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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 03/09/2026 claims 1, 3, and 6-20 are pending. Independent claims 1, 7, and 14 have been amended to incorporate elements from cancelled claims 2, 4, and 5 and/or new limitations not previously presented. Claims 3, 7, and 10 have been amended to correct claim objections and/or antecedent basis issues.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments and arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 1, the applicant argues in pages 6-9 of the Remarks dated 03/09/2026 that Bublitz and/or Wenzel fail to teach “a magnet assembly including an actuator that is moveable between a first position in which the magnet assembly is coupled to mating surface to support a housing and a second position in which the magnet assembly is uncoupled from the mating surface”. The applicant argues that “even if Wenzel could be combined with Bublitz, a point which Applicant does not concede, the alleged actuator of Wenzel is on a backside of a base 22 of the housing and the alleged magnet assembly of Bublitz (i.e., the protrusions 118 with the magnets 122) are also on a backside of a base of a housing. Therefore, even if Wenzel could be combined with Wenzel, the actuator would not be positioned in an opening between front and rear housings.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the actuator of Wenzel is on a backside, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to independent claim 7, the applicant argues in pages 9-10 of the Remarks dated 03/09/2026 that Bublitz and/or Underwood fail to teach “the actuator engaging the mating surface and applying a force to disengage the billet from the mating surface when moved from the first position to the second position.”
In response to applicant's argument that “... even if the device of Underwood could be combined with the charger of Bublitz, a point which the Applicant does not concede, the alleged actuator (i.e., lever 22) would not engage a mating surface to disengage the alleged billet (i.e., pole pieces 12, 13). Rather, the alleged actuator is rotatable to change the alignment of the poles of the magnets 10, 11 which allows the device to be attached to ferromagnetic surfaces (See. paragraphs 68-69 of Underwood). The lever 22 itself is not applying a force to the surface to disengage the pole pieces 12, 13 ...” (emphasis added), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to independent claim 14, the applicant argues in pages 10-11 of the Remarks dated 03/09/2026 that Bublitz and/or Wenzel fail to teach “the actuator moveable between the first and second positions independently of the magnet.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, making the actuator move separately from the magnet is an obvious design choice. Removing or changing how they are physically connected is something a designer could implement and it would not change how the device functions. The advantage of this being reducing and/or increasing mechanical complexity while taking into consideration operational use and maintenance factors.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The title objection and the claim objection are withdrawn due to the amendments.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bublitz et al. (USPGPN 20230299598) and further in view of Wenzel et al. (USPGPN 20210164638).
With respect to independent claim 1, Bublitz teaches a charging station (Figs. 1-8; battery charger 100) comprising a housing defining a front housing having a forward side and a rear housing having a rear side opposite the forward side (Fig. 1; a housing 110 defining an engagement side 112 (i.e., a front housing with a forward side) and a base 114 (i.e., a rear housing with a rear side) opposite the engagement side 112).
Bublitz teaches an opening between the front and rear housing (See annotated Fig. 4 below for an illustration of the housing which includes a front housing, a rear housing, and an opening therebetween. One of ordinary skill understands the opening therebetween is the not illustrated space inside of the front housing and rear housing which houses internal components).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bublitz teaches a charging port disposed on the housing, the charging port including a battery receptacle to receive and charge a battery pack (Fig. 1; a cavity 116 disposed on the housing 110, the charging port including battery contacts 210 to receive and charge a rechargeable battery 200).
Bublitz teaches a magnet assembly disposed on the rear side of the housing, the magnet assembly configured to support the housing from a mating surface (Figs. 1 and 4; protrusion 118 [with magnets 122 inside] disposed on the base 114 of the housing 110, the protrusion 118 configured to support the housing 110 from a surface 270).
Bublitz teaches wherein the magnet assembly is moveable between a first position, in which the magnet assembly is coupled to the mating surface to support the housing and a second position, in which the magnet assembly is uncoupled from the mating surface (Figs. 4 and 8; the protrusions 118 are moveable between a first position, in which the protrusion 118 is coupled to the surface 270 of the toolbox 300 to support the housing 110 and a second position [not shown however understood by one of ordinary skill in the art], in which the protrusion 118 is uncoupled from the surface 270 of the toolbox 300).
However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the magnet assembly includes an actuator positioned within the opening; and wherein the magnet assembly includes an actuator that is moveable between a first position and a second position.
Wenzel teaches wherein the magnet assembly includes an actuator positioned within the opening (Figs. 1 and 3; the mounting assembly 40 includes actuators 62 with tabs 58 positioned within the opening).
Wenzel teaches wherein the magnet assembly includes an actuator that is moveable between a first position and a second position (Fig. 1A and 3; the mounting assembly 40 with magnets 61 includes actuators 62 with tabs 58 that are moveable between a first position and a second position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Wenzel’s magnetic assembly actuator and positioning system to Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charging apparatus. The advantage of this being the device ensures the magnetic component that movable relative to the base between a stored position and a deployed position, and engageable with the junction box when the magnetic components in the deployed position to magnetically couple the device to the junction box (see ¶[03-05] of Wenzel).
With respect to claim 3, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is pivotable about a pivot axis between the first position and the second position.
Wenzel teaches wherein the actuator is pivotable about a pivot axis between the first position and the second position (Fig. 3; illustrates how the actuators 62 with tabs 52 are pivotable about a pivot axis between the first position and the second position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Wenzel’s magnet assembly actuator with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to independent claim 14, Bublitz teaches a charging station (Figs. 1-8; battery charger 100) comprising a housing defining a front housing and a rear housing opposite the front housing (Fig. 1; a housing 110 defining an engagement side 112 and a base 114 opposite the engagement side 112).
Bublitz teaches a charging port disposed on the housing, the charging port including a battery receptacle configured to receive and charge a battery pack (Fig. 1; a cavity 116 disposed on the housing 110, the charging port including battery contacts 210 to receive and charge a rechargeable battery 200).
Bublitz teaches a magnet assembly configured to support the housing from a mating surface (Figs. 1 and 4; protrusion 118 [with magnets 122 inside] configured to support the housing 110 from a surface 270).
Bublitz teaches the magnet assembly including a magnet (Fig. 1; protrusions 118 include magnets 122).
Bublitz teaches moveable between a first position, in which the magnet assembly engages the mating surface to support the charging station and a second position, in which the magnet assembly is disengaged from the mating surface (Figs. 4 and 8; the protrusions 118 are movable between a first position, in which the protrusion 118 is engages the surface 270 of the toolbox 300 to support the battery charger 100 and a second position [not shown however understood by one of ordinary skill in the art], in which the protrusion 118 is disengaged from the surface 270 of the toolbox 300).
However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the magnet assembly includes an actuator that is movable between a first position and a second position; and the actuator moveable between the first and second position independently of the magnet.
Wenzel teaches wherein the magnet assembly includes an actuator moveable between a first position and a second position (Fig. 1A and 3; the mounting assembly 40 with magnets 61 includes actuators 62 with tabs 58 that are moveable between a first position and a second position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Wenzel’s magnetic assembly actuator and positioning system to Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charging apparatus. The advantage of this being the device ensures the magnetic component that movable relative to the base between a stored position and a deployed position, and engageable with the junction box when the magnetic components in the deployed position to magnetically couple the device to the junction box (see ¶[03-05] of Wenzel).
Bublitz fails to explicitly teach the actuator moveable between the first and second position independently of the magnet. However, making the actuator move separately from the magnet is an obvious design choice. Removing or changing how they are physically connected is something a designer could implement and it would not change how the device functions. The advantage of this being reducing and/or increasing mechanical complexity while taking into consideration operational use and maintenance factors.
With respect to claim 15, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is pivotable between the first and second positions about a pivot axis.
Wenzel teaches wherein the actuator is pivotable between the first and second positions about a pivot axis (Fig. 3; illustrates how the actuators 62 with tabs 52 are pivotable about a pivot axis between the first position and the second position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Wenzel’s magnet assembly actuator with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 16, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the pivot axis is parallel to the mating surface.
Wenzel teaches wherein the pivot axis is parallel to the mating surface (Fig. 4A; the pivot axis is parallel to stud 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Wenzel’s magnet assembly actuator pivot axis with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 17, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator includes a grip portion that extends from the housing and a lever portion.
Wenzel teaches wherein the actuator includes a grip portion that extends from the housing and a lever portion (Fig. 1A; the actuators 62 with tabs 52 act as a lever mechanism. See annotated Fig. 1A below for the grip portion that extends from the housing).
PNG
media_image2.png
678
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Wenzel’s magnet assembly actuator with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 18, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 17. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the pivot axis extends through the lever portion, wherein a first distance is defined between the grip portion and the pivot axis and a second distance is defined between the pivot axis and an end of the lever portion, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance.
Wenzel teaches wherein the pivot axis extends through the lever portion, wherein a first distance is defined between the grip portion and the pivot axis and a second distance is defined between the pivot axis and an end of the lever portion (Annotated Fig. 3 below illustrates wherein the pivot axis extends through the lever portion, a first distance marked as D1 defined between the grip portion and the pivot axis, and a second distance marked as D2 defined between the pivot axis and an end of the lever portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Wenzel’s magnet assembly actuator with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
PNG
media_image3.png
681
629
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the first distance to be greater than the second distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 20, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator moves from the first position to the second position in a direction away from the mating surface.
Wenzel teaches wherein the actuator moves from the first position to the second position in a direction away from the mating surface (Fig. 3; the tabs 58 of the actuator 62 move from the first position to the second position in a direction away from the mating surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Wenzel’s magnet assembly actuator with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bublitz et al. (USPGPN 20230299598), in view of Wenzel et al. (USPGPN 20210164638), and further in view of Underwood et al. (USPGPN 20050012579).
With respect to claim 6, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Bublitz teaches wherein the magnet assembly includes at least one magnet (Fig. 1; protrusions 118 include magnets 122).
However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach at least one billet.
Underwood teaches at least one billet (Fig. 2; pole pieces 12 and 13 are made from ferromagnetic material, see ¶ [17, 61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Underwood’s pole pieces with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage of this being having a magnetic device having improved properties (see ¶[08] of Underwood).
