a first subshell is a layer of the plurality of subshells of shell 30) comprises the plurality of zones ([0104]; the first subshell of the plurality of subshells has the plurality of portions of the skate boot); the respective ones of the constituents are first respective ones of the constituents (Labonté [0139-0140]; two or more constituents of a given polymeric material for the first subshell); and the method further comprises injecting second respective ones of the constituents (Labonté [0139-0140]; two or more constituents of a given polymeric material for a second subshell) to produce a second material of the body of the skate boot (Labonté [0104-0105]; polymeric material to a second subshell of shell 30) that forms at least part of a second layer of the body of the skate boot (Labonté [0101]; the second subshell is a second layer of shell 30).
Regarding claim 14, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the first layer of the body of the skate boot is disposed outwardly of the second layer of the body of the skate boot (Labonté [0112]; subshells can be interior and exterior, such that the first subshell can be disposed outwardly of the second subshell).
Regarding claim 15, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the first layer of the body of the skate boot is an outermost layer of the body of the skate boot (Labonté [0112]; the first subshell can be the exterior subshell and therefore disposed as the outermost layer of shell 30).
Regarding claim 16, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the outermost layer of the body of the skate boot is clear (Labonté [0138]; exterior subshell may be clear).
Regarding claim 18, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 13, comprising:
- determining a desired property of the second material of the body of the skate boot (Labonté [0104-0105, 0110-0111]; a property of a second subshell of the shell 30, such as stiffness or density, is configured by selection of the polymeric material for the second subshell).
While Labonté discloses a desired property of the second material of the body of the skate boot is configured by selection of the polymeric material ([0104-0105, 0110-0111]), Labonté does not explicitly disclose the determining of the desired property comprises processing to compute proportions of the constituents to impart the desired property to the second material of the body of the skate boot and controlling the proportions of the second respective ones of the constituents to impart the desired property of the second material to the second material of the body of the skate boot.
However, as established in the rejection of claim 1, Pruitt teaches a method of reaction injection molding ([0012]) with a molding apparatus (Fig. 7; [0178]; molding assembly 700) comprising a plurality of ports ([0105, 0178]; plural reactant materials tank engagement and fluid connection ports) for receiving constituents that are different ([0046, 0105, 0178]; ports receive different reactant materials from the different tanks). Pruitt further teaches processing a desired property of a material of a part to compute proportions of the constituents to impart the desired property to the material of the part ([0046, 0119]; properties of the finished parts can be varied by blending amounts of each different polyol as directed by the control or processing circuit that provide the part fabrication instructions, wherein the user can input planned runs with identified molds, and the control or processing circuitry associated with the machine can generate the amount of reactant material needed to fabricate those runs) and controlling proportions of respective ones of the constituents ([0114]; the mixing ratios of reactants are controlled) to impart a desired property ([0046, 0114]; a property of the finished part can be varied by selection of reactant materials and mixing ratio) to a molded article ([0046]; the molded finished part).
Labonté and Pruitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of reaction injection molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Labonté with the teachings of Pruitt to provide the determining of the desired property comprises processing to compute proportions of the constituents to impart the desired property to the second material of the body of the skate boot and controlling the proportions of the second respective ones of the constituents to impart the desired property of the second material to the second material of the body of the skate boot. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for precise control of the proportions of respective ones of the constituents (Pruitt [0114]) and therefore allow precise control of the desired property for the material of the body of the skate boot. The courts have 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. See MPEP 2144 (II). The precise control of the proportions would result in a more efficient reaction injection molding process for the skate boots by reducing material waste.
Regarding claim 19, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the desired property of a second material of a second zone is different from the desired property of a first material of a first zone (Labonté [0106]; the polymeric material of a first subshell may have a different stiffness than the polymeric material of a second subshell).
Regarding claim 22, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: a body of the skate boot comprises a medial side portion (Labonté [0100]; medial side portion 66) configured to face a medial side of the user's foot (Labonté [0100]; medial side portion 66 faces medial side MS of the player’s foot), a lateral side portion (Labonté [0100]; lateral side portion 68) configured to face a lateral side of the user's foot (Labonté [0100]; lateral side portion 68 faces lateral side LS of the player’s foot), a heel portion (Labonté [0100]; heel portion 62) configured to receive a heel of the user's foot (Labonté [0100]; heel portion 62 receives heel HL of the player), and an ankle portion (Labonté [0100]; ankle portion 64) configured to receive an ankle of the user (Labonté [0100]; ankle portion 64 receives ankle A of the player) that are molded integrally together (Labonté Fig. 3; [0100-0101]; the recited portions are integrally molded as shell 30); and the plurality of zones of the skate boot constitutes at least part of each of the medial side portion, the lateral side portion, the heel portion, and the ankle portion of the body of the skate boot (Labonté [0100-0101]; the polymeric material of the shell 30 forms the recited portions).
