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 .
Status of the Claims
In the reply of December 17, 2025, the following has occurred:
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 15 is/are amended
Claim(s) 2, 6 is/are canceled
Claim(s) 23 is/are new
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-23 is/are pending, with claim(s) 17-22 being withdrawn
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues on pp. 8-9 that the latest amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous rejection in view of Morita.
Examiner agrees, since the claim has been amended to include the features of previous claims 2 and 6, Morita alone no longer teaches the claim limitations. For this reason, Morita in view of Stefani and Wang is relied on to teach claim 1.
Applicant argues on p. 10 that modification by Stefani teaches duplication of independent firing channels, not adjustment of vertical spacing within a single channel.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, it is the Examiner’s position that the device of Morita has an internal passage from an inlet to an outlet comprising a plurality of individual furnaces. This configuration reads on claim 1 since the claim does not require an uninterrupted internal passage, see for example claim 4 which further limits claim 1 by excluding a heat insulating wall between rollers.
Applicant argues on p. 11 that modification by Wang results in zone ratios different from those claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, claim 1 requires a length of the temperature maintaining zone, L2 > cooling zone, L3 > temperature rising zone, L1; or L2 > L3 >L1, as Applicant notes in the Remarks. Wang teaches ratios of a burning zone, 40% > cooling zone, 36% > preheating zone, 24%. It is the Examiner’s position that 40% > 36% > 24%. It appears the Applicant may have unintentionally mischaracterized the relevant zones of Wang.
For these reasons, the rejection to the claims is being respectfully maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 10. The claim recites the limitation, “wherein the plurality of regions include a first region and a second region longer than the first region, each of the temperature rising zone and the cooling zone includes a plurality of the first regions, and the temperature maintaining zone includes the first region and the second region, wherein the first region is disposed in a region adjacent to the temperature rising zone and the cooling zone.”
Here, the first region and the second region are being interpreted to describe the size of a zone, and not a particular zone, per se. For example, claim 10 recites a plurality of the first regions, this is understood to correspond to a plurality of separate regions having the same first size. This appears to be the intent of the claim, in view of fig. 1 and para. 68 of the Applicant’s PGPUB, where zone L2 includes four regions Z1.
Additionally, regarding the limitation to “the temperature maintaining zone includes the first region and the second region, wherein the first region is disposed in a region adjacent to the temperature rising zone and the cooling zone.” The claimed region adjacent to the temperature rising zone and the cooling zone is being interpreted broadly; for example, the entirety of the temperature maintaining zone P2 could read on a “region adjacent to the temperature rising zone and the cooling zone”. Therefore, as shown in fig. 1, copied below, the zone P2, which is adjacent to zones P1 and P3, has first and second regions Z1 and Z2.
If Applicant intended a different interpretation for claim 10, clarification is kindly requested in any subsequent reply.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080304941 A1 to Morita in view of US 20240167766 A1 to Stefani and CN 112985051 A to Wang.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Wang.
Regarding claim 1. Morita teaches a firing furnace comprising:
a firing furnace main body having an internal passage from an inlet to an outlet (fig. 3, baking furnace 2 having inlet and outlet from right to left along conveying direction 100);
a first heating portion disposed in an upper portion of the internal passage (as shown for example in the figure below, heaters 9 on uppermost heat insulating wall 7);
a second heating portion disposed in a central portion of the internal passage (as shown for example in the figure below, heaters 9 on a middle heat insulating wall 7);
a third heating portion disposed in a lower portion of the internal passage (as shown for example in the figure below, heaters 9 on a lowermost heat insulating wall. As seen in fig. 3, there are a plurality of electric heaters 9 disposed on the inside of the baking furnace 2, where they could be considered upper, central, and lower heaters as appropriate; therefore, there are at least first, second, and third heating portions disposed as claimed);
a first transporting roller disposed between the first heating portion and the second heating portion (as shown for example in the figure below, uppermost conveying path 6); and
a second transporting roller disposed between the second heating portion and the third heating portion (as shown for example in the figure below, lowermost conveying path 6),
wherein a distance between the first heating portion and the second heating portion is greater than a distance between the second heating portion and the third heating portion (with the configuration of the figure below, the first and second heating portions are separated by two heat insulating walls 7, while the second and third heat insulating portion are adjacent; therefore, the distance between the first and the second is greater than the distance between the second and the third).
PNG
media_image2.png
494
1158
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note: The figure above represents only one interpretation of Morita, and other interpretations may also read on the claim. For example, shifting the interpretation of the first transporting roller and first heating portion down one level would also read on the claim.