With respect to claim 19, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Further, Bublitz teaches wherein the magnet assembly further includes an extension through an opening in the rear housing to engage the mating surface (Figs. 1 and 4; protrusion 118 further includes an internal magnet cavity 120 through an opening in the base 114 to engage the surface 270).
However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach a billet.
Underwood teaches a billet (Fig. 2; pole pieces 12 and 13 are made from ferromagnetic material, see ¶ [17, 61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Underwood’s pole pieces with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage of this being having a magnetic device having improved properties (see ¶[08] of Underwood).
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bublitz et al. (USPGPN 20230299598) and further in view of Underwood et al. (USPGPN 20050012579).
With respect to independent claim 7, Bublitz teaches a magnet assembly to couple a module to a mating surface (Figs. 1 and 4; protrusion 118 [with magnets 122 inside] to couple the battery charger 100 to a surface 270).
Bublitz teaches the magnet assembly comprising a magnet (Fig. 1; protrusions 118 include magnets 122).
Bublitz teaches the module is moveable between a first position, in which it engages the mating surface to support the module and a second position, in which it is disengaged from the mating surface (Figs. 4 and 8; the charging station 100 is moveable between a first position, in which it engages the surface 270 of the toolbox 300 and a second position, in which it is disengaged from the surface 270 of the toolbox 300).
However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach a billet; and an actuator moveable between a first position, in which the billet engages the mating surface and a second position, in which the billet is disengaged from the mating surface, the actuator engaging the mating surface and applying a force to disengage the billet from the mating surface when moved from the first position to the second position.
Underwood teaches a billet (Fig. 2; pole pieces 12 and 13 are made from ferromagnetic material, see ¶ [17, 61]).
Underwood teaches an actuator moveable between a first position, in which the billet engages the mating surface and a second position, in which the billet is disengaged from the mating surface (Fig. 2; a lever 22 moveable between a first position, in which the pole pieces 12 and 13 engage a ferromagnetic surface (see ¶ [69]) and a second position, in which the pole pieces 12 and 13 disengage a ferromagnetic surface (see ¶ [68])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Underwood’s lever activated pole pieces with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger in order to have a design that incorporates the actuator engaging the mating surface and applying a force to disengage the billet from the mating surface when moved from the first position to the second position. The advantage of this being having a magnetic device having improved properties (see ¶[08] of Underwood) thus being able to break the bond between the billet and the surface when a force is applied.
With respect to claim 8, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator moves between the first and second position independently of either the billet or the magnet.
Underwood teaches wherein the actuator moves between the first and second position independently of the billet (Fig. 2; the lever 22 moves between the first and second positions independently of the pole pieces 12 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Underwood’s lever activated pole pieces with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage of this being having a magnetic device having improved properties (see ¶[08] of Underwood).
With respect to claim 9, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the billet is a first billet, and wherein the magnet assembly further comprises a second billet.
Underwood teaches wherein the billet is a first billet, and wherein the magnet assembly further comprises a second billet (Fig. 2; pole pieces 12 and 13 (i.e., a first billet and a second billet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Underwood’s lever activated pole pieces with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage of this being having a magnetic device having improved properties (see ¶[08] of Underwood).
With respect to claim 10, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the magnet is positioned between the first and second billets.
Underwood teaches wherein the magnet is positioned between the first and second billets (Fig. 2; magnet assembly comprising magnets 10, 11 and supporting components are positioned between the pole pieces 12 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Underwood’s lever activated pole pieces with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage of this being having a magnetic device having improved properties (see ¶[08] of Underwood).
With respect to claim 11, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. However, Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator pivots about a pivot axis between the first and second positions.
Underwood teaches wherein the actuator pivots about a pivot axis between the first and second positions (See annotated Fig. 2 wherein lever 22 pivots about a pivot axis between the first and second positions).
PNG
media_image4.png
581
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Underwood’s lever activated pole pieces with Bublitz’s magnetically secured battery charger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage of this being having a magnetic device having improved properties (see ¶[08] of Underwood).
With respect to claim 12, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is biased to the second position. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to bias the actuator to the second position, since applicant has not disclosed that biasing the actuator to the second position solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the actuator biased in either direction or without such a biasing feature at all.
With respect to claim 13, Bublitz teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Bublitz fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator applies a force greater than 30 pounds to the mating surface when moved from the first position to the second position. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ensure that the actuator applies a force greater than 30 pounds to the mating surface when moved from the first position to the second position, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Farris-Gilbert et al. (USPGPN 20140002004) teaches a portable charging station is provided for selectively charging a plurality of personal electronic devices. The portable charging station includes a wall charger, a hub separate from the wall charger and having a plurality of USB ports to selectively charge one or more of the plurality of personal electronic devices and a case movable between a transport configuration in which the case encloses the wall charger and the hub and a charging configuration in which the case reveals the wall charger and the hub. The portable charging station may further include a battery and the hub may include a switch for switching between a battery charging mode and an outlet charging mode. Related methods of charging personal electronic devices are also provided.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights