DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed October 29, 2025 is hereby acknowledged. With the aforementioned reply, claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19 were amended, and claims 4 and 5 were cancelled. Thus, claims 1-3 and 6-19 remain pending and are addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 and 18 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 10, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “30” has been used to designate both the “motor and gear box” (for “auger 26”) in Figs. 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and what appears to be a flight element on the auger shown in Fig. 3. It is noted that this drawing objection is repeated from the Office action mailed July 28, 2025, since Applicant did not correct this issue in the reply filed October 29, 2025. Further, as set forth in the second paragraph on page 8 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant states, “The Examiner’s objection to the drawings is not understood”, and Applicant goes on to assert that “reference number 30 is consistently used to identify the motor and gear box, including on Fig. 3”. While this assertion is correct with respect to the depicted motor and gear box, Applicant’s assertion does not obviate the actual grounds of the objection. Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to Fig. 3 of the instant application, as filed on February 22, 2023, which clearly and unmistakably shows that not only is the motor and gear box designated with reference number “30”, but what appears to be an exemplary flight element on the shown auger is also designated with reference number “30” (see the fifth flight element on the auger, counting from the left side of the auger depiction, as shown in Fig. 3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such limitations are:
“means for distributing said material” in claim 13; and
“means for conveying said material from said container to said means for distributing said material” in claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 10, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, on lines 3-4, the introduction of “a human interface connected to said controller” is unclear and confusing. First, what exactly is this newly introduced “human interface”, as compared to the “human interface” introduced on line 17 of claim 1? Are they not one and the same “human interface”? Also, in the introduction of the “human interface” of claim 1, such is recited whereby the “controller comprises” the human interface”. Thus, with respect to the aforementioned recitation in claim 8, it is unclear and confusing as to why the “human interface” is recited so as to be “connected to said controller”, whereby the human interface appears to be a separate and distinct element from the controller, rather than being an element of the controller, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, on line 2, the recitation, “said vehicle” technically lacks antecedent basis. While claim 1 refers to vehicular relationships, no “vehicle” is properly introduced into claim 1. It is noted that the aforementioned issue in claim 10 is substantially repeated from the Office action mailed July 28, 2025, since Applicant’s reply filed October 29, 2025 did not address or otherwise obviate this issue.
Further, regarding claim 10, on line 2, the recitation, “at least one of said load sensors” is unclear. While claim 1 provides antecedent basis for “one or more load sensors” (see line 11 of claim 1), such is not necessarily limited to be a plurality thereof, which is required for providing clear antecedent basis for “said load sensors” in claim 10. It is also noted that the recitation, “said at least one load sensor” on line 3 of claim 10 further confuses this issue.
Regarding claim 14, on line 2, the recitation, “at least one said vehicle load sensors” is unclear. While claim 13 provides antecedent basis for a “vehicle load sensor” (see line 11 of claim 13), such is not necessarily limited to be a plurality thereof, which is required for providing clear antecedent basis for “said vehicle load sensors” in claim 14. It is also noted that the recitation, “said at least one vehicle load sensor” on line 4 of claim 14 further confuses this issue.
Regarding claim 19, on line 2, the recitation, “at least one of said vehicle load sensors” is unclear. While claim 13 provides antecedent basis for a “vehicle load sensor” (see line 11 of claim 13), such is not necessarily limited to be a plurality thereof, which is required for providing clear antecedent basis for “said vehicle load sensors” in claim 19. It is also noted that the recitation, “said at least one vehicle load sensors” on line 3 of claim 19 further confuses this issue.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lugtenberg et al., International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2006099992 A1, in view of Jaccoma et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0136023, and Hsu et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0053956. As was noted in the Office action mailed July 28, 2025, the written description locations of the Lugtenberg document referenced below refer to locations within the English language translation of this document, provided with the aforementioned Office action.