But fails to teach wherein the distance between the first heating portion and the second heating portion is greater than or equal to 1.2 times and less than or equal to 1.3 times the distance between the second heating portion and the third heating portion.
As noted above, there are a number of different interpretations one of ordinary skill in the art could make as to which heating portions of the prior art correspond to the first, second, and third heating portions. In Morita fig. 3, no interpretation reads on the claimed spacing since only four equally spaced conveyance lines are shown; for example, with the interpretation shown in the annotated figure for claim 1 above, the distance between the first and second heating portion is equal to 3 times the distance between the second and third heating portion.
Stefani teaches an increased number of conveyance lines (fig. 2, process chamber C having five channels C1-C5).
PNG
media_image3.png
535
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Morita to implement a higher number of conveyance lines, as taught by Stefani. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of increasing the kiln productivity, as suggested by Stefani in para. 64, “The provision of five channels (C1,C2,C3,C4,C5) allows the kiln productivity to be multiplied accordingly.”
Further, as per MPEP 2144.04 VI.B, it would have been obvious to further duplicate the number of conveyance paths of Morita, since a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As demonstrated by Stefani in the cited portion above, providing additional conveyance lines has expected results, i.e. increased production. Thus, increasing the number of conveyance paths to at least eleven reads on this claim, since the spacing could correspond to six conveyance paths between the first and second heating portions and five conveyance paths between the second and third heating portions, where six is equal to 1.2 times five.
Further, the device of Morita teaches the firing furnace of claim 1, wherein in the firing furnace main body, a temperature rising zone (Morita fig. 3, heating area 2a), a temperature maintaining zone (Morita fig. 3, keeping area 2b), and a cooling zone (Morita fig. 3, cooling area 2c) are sequentially arranged from the inlet to the outlet (Morita fig. 3, the above zones are arranged sequentially from right to left along conveying direction 100),
But fails to teach a length of the cooling zone is longer than a length of the temperature rising zone, and a length of the temperature maintaining zone is longer than the length of the cooling zone.
Wang teaches a kiln divided into zones of different length where the cooling zone is longer than a length of the temperature rising zone, and a length of the temperature maintaining zone is longer than the length of the cooling zone (contents of the invention, “Further, the kiln length is 101 m; the preheating zone is 24 % of the total length of the kiln; the burning zone is 40 % of the total length of the kiln; the cooling zone is 36 % of the total length of the kiln.”).
With regards to the limitation of “the length of the cooling zone is longer than a length of the temperature rising zone, and a length of the temperature maintaining zone is longer than the length of the cooling zone”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing specific zone lengths has predictable and expected results. For example, these zone lengths could be optimized by increasing or decreasing to achieve the desired heating/cooling effect; while having a sufficiently small overall furnace footprint, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a zone length is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the zone length is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to suitably adjust the zone lengths of Morita, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, see cited portion of Wang above, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Regarding claim 8. The claim is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1, where it is the Examiner’s position that the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, since Wang teaches differently sized zones, so arriving at the specific claimed ratios would have been obvious because it involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Stefani and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to THT, Technical Specification for Model RSK2506 Conveyor Furnace, note an accessibility date of 2008.
Regarding claim 5. The device of modified Morita teaches the firing furnace of claim 1,
But fails to explicitly teach wherein a length of the firing furnace main body is 7.0 m to 10.0 m.
THT teaches a conveyor furnace having an overall system length of 7m (table, overall system length for RSK3507 and RSK 6357 is 7000mm/276”, which is understood to correspond to 7m).
With regards to the limitation of “a length of the firing furnace main body is 7.0 m to 10.0 m”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a specific length has predictable and expected results. For example, this length could be optimized by increasing for more heating potential while decreasing for a smaller furnace footprint, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a furnace length is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the furnace length is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the furnace length to within the claimed range, as taught by THT, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Regarding claim 7. The device of modified Morita teaches the firing furnace of claim 1,
But fails to explicitly disclose wherein the length of the temperature rising zone is 1.0 m to 1.5 m, the length of the temperature maintaining zone is 4.5 m to 6.5 m, and the length of the cooling zone is 1.5 m to 2.0 m.
THT teaches a conveyor furnace having an overall system length of 7m (table, overall system length for RSK3507 and RSK 6357 is 7000mm/276”, which is understood to correspond to 7m).
With regards to the limitation of “the length of the temperature rising zone is 1.0 m to 1.5 m, the length of the temperature maintaining zone is 4.5 m to 6.5 m, and the length of the cooling zone is 1.5 m to 2.0 m”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a length of furnace zones has predictable and expected results. For example, these lengths could be optimized by increasing or decreasing to achieve the desired heating/cooling effect; while having a sufficiently small overall furnace footprint, as detailed in the rejection to claim 6, above, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a zone length is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the zone lengths are is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to suitably adjust the zone lengths of Morita, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, see cited portions of Wang and THT above, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
In other words, it is the Examiner’s position that the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, since Wang teaches differently sized zones and THT teaches an overall furnace length, so arriving at the specific claimed values would have been obvious because it involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Stefani and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020130669 A1 to Jung.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Jung.
Regarding claim 9. The device of modified Morita teaches the firing furnace of claim 1,
But fails to teach the remainder of the claim.
Jung teaches wherein the firing furnace main body includes a plurality of regions divided by partition walls (fig. 1, where the front chamber 11, middle chamber 12, and rear chamber 13, which are substantially regions, per se, are divided from each other by third shutter 53 and fourth shutter 54).
PNG
media_image4.png
342
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Morita to implement suitable shutters between the furnace zones, as taught by Jung. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of preventing the spread of gas between chambers, as suggested by Jung in tech solution, “The operation is controlled so that the inlet shutter and the outlet shutter do not open at the same time, thereby preventing gas from the first chamber from spreading to the second chamber.”
Therefore, the furnace of Morita would implement suitable shutters between the heating area 2a, keeping area 2b, and the cooling area 2c. Since Morita also implements a plurality of stacked conveyance lines, each zone 2a-2c would comprise a plurality of regions, i.e. the zones of each conveyance path being their own region, per se, resulting in four regions per zone. The average length of the regions included in each zone are the same as the overall zone length; thus, the average length of the regions included in the temperature maintaining zone are longer than the average length of the regions included in each of the temperature rising zone and the cooling zone, as required by claim 6.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Stefani and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP H1137660 A to Shimozato.
Regarding claim 15. The device of Morita teaches the firing furnace of claim 6,
Wherein a temperature deviation of the temperature maintaining zone is less than or equal to 2°C (Morita para. 39, “a keeping area 2b for performing heat treatment to them at a constant temperature” where constant temperature suggests substantially no temperature deviation).
But fails to explicitly teach wherein a temperature rising speed of the temperature rising zone is greater than or equal to 9°C/min and a cooling speed of the cooling zone is greater than or equal to 4°C/min.
Shimozato teaches a temperature rising speed greater than or equal to 9°C/min (fig. 8, heating zone being 5-10°C/min) and a cooling speed of greater than or equal to 4°C/min (fig. 8, slow cooling zone speed of 1-5°C/min, with cooling zone having an even higher rate of cooling, but not specified in the figure).
PNG
media_image5.png
445
656
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regards to the limitation of “a temperature rising speed of the temperature rising zone is greater than or equal to 9°C/min … and a cooling speed of the cooling zone is greater than or equal to 4°C/min.”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a specific rate of heating or cooling has predictable and expected results. For example, this rate could be optimized by increasing to get the object up to temperature and back down quicker to increase production, or decreasing for a more gradual heat treatment with less thermal stress, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a rate of heating or cooling is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the rate of heating or cooling is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the furnace of Morita with the claimed heating and cooling rates, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, see fig. 8 of Shimozato above, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Stefani, Wang, and Shimozato as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 4192645 A to Hassler.
Regarding claim 16. The device of Morita teaches the firing furnace of claim 15,
But fails to explicitly teach wherein a temperature of the temperature maintaining zone is higher than or equal to 1200°C.
However, Hassler teaches a temperature maintaining zone with a temperature higher than or equal to 1200°C (fig. 6, baking zone B having a temperature of 1200°C)
PNG
media_image6.png
163
695
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the furnace of Morita at a temperature of 1200°C, as taught by Hassler. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably baking ceramic products, as suggested by Hassler in col. 1 ll. 5-7, “The invention concerns a tunnel oven for baking ceramic products”
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107917615 A to Shao in view of Stefani and Wang.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Shao.