Regarding claim 23, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 22, wherein: the body of the skate boot comprises a sole portion (Labonté [0100]; sole portion 69) configured to face a plantar surface of the user's foot (Labonté [0100]; sole portion 69 faces plantar surface PS of the player’s foot); the medial side portion, the lateral side portion, the heel portion, the ankle portion, and the sole portion of the body of the skate boot are molded integrally together (Labonté Fig. 3; [0100-0101]; the recited portions are integrally molded as shell 30); and the plurality of zones of the skate boot constitutes at least part of each of the medial side portion, the lateral side portion, the heel portion, the ankle portion, and the sole portion of the body of the skate boot (Labonté [0100-0101]; the polymeric material of the shell 30 forms the recited portions).
Regarding claim 24, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 22, wherein: the body of the skate boot comprises a toe portion (Labonté Fig. 3; [0147]; toe cap 32) configured to receive toes of the user's foot; the medial side portion, the lateral side portion, the heel portion, the ankle portion, and the toe portion of the body of the skate boot are molded integrally together (Labonté Fig. 3; [0100-0101, 0147]; claim 37; the recited portions and toe cap 32 are integrally molded as shell 30); and the plurality of zones constitutes at least part of each of the medial side portion, the lateral side portion, the heel portion, the ankle portion, and the toe portion of the body of the skate boot (Labonté [0100-0101, 0147]; the polymeric material of the shell 30 forms the recited portions).
Regarding claim 25, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the skate is an ice skate (Labonté [0094]; ice skate) comprising a blade (Labonté [0095]; blade 26); and the material of at least one zone of the plurality of zones of the skate boot is also a material of a body of a blade holder (Labonté [0159-0160]; blade holder 24 is integrally molded with shell 30 and can comprise the same materials as the shell 30) extending downwardly from the skate boot (Labonté Fig. 3; blade holder 24 extends downwardly from shell 30) and configured to hold the blade (Labonté [0095]; blade holder 24 holds blade 26).
Regarding claim 174, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the desired property of the material is based on input from a user indicative of a desired property of the skate boot (Labonté [0126-0128]; inherent to producing a desired shell using a desired polymeric material for the desired skate boot).
Labonté does not explicitly disclose the determining of the desired property comprises processing to receive input from a user indicative of the respective desired properties of each zone of the skate boot.
However, Pruitt further teaches processing the desired property of the material further to receiving input from a user indicative of a desired property of the material of the part ([0046, 0119]; properties of the finished parts can be varied by blending amounts of each different polyol as directed by the control or processing circuit that provide the part fabrication instructions, wherein the user can input planned runs with identified molds, and the control or processing circuitry associated with the machine can generate the amount of reactant material needed to fabricate those runs).
Labonté and Pruitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of reaction injection molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Labonté with the teachings of Pruitt to provide the determining of the desired property comprises processing to receive input from a user indicative of the respective desired properties of each zone of the skate boot. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for precise control of the proportions of respective ones of the constituents (Pruitt [0114]) and therefore allow precise control of the desired property for the material of the body of the skate boot. The courts have 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. See MPEP 2144 (II). The precise control of the proportions would result in a more efficient reaction injection molding process for the skate boot by reducing material waste.
Regarding claim 175, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 1.
Labonté does not explicitly disclose the processing further comprises determining a respective volume of the material for each zone; and the injecting comprises injecting the respective ones of the constituents, based on the computed proportions of the constituents and the determined volume.
However, Pruitt further teaches determining a respective volume of the material for a part ([0042, 0115]; amount of reactants used is related to related to volume of the part being fabricated) and injecting the respective ones of the constituents, based on the computed proportions of the constituents and the determined volume ([0115, 0196]; volume of each reactant material is controlled for injection).
Labonté and Pruitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of reaction injection molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Labonté with the teachings of Pruitt to provide the processing further comprises determining a respective volume of the material for each zone; and the injecting comprises injecting the respective ones of the constituents, based on the computed proportions of the constituents and the determined volume. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for precise control of the proportions of respective ones of the constituents (Pruitt [0114]) and therefore allow precise control of the desired property for the material of the body of the skate boot. The courts have 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. See MPEP 2144 (II). The precise control of the proportions would result in a more efficient reaction injection molding process for the skate boot by reducing material waste.
Regarding claim 176, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the injecting comprises sequentially injecting (Labonté [0211-0212]) the respective ones of the constituents to produce the plurality of zones with the respective desired properties.
Regarding claim 177, modified Labonté discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the injecting comprises simultaneously injecting (Labonté [0007]) the respective ones of the constituents to produce the plurality of zones with the respective desired properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Auger et al. (US 20120180343 A1) discloses an injection molded boot with a plurality of zones having varying degrees of flexibility resulting from materials selected to achieve the desired flexibility for a given zone.
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1487. 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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights