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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed July 28, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. With the aforementioned reply, claims 8, 10, 14 and 19 were amended. Thus, claims 1-3 and 6-19 remain pending and are addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
4. Claims 12 and 18 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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
5. Receipt of the “Replacement” drawing sheet for Fig. 3, as filed on July 28, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. The aforementioned drawing sheet is not acceptable for entry, and thus will not be entered. The aforementioned drawing sheet is 100% identical to that filed with the original application on February 22, 2023, and thus does not address or otherwise obviate the outstanding objection to the drawings, as set forth in paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed November 28, 2025. For this reason, the outstanding drawing objection is repeated below.
6. 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. As noted above, this drawing objection is substantially repeated from the Office action mailed November 28, 2025, which substantially repeated the drawing objection set forth in the Office action mailed July 28, 2025, since Applicant has still not corrected this outstanding issue.
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
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
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 4 of claim 1), such is not necessarily limited anywhere in claim 1 to be a plurality thereof, which is required for providing clear antecedent basis for “...said load sensors” in claim 10. It is noted that the aforementioned issue in claim 10 is substantially repeated from the Office action mailed November 28, 2025, since Applicant’s reply filed July 28, 2026 did not address or otherwise obviate this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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 essentially noted in each of the Office actions mailed July 28, 2025 and November 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 Office action mailed July 28, 2025.
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, 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, said 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, modified Lugtenberg shows the spreader of claim 1, and further comprising a cradle (7; see Fig. 1 of Lugtenberg) supported by a 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 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, modified Lugtenberg shows the apparatus of claim 13, and further comprising a cradle (7; see Fig. 1 of Lugtenberg), said cradle having said vehicle load sensor, a quantity of material in said container is measured by said 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, modified Lugtenberg shows the apparatus of claim 13, and further comprising a cradle (7; see Fig. 1 of Lugtenberg), said cradle having said vehicle load sensor, said container supported by said vehicle load sensor (see also, the first paragraph on page 9 of Lugtenberg).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed July 28, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the aforementioned “Remarks”, Applicant first attempts to dismiss the modifying prior art document to Hsu, essentially because the device disclosed by Hsu is a mobile spreader for which traversing speed adjustments are made by changing walking speed of the user. Thus, Applicant then seems to argue that such is not reasonably applicable to the claims of the instant application, because claim 1 recites, “said controller processes measurements from a vehicle speed measurement and load sensor input to generate outputs to control a speed of said conveyor and a speed of said spinner”. It is this Office’s position that Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the outstanding prior art rejection. In essence, the base reference to Lugtenberg already anticipates, “said controller processes measurements from a vehicle speed measurement and load sensor input to generate outputs to control a speed of said conveyor” (see Abstract; and see the third paragraph on page 2; and the third paragraph on page 4; and the fifth paragraph on page 8; and the first paragraph on page 9 of Lugtenberg - and see, paragraph 12 of the instant Office action); and the modifying prior art reference to Jaccoma teaches the additional limitation regarding, “...and a speed of said spinner” (see paragraphs [0011], [0012], and [0034]-[0036] of Jaccoma - and see again, paragraph 12 of the instant Office action).
Applicant then states that this Office’s “rationale to combine Hsu with the primary references is to provide feedback to a vehicle operator to manage speed”. In essence, this Office agrees with this assessment, and respectfully adds that such is done in the context of the expressly-stated desire of Lugtenberg to accurately control the rate and density of material distribution. Applicant then asserts that such, “runs contrary to Lugtenberg’s clear objective of automating such obligations away from the driver”. Applicant attempts to support this assertion, because paragraph [0007] of European Patent Publication EP1863974B1 essentially mentions that it is an object to provide a system which meets desired spreading densities with a high degree of accuracy “without driver intervention”. It is respectfully submitted that this entire position has no merit and is basically irrelevant. The European Patent Publication EP1863974B1, referred to by Applicant in the aforementioned “Remarks”, while being a related publication to Lugtenberg (WO 2006099992 A1), is not the same disclosure relied upon by this Office in the outstanding prior art rejection. This is evidenced by the fact that the “without driver intervention” statement quoted by Applicant is neither expressly stated nor implicitly disclosed in WO 2006099992 A1. Further, even if this was expressed in or implied by the WO 2006099992 A1 publication, which it is not, the disclosure of Hsu is merely relied upon for teaching the limitations regarding the lack of feedback on the human interface/display for assisting in the maintaining of vehicle speed for even more accurate control of the rate and density of material distribution, not expressly taught by Lugtenberg. Thus, with accurate control of the rate and density of material distribution being a key objective of the Lugtenberg system, it is this Office’s position that the teachings of Hsu are absolutely pertinent to that objective. Moreover, it is noted that the entire idea that the system of Lugtenberg would be completely automated so as to have no “driver intervention”, and so as to thus positively teach away from the concept(s) taught by Hsu, has absolutely no merit. The mobile spreader system of Lugtenberg is a user-driven vehicle which is intended for operation on, for example, public roadways. As such, there would necessarily be constant “driver intervention” of the Lugtenberg system, particularly as such pertains to maintaining appropriate/desired vehicle speed on such roadways during operation, as dependent on, for example, road conditions, traffic, speed limits, etc.
The remaining arguments/assertions set forth in the aforementioned “Remarks” of Applicant’s response are directly linked to Applicant’s assertion of Lugtenberg teaching away from the concept taught by Hsu. Since, as discussed above, this assertion has no merit, the rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication to Jimenez et al. is cited as of interest.
15. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
Prosecution Insights