As to claim 1, Lugtenberg shows (see Figs. 1 and 2) and describes a vehicle mounted spreader (1; see the fourth paragraph on page 8) for spreading material onto snow and ice-covered road surfaces, comprising: a hopper (2) for containing material to be spread, one or more load sensors (10) coupled to said hopper for measurement of said hopper contents (see the first paragraph on page 9), a spinner (4) for spreading said material, a conveyor (6) for conveying said material from said hopper to said spinner, a vehicle speed input (see the third paragraph on page 4; and the fifth paragraph on page 8), and a controller (“controller” in third paragraph on page 2, and in first paragraph on page 9; or “control unit” in third paragraph on page 4), wherein said one or more load sensors, conveyor, and speed input are coupled to said controller, and said controller is programmed with an intended density of material and desired width of coverage (see Abstract; and third paragraph on page 2; and third paragraph on page 4; and fifth paragraph on page 8; and first paragraph on page 9), and wherein said controller processes measurements from a vehicle speed measurement and load sensor input to generate outputs to control a speed of said conveyor (see again, Abstract; and third paragraph on page 2; and third paragraph on page 4; and fifth paragraph on page 8; and first paragraph on page 9), wherein said controller comprises a human interface, and said controller provides feedback information via the human interface to an operator (see the second paragraph of page 6), whereby said controller controls a rate of material distribution and a pattern of material distribution to approach said intended density and width (as essentially stated in at least the fifth paragraph on page 8, the controller makes automatic adjustments during operation of the spreader to meet a predetermined material scattering density and scattering width). However, while the Lugtenberg spreader is clearly intended to make automatic adjustments during scattering operations to (at least) the speed of the conveyor so as to meet the predetermined and desired scattering density and scattering width by essentially controlling a rate of material distribution and a pattern of material distribution, Lugtenberg does not expressly disclose that the spinner is also coupled to the controller, whereby the controller also generates outputs to control a speed of the spinner. Also, Lugtenberg does not expressly disclose the feedback information comprising a range within which vehicle speed must be maintained to permit accurate control of the rate of material distribution at the intended density.
Regarding the limitations of the spinner being coupled to the controller, whereby the controller also generates outputs to control a speed of the spinner, it is important to note that the spinner of Lugtenberg is expressly disclosed as being “motorized” for driving rotation of the spinner (see the fifth paragraph on page 8). Thus, with respect to the aforementioned limitations, the only difference between the scope of claim 1 and the disclosure of Lugtenberg is that the rotational speed of the spinner motor of Lugtenberg is not expressly disclosed as being automatically controlled in the same feedback-type manner as with the speed of the conveyor motor (M). Jaccoma shows (see Figs. 1 and 2) and describes a vehicle mounted spreader having many of the same structural features as that of Lugtenberg, including a controller (125, 101) which is similarly programmed with an intended scattering density of material and desired scattering width of coverage (see paragraphs [0011], [0012] and [0034]-[0036]), wherein the controller processes data from various data inputs, including vehicle speed measurement inputs (see paragraphs [0028] and [0037]) in order to generate outputs to control a speed of the corresponding conveyor (205) and a speed of the corresponding spinner (213), whereby the controller controls a rate of material distribution and a pattern of material distribution to approach the intended densities and widths programmed into the controller (see again, paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0034]-[0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spreader of Lugtenberg, to also include feedback-type automatic control of a speed of the spinner, as taught by Jaccoma, thereby giving the controller even more precise control over the system for more accurately approaching the intended material scattering density and width.
Regarding the limitations of the feedback information comprising a range within which vehicle speed must be maintained to permit accurate control of the rate of material distribution at the intended density, Hsu shows (see Figs. 1-8) a vehicle mounted spreader (10) for spreading granular materials from a corresponding hopper (12) to a corresponding spinner device (60), and Hsu teaches the spreader as including a human interface (80) which provides feedback information to an operator of the spreader, wherein the feedback information comprises a range within which vehicle speed must be maintained to permit accurate control of the rate of material distribution at an intended density (see paragraphs [0042] and [0051]), which thereby facilitates “an improved and/or more controlled application rate of the product”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spreader of Lugtenberg, for the feedback information to include a range within which vehicle speed must be maintained to permit accurate control of the rate of material distribution at the intended density, as taught by Hsu, thereby facilitating an improved and/or more controlled application rate of the material being scattered.
As to claim 2, modified Lugtenberg shows the spreader of claim 1, and wherein said controller adapts an assumed output rate developed from a current spinner and conveyor rate using load sensor readings, such that said controller refines said output rate and adjusts said speed of said conveyor toward said intended density of material (see again, the fifth paragraph on page 8; and the first paragraph on page 9 of Lugtenberg).
As to claim 3, modified Lugtenberg shows the spreader of claim 1, and wherein the controller controls said speed of said spinner to achieve a desired width of coverage (see again, paragraph [0036] of Jaccoma).
As to claim 6, modified Lugtenberg shows the spreader of claim 1. However, Lugtenberg is silent as to the spreader further comprising a wireless communication system coupled to said controller, said controller delivering feedback information from said controller to a remote server via said wireless communication system. The system shown and described by Jaccoma includes the aforementioned elements (see paragraph [0013] and [0062]-[0065] of Jaccoma), which thus allows the spreader to (at least) be monitored and controlled remotely. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spreader of modified Lugtenberg, to further include a wireless communication system coupled to said controller, said controller delivering feedback information from said controller to a remote server via said wireless communication system, as taught by Jaccoma, thereby allowing the spreader to (at least) be monitored and controlled remotely.
As to claim 7, modified Lugtenberg shows the spreader of claim 6, and wherein information delivered by said controller comprises historical measurements of coverage density and width of coverage, speed, and load sensor data (see paragraph [0041] of Jaccoma).
As to claim 8, as well as the claim is understood, modified Lugtenberg shows the spreader of claim 6, and further comprising a positioning system (see “using position data” discussion referenced in the fifth paragraph on page 8 of Lugtenberg) coupled to said controller producing location and motion information, with said controller delivering location information to said vehicle speed input, the human interface, and/or said remote server (see also, “Navigation system” discussion in paragraph [0042] of Jaccoma).
As to claim 9, modified Lugtenberg shows the spreader of claim 6, and wherein said controller receives instructions from a dispatcher via said wireless communication system (see again, paragraphs [0013] and [0062]-[0065] of Jaccoma). It should be noted that the limitation set forth in claim 9 is merely functional in nature, although it is abundantly clear from the disclosure of Jaccoma that instructions can be received from a dispatcher over the disclosed wireless communication system taught by Jaccoma (see again, paragraphs [0013] and [0062]-[0065]; and see Fig. 10 of Jaccoma).
As to claim 10, as well as the claim is understood, modified Lugtenberg shows the spreader of claim 1, and further comprising a cradle (7; see Fig. 1 of Lugtenberg) supported by the vehicle upon which the spreader is mounted, said cradle having at least one of the one or more load sensors, said hopper supported by said at least one of the one or more load sensors (see also, the first paragraph on page 9 of Lugtenberg).
As to claim 11, modified Lugtenberg shows the spreader of claim 1, and wherein said conveyor is an auger (6; see the fifth paragraph on page 8 of Lugtenberg).
As to claim 13, Lugtenberg shows (see Figs. 1 and 2) and describes a vehicle mounted apparatus (1; see the fourth paragraph on page 8) for distributing snow and ice melt material onto snow- and ice-covered road surfaces, comprising: a container (2) for containing material to be distributed, means (4) for distributing said material, means (6) for conveying said material from said container to said means for distributing said material, and a controller (“controller” in third paragraph on page 2, and in first paragraph on page 9; or “control unit” in third paragraph on page 4) controlling said means for distributing and said means for conveying in response to a measurement of a quantity of melt material in said container (see the first paragraph on page 9), said controller programmed with an intended density of melt material and desired width of coverage (see Abstract; and third paragraph on page 2; and third paragraph on page 4; and fifth paragraph on page 8; and first paragraph on page 9); and a vehicle speed sensor (see the third paragraph on page 4; and the fifth paragraph on page 8) and a vehicle load sensor (10), delivering speed and load information to said controller, wherein said controller processes said speed and load information to generate output signals coupled to control a speed of said means for conveying (see again, Abstract; and third paragraph on page 2; and third paragraph on page 4; and fifth paragraph on page 8; and first paragraph on page 9), to both control a rate of material distribution and a pattern of material distribution to approach said intended density and width (as essentially stated in at least the fifth paragraph on page 8, the controller makes automatic adjustments during operation of the spreader to meet a predetermined material scattering density and scattering width), and wherein said controller provides feedback information via a human interface to an operator (see the second paragraph of page 6). However, while the Lugtenberg apparatus is clearly intended to make automatic adjustments during scattering operations to (at least) the speed of the “means for conveying...” so as to meet the predetermined and desired scattering density and scattering width by essentially controlling a rate of material distribution and a pattern of material distribution, Lugtenberg does not expressly disclose that the “means for distributing...” is also coupled to the controller, whereby the controller also generates outputs to control a speed of the means for distributing. Also, Lugtenberg does not expressly disclose the feedback information comprising a range within which vehicle speed must be maintained to permit accurate control of the rate of material distribution at the intended density and width.
Regarding the limitations of the means for distributing being coupled to the controller, whereby the controller also generates outputs to control a speed of the means for distributing, it is important to note that the “means for distributing...” (i.e., spinner 4 of Lugtenberg) is expressly disclosed as being “motorized” for driving rotation of the spinner (see the fifth paragraph on page 8). Thus, with respect to the aforementioned limitations, the only difference between the scope of claim 13 and the disclosure of Lugtenberg is that the rotational speed of the spinner motor of Lugtenberg is not expressly disclosed as being automatically controlled in the same feedback-type manner as with the speed of the conveyor motor (M). Jaccoma shows (see Figs. 1 and 2) and describes a vehicle mounted spreader having many of the same structural features as that of Lugtenberg, including a controller (125, 101) which is similarly programmed with an intended scattering density of material and desired scattering width of coverage (see paragraphs [0011], [0012] and [0034]-[0036]), wherein the controller processes data from various data inputs, including vehicle speed measurement inputs (see paragraphs [0028] and [0037]) in order to generate outputs to control a speed of the corresponding conveyor (205) and a speed of the corresponding spinner (213), whereby the controller controls a rate of material distribution and a pattern of material distribution to approach the intended densities and widths programmed into the controller (see again, paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0034]-[0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lugtenberg, to also include feedback-type automatic control of a speed of the spinner, as taught by Jaccoma, thereby giving the controller even more precise control over the system for more accurately approaching the intended material scattering density and width.
Regarding the limitations of the feedback information comprising a range within which vehicle speed must be maintained to permit accurate control of the rate of material distribution at the intended density and width, Hsu shows (see Figs. 1-8) a vehicle mounted spreader (10) for spreading granular materials from a corresponding hopper (12) to a corresponding spinner device (60), and Hsu teaches the spreader as including a human interface (80) which provides feedback information to an operator of the spreader, wherein the feedback information comprises a range within which vehicle speed must be maintained to permit accurate control of the rate of material distribution at an intended density (see paragraphs [0042] and [0051]), which thereby facilitates “an improved and/or more controlled application rate of the product”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lugtenberg, for the feedback information to include a range within which vehicle speed must be maintained to permit accurate control of the rate of material distribution at the intended density, as taught by Hsu, which would thus in turn also reflect an accurate control of the rate of material distribution at the intended width of Lugtenberg, thereby facilitating an improved and/or more controlled application rate of the material being scattered.
As to claim 14, as well as the claim is understood, modified Lugtenberg shows the apparatus of claim 13, and further comprising a cradle (7; see Fig. 1 of Lugtenberg) having the vehicle load sensor providing said load sensor input to said controller, whereby a quantity of material in said container is measured by the vehicle load sensor (see also, the first paragraph on page 9 of Lugtenberg).
As to claim 15, modified Lugtenberg shows the apparatus of claim 13, and wherein said material comprises one or more of sand, salt, or other granular chemicals.
As to claim 16, modified Lugtenberg shows the apparatus of claim 13, and wherein said means for distributing material is a spinner (4).
As to claim 17, modified Lugtenberg shows the apparatus of claim 13, and wherein said means for conveying material comprises one of an auger (6) and a chain conveyor.
As to claim 19, as well as the claim is understood, Lugtenberg shows the apparatus of claim 13, and further comprising a cradle (7; see Fig. 1 of Lugtenberg), said cradle having the vehicle load sensor, said container supported by the vehicle load sensor (see also, the first paragraph on page 9 of Lugtenberg).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed October 29, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially asserts that since each of the mobile spreaders of the prior art documents to Lugtenberg et al. and Jaccoma et al. are directed to road-going vehicles which spread particulate matter on roads while travelling within a wide range of speeds, then the teaching disclosed by Hsu and relied upon in the Office action mailed July 28, 2025, which is associated with a mobile spreader operated at walking speeds, is “completely incompatible” with the road vehicle of the primary reference(s). This Office does not agree, and submits that the teachings of Hsu, relied upon in the aforementioned Office action (as well as in the prior art rejection of the instant Office action), are conceptual in nature. In essence, all of the relied-upon prior art documents are in the realm of mobile granular material spreading devices, which reasonably render the Hsu device analogous to that of Lugtenberg and Jaccoma, as all three references are within the same field of the endeavor (i.e., mobile granular material spreading devices), and the references are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved (i.e., spreading granular material in a precisely controlled manner). The modifying reference to Hsu is merely relied upon to teach the concept of providing feedback information via a human interface (e.g. a signal or display of some kind, which is expressly included with the spreader of Lugtenberg) based on an ideal operating speed of the vehicle in order to provide accurate control of the granular material distribution. Further, it should be noted, it has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter, but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Kadaba and Kean et al., are cited as of interest.
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 DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752