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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10 “a coupler coupled having a first coupler end coupled with…” should read “a coupler having a first coupler end coupled with…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, each of these claims recites “a pad coupler extension that extends from a respective end of at least one of the first elongated portion, the second elongated portion, or both”. The specification as originally filed does not describe a pad coupler extension extending from the first elongated portion, or both of the first and second elongated portions. Specifically, paragraph [0177] of the original specification describes only the second elongated member 791a as having an end that terminates into pad coupler extension 754. This is confirmed by figures 7A and 7B, which show the pad coupler extension being on the second elongated portion only. In another embodiment, a coupler extension 254 is on a pad mount 253 as described in paragraph [0099] and depicted in figures 2A-2C. The description does not identify a first or second elongated portion in this embodiment and the figures only show the coupler extension 254 extending from a single portion of the pad mount. Therefore, the specification as originally filed does not describe a pad coupler extension extending from a first elongated portion, or from both a first and second elongated portion as recited in claims 1 and 13. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1, claim 13, and claims 2-7, 14-20 dependent therefrom, was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites “the pad backing configured with a pad backing extension.” However, claim 13 already recites “a pad backing comprising a pad backing extension.” As there is antecedent basis for a pad backing extension in claim 13, it is unclear if the pad backing extension in claim 14 is additional to the pad backing extension of claim 13, or if these are referring to the same pad backing extension. For the purposes of this examination, the pad backing extension of claim 14 will be read as referring to the same pad backing extension as claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner (DE 202004019949, see attached machine translation) in view of McCue (US 5360168, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Suttner teaches a thrust management system for use with a pressurized hose, the thrust management system comprising: a pad mount comprising: a second elongated portion (see annotated fig 2 below), a pad coupler extension that extends from a respective end of the second elongated portion (as shown in annotated fig below), a pad backing comprising a pad backing extension (17); a coupler (16) having a first coupler end (right end as viewed in fig 2) coupled with the pad coupler extension, and a second coupler end (left end as viewed in fig 2) coupled with the pad backing extension; and a pad coupled with the pad backing (see annotated fig below).
Suttner does not teach the pad mount comprising a first elongated portion or one or more support members integral to each of the first elongated portion and second elongated portion. McCue teaches a thrust management system including a first elongated portion (14; fig 2), second elongated portion (15) and one or more support members (6) integral to each of the first elongated portion and second elongated portion (as shown in fig 2). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first elongated portion and an integral support member to the second elongated portion of Suttner, as this arrangement forms an opening in the pad mount which allows a user to hold the system with one hand as taught by McCue (col 7, lines 35-39; fig 6).
Regarding claim 6, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Suttner further teaches the thrust management system further comprising a carrier assembly (21) disposed on and around the pressurized hose (as shown in fig 1, element 21 clamps around interior hose 19; not that the hose is not positively recited as a part of the thrust management system), with at least a portion of the pressurized hose extending out of an end of the carrier assembly (as shown in fig 1), wherein the carrier assembly is configured to have a degree of freedom of rotation around the pressurized hose (described [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as described above. Suttner further teaches the pad is configured with a first curvilinear side, a second curvilinear side, a first rounded corner, and a second rounded corner (see annotated fig below).
Regarding claim 8, Suttner teaches a thrust management system for use with a pressurized hose, the thrust management system comprising: a rigid one-piece pad mount comprising: a second elongated portion (see annotated fig 2 below) and a pad coupler extension (as shown in annotated fig below), a pad backing comprising a pad backing extension (17); a coupler (16) having a first coupler end (right end as viewed in fig 2) coupled with the pad coupler extension, and a second coupler end (left end as viewed in fig 2) coupled with the pad backing extension; and a pad coupled with the pad backing (see annotated fig below).
Suttner does not teach the pad mount comprising a first elongated portion or one or more support members integral to each of the first elongated portion and second elongated portion. McCue teaches a thrust management system including a first elongated portion (14; fig 2), second elongated portion (15) and one or more support members (6) integral to each of the first elongated portion and second elongated portion (as shown in fig 2). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first elongated portion and an integral support member to the second elongated portion of Suttner, as this arrangement forms an opening in the pad mount which allows a user to hold the system with one hand as taught by McCue (col 7, lines 35-39; fig 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1004
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner and McCue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bullard (US 2015/0060567, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Suttner does not teach the pad backing comprises a thickness profile whereby an edge pad backing thickness is less than a middle pad backing thickness. Bullard teaches a thrust management system including a pad (24) coupled to a pad backing (shown unlabeled in fig 4 behind pad 24), the pad backing comprising a thickness profile whereby an edge pad backing thickness is less than a middle pad backing thickness (as shown in fig 4, backing on pad 24 is thinner near the edges than in the middle). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Bullard additionally teaches the pad backing providing a combination of flexibility and security to the pad ([0045-0046]) and the shape of the pad system (including the backing and pad) being adjustable based on the desired ergonomics of the system ([0003-0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pad backing of Suttner to have a thickness profile whereby an edge pad backing thickness is less than a middle pad backing thickness based on the teachings of Bullard, in order to achieve an ergonomic profile with the desired flexibility and stability.
Regarding claim 3, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. McCue further teaches (elongated portions of McCue included in the combination as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) the first elongated portion (14) has a first longitudinal axis, wherein the second elongated portion (15) has a second portion longitudinal axis, and wherein the first portion longitudinal axis and the second portion longitudinal axis are at an offset from each other (as shown in fig 2; the elongated portions 14 and 15 are angularly offset).
Regarding claim 5, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Suttner does not teach a particular ratio of the middle pad backing thickness to the end pad backing thickness. However, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05 II. A.) and applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range. As Bullard teaches the backing having a greater middle pad backing thickness than end pad backing thickness (shown in fig 4 and as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above), and thus a ratio greater than 1, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed by Bullard. Bullard additionally teaches the pad backing providing a combination of flexibility and security to the pad ([0045-0046]) and the shape of the pad system (including the backing and pad) being adjustable in shape based on the desired ergonomics of the system ([0003-0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at a thickness ratio of 1.2-4 for the pad backing of Suttner based on the teachings of Bullard, in order to achieve an ergonomic profile with the desired flexibility and stability.
Regarding claim 9, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Suttner further teaches the thrust management system further comprising: a first clamp (14) disposed around the coupler proximate the pad coupler extension; and a second clamp (15) disposed around the coupler proximate the pad backing extension (as shown in fig 2). Suttner does not teach the pad backing comprises a thickness profile whereby an edge pad backing thickness is less than a middle pad backing thickness. Bullard teaches a thrust management system including a pad (24) coupled to a pad backing (shown unlabeled in fig 4 behind pad 24), the pad backing comprising a thickness profile whereby an edge pad backing thickness is less than a middle pad backing thickness (as shown in fig 4, backing on pad 24 is thinner near the edges than in the middle). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Bullard additionally teaches the pad backing providing a combination of flexibility and security to the pad ([0045-0046]) and the shape of the pad system (including the backing and pad) being adjustable based on the desired ergonomics of the system ([0003-0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pad backing of Suttner to have a thickness profile whereby an edge pad backing thickness is less than a middle pad backing thickness based on the teachings of Bullard, in order to achieve an ergonomic profile with the desired flexibility and stability.
Regarding claim 10, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. McCue further teaches (elongated portions of McCue included in the combination as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) the first elongated portion (14) has a first longitudinal axis, wherein the second elongated portion (15) has a second portion longitudinal axis, and wherein the first portion longitudinal axis and the second portion longitudinal axis are at an offset from each other (as shown in fig 2; the elongated portions 14 and 15 are angularly offset).
Regarding claim 12, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Suttner further teaches the coupler facilitates rotatable motion between the pad mount and the pad backing ([0027]). Suttner does not teach a particular ratio of the middle pad backing thickness to the end pad backing thickness. However, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05 II. A.) and applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range. As Bullard teaches the backing having a greater middle pad backing thickness than end pad backing thickness (shown in fig 4 and as explained in the rejection of claim 9 above), and thus a ratio greater than 1, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed by Bullard. Bullard additionally teaches the pad backing providing a combination of flexibility and security to the pad ([0045-0046]) and the shape of the pad system (including the backing and pad) being adjustable in shape based on the desired ergonomics of the system ([0003-0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at a thickness ratio of 1.2-4 for the pad backing of Suttner based on the teachings of Bullard, in order to achieve an ergonomic profile with the desired flexibility and stability.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner and McCue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 2020/0316634).
Regarding claim 4, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Suttner further teaches the second coupler end is rotatably coupled with the pad backing extension ([0027]; element 15 is rotatably coupled to element 16). Suttner does not teach the pad coupler is flexible. Zhou teaches a thrust management system with a flexible coupler (fig 2; element 3; [0022]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the coupler of Suttner flexible in order to allow the mount to bend when encountering external force to prevent it from breaking as taught by Zhou ([0022]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner, McCue, and Bullard as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 2020/0316634) and Balgaard (US 2016/0123697, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Suttner further teaches the pressurized hose has a central hose axis (central to hose 19; note that the pressurized hose is not positively recited as a part of the claimed thrust management system), wherein the pad has a central pad axis (central to pad 11), wherein in lateral cross-section on a lateral x,y reference the central pad axis is offset from the central hose axis (when the pad mount of McCue is utilized as detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above; see McCue fig 2). Suttner does not teach the pad coupler is flexible. Zhou teaches a thrust management system with a flexible coupler (fig 2; element 3; [0022]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the coupler of Suttner flexible in order to allow the mount to bend when encountering external force to prevent it from breaking as taught by Zhou ([0022]). Suttner does not teach a particular range of offset between the central pad axis and central hose axis. Balgaard teaches a thrust management system including a central hose axis (axis central to element 15) and a pad having a central pad axis (axis defining location of pad 12), wherein in lateral cross-section on a lateral x,y reference (as viewed in fig 2), the central pad axis is offset from the central hose axis by an x and a y distance (depicted in fig 2 with dotted lines 16A, 16B, 17A, 17B). Balgaard describes that the x and y offset can be adjusted based on the comfort of the user ([0020-0022]). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to offset the central pad axis of Bullard from the central hose axis by an x and y distance, the specific range of 1 to 15 inches being selectable through routine experimentation based on user comfort as taught by Balgaard ([0020]).
Claim(s) 13-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner (DE 202004019949, see attached machine translation) in view of McCue (US 5360168, previously cited) and Zhou (US 2020/0316634).
Regarding claim 13, Suttner teaches a thrust management system for use with a pressurized hose, the thrust management system comprising: a pad mount comprising: a second elongated portion (see annotated fig 2 above), a pad coupler extension that extends from a respective end of the second elongated portion (as shown in annotated fig below), a pad backing comprising a pad backing extension (17); a coupler (16) having a first coupler end (right end as viewed in fig 2) coupled with the pad coupler extension, and a second coupler end (left end as viewed in fig 2) rotatably coupled ([0027]) with the pad backing extension; and a pad coupled with the pad backing (see annotated fig above).
Suttner does not teach the pad mount comprising a first elongated portion or one or more support members disposed between and integral to each of the first elongated portion and second elongated portion. McCue teaches a thrust management system including a first elongated portion (14; fig 2), second elongated portion (15) and one or more support members (6) disposed between and integral to each of the first elongated portion and second elongated portion (as shown in fig 2). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first elongated portion and an integral support member to the second elongated portion of Suttner, as this arrangement forms an opening in the pad mount which allows a user to hold the system with one hand as taught by McCue (col 7, lines 35-39; fig 6).
Suttner does not teach the pad coupler is flexible. Zhou teaches a thrust management system with a flexible coupler (fig 2; element 3; [0022]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the coupler of Suttner flexible in order to allow the mount to bend when encountering external force to prevent it from breaking as taught by Zhou ([0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13. Suttner further teaches the system further comprising: the pad backing configured with (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation) the pad backing extension (see annotated fig above).
Regarding claim 16, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Suttner further teaches the thrust management system further comprising a carrier assembly (21) disposed on and around the pressurized hose (as shown in fig 1, element 21 clamps around interior hose 19; note that the hose is not positively recited as a part of the thrust management system), with at least a portion of the pressurized hose extending out of an end of the carrier assembly (as shown in fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Suttner further teaches the thrust management system further comprising a nozzle holder (7) positioned adjacent the carrier assembly (as shown in fig 2), and the nozzle holder disposed around the at least a portion of the pressurized hose (as shown in fig 1; note that the pressurized hose is not positively recited as a part of the thrust management system), wherein the first elongated portion (McCue element 14; elongated portions of McCue included in the combination as described in the rejection of claim 13 above) has a first longitudinal axis, wherein the second elongated portion (McCue element 15) has a second portion longitudinal axis, and wherein the first portion longitudinal axis and the second portion longitudinal axis are at an offset from each other (as shown in fig 2 of McCue; the elongated portions 14 and 15 are angularly offset).
Regarding claim 18, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as described above. McCue further teaches the angle of the offset (offset of McCue included in the combination as described in the rejection of claim 17 above) is in a range of up to no more than 45 degrees in any direction (as shown in fig 1 and described col 3, lines 45-53).
Regarding claim 19, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as described above. Zhou further teaches the flexible coupler (when the coupler of Suttner is made to be flexible based on the teachings of Zhou as described in the rejection of claim 13 above) is made of a different material from that of the pad mount and the pad backing (flexible coupler is rubber as taught by Zhou [0023]; while the pad mount and pad backing of Suttner are plastic or aluminum as described [0034]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner, McCue, and Zhou as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bullard (US 2015/0060567, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Suttner does not teach the pad backing comprises a thickness profile whereby an edge pad backing thickness is less than a middle pad backing thickness. Bullard teaches a thrust management system including a pad (24) coupled to a pad backing (shown unlabeled in fig 4 behind pad 24), the pad backing comprising a thickness profile whereby an edge pad backing thickness is less than a middle pad backing thickness (as shown in fig 4, backing on pad 24 is thinner near the edges than in the middle). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Bullard additionally teaches the pad backing providing a combination of flexibility and security to the pad ([0045-0046]) and the shape of the pad system (including the backing and pad) being adjustable based on the desired ergonomics of the system ([0003-0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pad backing of Suttner to have a thickness profile whereby an edge pad backing thickness is less than a middle pad backing thickness based on the teachings of Bullard, in order to achieve an ergonomic profile with the desired flexibility and stability.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner, McCue, and Zhou as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Balgaard (US 2016/0123697, previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, Suttner, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as described above. Suttner further teaches the thrust management system further comprising a carrier assembly (21) disposed on and around the pressurized hose (as shown in fig 1, element 21 clamps around interior hose 19; note that the hose is not positively recited as a part of the thrust management system), with at least a portion of the pressurized hose extending out of an end of the carrier assembly (as shown in fig 1), wherein the pad mount is coupled with the carrier assembly (as shown in fig 1), wherein the pressurized hose has a central hose axis (central to hose 19; note that the pressurized hose is not positively recited as a part of the claimed thrust management system), wherein the pad has a central pad axis (central to pad 11), wherein in lateral cross-section on a lateral x,y reference and while the carrier assembly is disposed on and around the pressurized hose, the central pad axis is offset from the central hose axis (when the pad mount of McCue is utilized as detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above; see McCue fig 2). Suttner does not teach a particular range of offset between the central pad axis and central hose axis. Balgaard teaches a thrust management system including a central hose axis (axis central to element 15) and a pad having a central pad axis (axis defining location of pad 12), wherein in lateral cross-section on a lateral x,y reference (as viewed in fig 2), the central pad axis is offset from the central hose axis by an x and a y distance (depicted in fig 2 with dotted lines 16A, 16B, 17A, 17B). Balgaard describes that the x and y offset can be adjusted based on the comfort of the user ([0020-0022]). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to offset the central pad axis of Bullard from the central hose axis by an x and y distance, the specific range of 1 to 15 inches being selectable through routine experimentation based on user comfort as taught by Balgaard ([0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 Jun 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previous 112b rejections have been alleviated by the current amendments. While many of the previous 112b rejections have been alleviated, the amendment created new issues under 112a and 112b as detailed in the rejections above.
Applicant argues that Bullard does not teach or render obvious the newly claimed integral support members. However, as detailed above, McCue renders this limitation obvious. Applicant provides several other arguments against Bullard regarding the claimed flexible coupler, rotatable coupling, and carrier. However, as detailed above, Bullard is not relied upon for these teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4349154 is cited to show another example of a thrust management system for use with a pressurized hose.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723