Regarding claim 4. The device of Shao teaches a firing furnace comprising:
a firing furnace main body having an internal passage from an inlet to an outlet (specific executing examples, “the multi-section roller kiln by two end with opening/closing door of the baking section 1, section 2 and section 3 in turn, and the baking section 1. section 2 slow cooling section 3 is spliced by several sections of kiln body, each section of the kiln body are hollow structure,” Thus, at least the baking section 1 has an internal passage from an inlet to an outlet of the section);
a first heating portion disposed in an upper portion of the internal passage (fig. 1, uppermost electric heating device 6);
a second heating portion disposed in a central portion of the internal passage (fig. 1, electric heating device 6 under middle conveyance path);
a third heating portion disposed in a lower portion of the internal passage (fig. 1, lowermost electric heating device 6);
a first transporting roller disposed between the first heating portion and the second heating portion (fig. 1, upper conveyance path 4); and
a second transporting roller disposed between the second heating portion and the third heating portion (fig. 1, lower conveyance path 4),
wherein a distance between the first heating portion and the second heating portion is greater than a distance between the second heating portion and the third heating portion (as shown in the figure below, the distance between the first and second heating portions is greater than the distance between the second and third heating portions),
and wherein a heat insulating wall is not disposed between the first transporting roller and the second transporting roller (fig. 1, no heat insulating wall is disposed between conveyance paths).
PNG
media_image7.png
505
904
media_image7.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach wherein the distance between the first heating portion and the second heating portion is greater than or equal to 1.2 times and less than or equal to 1.3 times the distance between the second heating portion and the third heating portion.
Similar to the rejection of claim 1 citing Morita, there are a number of different interpretations one of ordinary skill in the art could make as to which heating portions of the prior art correspond to the first, second, and third heating portions. In Shao fig. 1, no interpretation reads on the claimed spacing since only three equally spaced conveyance lines are shown; for example, with the interpretation shown in the annotated figure for claim 1 above, the distance between the first and second heating portion is equal to 2 times the distance between the second and third heating portion.
Stefani teaches an increased number of conveyance lines (fig. 2, process chamber C having five channels C1-C5).
PNG
media_image3.png
535
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Shao to implement a higher number of conveyance lines, as taught by Stefani. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of increasing the kiln productivity, as suggested by Stefani in para. 64, “The provision of five channels (C1,C2,C3,C4,C5) allows the kiln productivity to be multiplied accordingly.”
Further, as per MPEP 2144.04 VI.B, it would have been obvious to further duplicate the number of conveyance paths of Shao, since a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As demonstrated by Stefani in the cited portion above, providing additional conveyance lines has expected results, i.e. increased production. Thus, increasing the number of conveyance paths to at least eleven reads on this claim, since the spacing could correspond to six conveyance paths between the first and second heating portions and five conveyance paths between the second and third heating portions, where six is equal to 1.2 times five.
But fails to teach wherein in the firing furnace main body, a temperature rising zone, a temperature maintaining zone, and a cooling zone are sequentially arranged form the inlet to the outlet, a length of the cooling zone is longer than a length of the temperature rising zone, and a length of the temperature maintaining zone is longer than the length of the cooling zone.
Wang teaches a kiln divided into zones of different length where the cooling zone is longer than a length of the temperature rising zone, and a length of the temperature maintaining zone is longer than the length of the cooling zone (contents of the invention, “Further, the kiln length is 101 m; the preheating zone is 24 % of the total length of the kiln; the burning zone is 40 % of the total length of the kiln; the cooling zone is 36 % of the total length of the kiln.”).
With regards to the limitation of “the length of the cooling zone is longer than a length of the temperature rising zone, and a length of the temperature maintaining zone is longer than the length of the cooling zone”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing specific zone lengths has predictable and expected results. For example, these zone lengths could be optimized by increasing or decreasing to achieve the desired heating/cooling effect; while having a sufficiently small overall furnace footprint, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a zone length is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the zone length is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply and suitably adjust zone lengths in the device of Shao, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, see cited portion of Wang above, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Applying the suitable zones to the furnace of Shao would have the predictable result and benefit of applying an advantageous heat treatment to the product, as suggested by Wang in description, specific implementation examples, “the working process is as follows: the baked goods firstly enters the preheating zone; under the beneficial effect of the injection device, the air flow in the kiln is rotated in high speed; the upper and lower temperatures in the kiln are uniform; the good condition is created for the heating materialization decomposition of the article; then the article enters into the firing zone; the firing zone structure is designed to be open; upper and lower staggered combustion device, the combustion product storage space is greatly increased, full accumulation in sufficient space, heating area without dead angle, advantageously improving the radiation conduction of the heat, making the space temperature; the atmosphere is uniform; it realizes the fast materialization reaction sintering of the baked goods; the sintering period is greatly shortened; the production capability is greatly improved; after sintering the object, cooling it in the cooling belt.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 23. The claim includes all of the limitations of previous claim 10, and is allowable for the reasons indicated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on September 17, 2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3 and 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3. The claim would be allowable for the reasons indicated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on September 17, 2025.
Regarding claim 10. The claim would be allowable for the reasons indicated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on September 17, 2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762