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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 11/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/17/2026. The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1-15 remain pending for consideration.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first segmenting part” in claim 1.
“second segmenting part” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“first segmenting part” corresponds to a part that is provided in “a coupling portion of the housing part 411 and the first guide part 412 and segments the mechanism chamber S1 and the first working chamber S3. The first segmenting part 413 projects in the inner diameter direction from a portion on the first guide part 412 side in the housing part 411” as described in paragraph [0056] of the specification.
“second segmenting part” corresponds to a part that is provided in “a coupling portion of the housing part 411 and the second guide part 414 and segments the mechanism chamber S1 and the second working chamber S5. The second segmenting part 415 projects in the inner diameter direction from a portion on the second guide part 414 side in the housing part 411” as described in paragraph [0068] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikazono et al. (EP3168473A1, herein after referred to as Shikazono) in view of Azuma et al. (EP2234249A1, herein after referred to as Azuma).
Regarding claim 1, Shikazono teaches a positive displacement machine (positive displacement machine 20 Fig. 1) comprising: a housing (casing 22 Fig. 1) including a first segmenting part (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Shikazono) comprising a first communication hole (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Shikazono), a second segmenting part (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Shikazono) comprising a second communication hole (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Shikazono), a first tubular guide (top guide cylindrical member 30 Fig. 1) in which a first pressure chamber (working chamber 62a Fig. 1) is provided (Fig. 1) and a second tubular guide (bottom guide cylindrical member 30 Fig. 1) in which a second pressure chamber (working chamber 62b Fig. 1) is provided (Fig. 1); a slide member (reciprocating member 40 Fig. 1) disposed through the first communication hole of the first segmenting part (Fig. 1) including a first piston (piston 42a Fig. 1) disposed in the first tubular guide (Fig. 1) and a second piston (piston 42b Fig. 1) disposed in the second tubular guide (Fig. 1), the slide member sliding in a first direction (Y axis direction Fig. 1 and paragraph [0021]); a first rotator (main weight balance 58a and bearing 51a Fig. 1) which rotates on a first rotation axis (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Shikazono) extending in a second direction (corresponds to a direction that is parallel to the Z axis Fig. 1); a second rotator (main weight balance 58b and bearing 51b Fig. 1) which rotates on a second rotation axis (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Shikazono) extending along the second direction (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Shikazono); a first motor (motor 70a Fig. 1); and a second motor (motor 70b).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shikazono teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the first motor including a first rotor coupled to the first rotator rotates on the first rotation axis, and a first stator disposed on an outer side of the first rotor when viewed along the first rotation axis; and the second motor including a second rotor coupled to the second rotator and rotates on the second rotation axis, and a second stator disposed on an outer side of the second rotor when viewed along the second rotation axis, wherein the first motor includes a first adjusting mechanism which adjusts an angle of the first stator with respect to the first rotor, the angle being centered on the first rotation axis”.
However, Azuma is teaching a first motor (motor 57a Fig. 1 corresponds to the first motor of Shikazono) including a first rotor (left rotor 56 Fig. 1) coupled to a first rotator (left bearing 40X Fig. 1 corresponds to the first rotating member of Shikazono) rotates on a first rotation axis (paragraph [0035] where the disclosed left “axis line of the rotor 56” corresponds to the first rotation axis of Shikazono), and a first stator (left stator 58 Fig. 1) disposed on an outer side of the first rotor (Fig. 1) when viewed along the first rotation axis (Fig. 1); a second motor (motor 57c Fig. 1 corresponds to the second motor of Shikazono) including a second rotor (right rotor 56 Fig. 1) coupled to a second rotator (right bearing 40X Fig. 1 corresponds to the first rotating member of Shikazono) and rotates on a second rotation axis (paragraph [0035] where the disclosed right “axis line of the rotor 56” corresponds to the second rotation axis of Shikazono), and a second stator (right stator 58 Fig. 1) disposed on an outer side of the second rotor (Fig. 1) when viewed along the second rotation axis (Fig. 1), wherein the first motor includes a first adjusting mechanism (spline ring 72 Fig. 5) which adjusts an angle (disclosed “phase angle” in paragraph [0041]) of the first stator with respect to the first rotor (paragraph [0041]), the angle being centered on the first rotation axis (referring to Figs. 4-5, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the rotational axis of spline ring 72 is the same as the rotational axis of stator 56) to reduce rotational vibrations (paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Shikazono to include “the first motor including a first rotor coupled to the first rotator rotates on the first rotation axis, and a first stator disposed on an outer side of the first rotor when viewed along the first rotation axis; and the second motor including a second rotor coupled to the second rotator and rotates on the second rotation axis, and a second stator disposed on an outer side of the second rotor when viewed along the second rotation axis, wherein the first motor includes a first adjusting mechanism which adjusts an angle of the first stator with respect to the first rotor, the angle being centered on the first rotation axis” in view of the teachings of Azuma to reduce rotational vibrations.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach further comprising one driving circuit (motor driver 70 Fig. 6 of Azuma) configured to control both the first motor and the second motor (paragraph [0050] of Azuma).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach further comprising a fixing member (bolt 74 Figs. 4-5 of Azuma) configured to fix the first stator (Figs. 4-5 of Azuma), the angle of which has been adjusted by the first adjusting mechanism (paragraph [0040] and [0041] of Azuma).
Furthermore, it is understood that claim 3 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the fixing member is a screw (bolt 74 Figs. 4-5 of Azuma), and the first adjusting mechanism includes a long hole (through hole 71 Fig. 5 of Azuma) having an arcuate shape (Fig. 5 of Azuma) centered on the first rotation axis (Figs. 4 and 5 of Azuma), the fixing member being inserted into the long hole (Fig. 5 of Azuma).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the second motor includes a second adjusting mechanism (right spline ring 72 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0042] of Azuma) which adjusts an angle of the second stator (paragraph [0042] of Azuma) with respect to the second rotor (paragraph [0042] of Azuma), the angle being centered on the second rotation axis (referring to Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Azuma, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the rotational axis of the right spline ring 72 is the same as the rotational axis of the right stator 56).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach a compressor (paragraph [0047] of Shikazono), wherein the first piston is configured to compress gas (since it is disclosed in paragraph [0021] of Shikazono that piston 42a changes the volume of working chamber 62a, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “working fluid” in paragraph [0023] of Shikazono which corresponds to the gas would be compressed when the volume of working chamber 62a is reduced by the reciprocating actions of piston 42a) flowing into the first pressure chamber and the second pressure chamber (paragraph [0021] of Shikazono).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the first adjusting mechanism and the second adjusting mechanism each comprises a plurality of long holes (through holes 71 Fig. 5 of Azuma) formed by the first adjusting mechanism and the second adjusting mechanism (Fig. 5 of Azuma).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the pluralities of long holes comprise an arcuate shape (Fig. 5 of Azuma).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein a plurality of screws (bolts 74 Fig. 5 of Azuma) is inserted into the pluralities of long holes (paragraph [0040] of Azuma).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein an angle of the first stator (paragraphs [0041] and [0042] of Azuma where the disclosed phase angles correspond to the angle of the stator) is adjusted by the first adjusting mechanism using the first motor (paragraphs [0041] and [0042] of Azuma).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach a compressor (paragraph [0047] of Shikazono), wherein the second piston is configured to compress gas (since it is disclosed in paragraph [0021] of Shikazono that piston 42b changes the volume of working chamber 62b, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “working fluid” in paragraph [0023] of Shikazono which corresponds to the gas would be compressed when the volume of working chamber 62b is reduced by the reciprocating actions of piston 42b) flowing into the second pressure chamber (paragraph [0021] of Shikazono).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the angle of the second stator (paragraphs [0041] and [0042] of Azuma where the disclosed phase angles correspond to the angle of the stator) is adjusted by the second adjusting mechanism using the second motor (paragraphs [0041] and [0042] of Azuma).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikazono, in view of Azuma as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (WO2012114451A1, herein after referred to as Uchida) and Rockenfeller et al. (US 20060278370 A1, herein after referred to as Rockenfeller).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a cooling apparatus comprising: the compressor configured to compress a working fluid in a gas phase; a condenser configured to condense the working fluid in the gas phase compressed by the compressor into a working fluid in a liquid phase; an expander configured to decompress the working fluid in the liquid phase condensed by the condenser and change the working fluid in the liquid phase to a working fluid in which the liquid phase and the gas phase are mixed; and an evaporator coupled to a device to transfer heat, the evaporator being configured to change the working fluid flowing from the expander to the working fluid in the gas phase with the heat transferred from the electronic control device and discharge the changed working fluid in the gas phase to the compressor”.
However, Uchida teaches a cooling apparatus (air conditioner S Fig. 1) comprising: a compressor (compressor 11 Fig. 1 corresponds to the compressor of Shikazono) configured to compress a working fluid (disclosed “refrigerant” in paragraph [12]) in a gas phase (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “high pressure refrigerant” is in a gas phase); a condenser (outdoor heat exchanger 13 Fig. 2 and paragraph [25]) configured to condense the working fluid in the gas phase compressed by the compressor (paragraph [25]) into a working fluid (disclosed high-pressure liquid refrigerant” in paragraph [25]) in a liquid phase (the disclosed high-pressure liquid refrigerant” in paragraph [25] is in a liquid phase); an expander (expansion valve 15 Fig. 2) configured to decompress the working fluid in the liquid phase condensed by the condenser (paragraph [25]) and change the working fluid in the liquid phase to a working fluid (the disclosed “refrigerant” flowing out of expansion valve 15 in paragraph [25]) in which the liquid phase and the gas phase are mixed (disclosed “gas-liquid two-phase state” in paragraph [25]); and an evaporator (intermediate heat exchanger 17 Fig. 2) coupled to a device (disclosed “device” in paragraph [61]) to transfer heat (paragraphs [25] and [61]), the evaporator being configured to change the working fluid flowing from the expander to the working fluid in the gas phase with the heat transferred from the device (paragraphs [25] and [61]) and discharge the changed working fluid in the gas phase to the compressor (paragraph [25]) to provide cooling for a device (paragraph [61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “a cooling apparatus comprising: the compressor configured to compress a working fluid in a gas phase; a condenser configured to condense the working fluid in the gas phase compressed by the compressor into a working fluid in a liquid phase; an expander configured to decompress the working fluid in the liquid phase condensed by the condenser and change the working fluid in the liquid phase to a working fluid in which the liquid phase and the gas phase are mixed; and an evaporator coupled to a device to transfer heat, the evaporator being configured to change the working fluid flowing from the expander to the working fluid in the gas phase with the heat transferred from the electronic control device and discharge the changed working fluid in the gas phase to the compressor” in view of the teachings of Uchida to provide cooling for a device.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the evaporator coupled to an electronic control device”.
However, Rockenfeller teaches an evaporator (the disclosed “evaporator plate” in paragraph [0012] corresponds to the evaporator of Uchida) coupled to an electronic control device (disclosed “CPU” in paragraph [0012]) to provide cooling for a wide range of heat generating components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the evaporator coupled to an electronic control device” in view of the teachings of Rockenfeller to provide cooling for a wide range of heat generating components.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a cooling apparatus comprising: the compressor configured to compress a working fluid in a gas phase; a condenser configured to condense the working fluid in the gas phase compressed by the compressor into a working fluid in a liquid phase; an expander configured to decompress the working fluid in the liquid phase condensed by the condenser and change the working fluid in the liquid phase to a working fluid in which the liquid phase and the gas phase are mixed; and an evaporator, the evaporator being configured to change the working fluid flowing from the expander to the working fluid in the gas phase and discharge the changed working fluid in the gas phase to the compressor”.
However, Uchida teaches a cooling apparatus (air conditioner S Fig. 1) comprising: a compressor (compressor 11 Fig. 1 corresponds to the compressor of Shikazono) configured to compress a working fluid (disclosed “refrigerant” in paragraph [12]) in a gas phase (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “high pressure refrigerant” is in a gas phase); a condenser (outdoor heat exchanger 13 Fig. 2 and paragraph [25]) configured to condense the working fluid in the gas phase compressed by the compressor (paragraph [25]) into a working fluid (disclosed high-pressure liquid refrigerant” in paragraph [25]) in a liquid phase (the disclosed high-pressure liquid refrigerant” in paragraph [25] is in a liquid phase); an expander (expansion valve 15 Fig. 2) configured to decompress the working fluid in the liquid phase condensed by the condenser (paragraph [25]) and change the working fluid in the liquid phase to a working fluid (the disclosed “refrigerant” flowing out of expansion valve 15 in paragraph [25]) in which the liquid phase and the gas phase are mixed (disclosed “gas-liquid two-phase state” in paragraph [25]); and an evaporator (intermediate heat exchanger 17 Fig. 2), the evaporator being configured to change the working fluid flowing from the expander to the working fluid in the gas phase (paragraphs [25] and [61]) and discharge the changed working fluid in the gas phase to the compressor (paragraph [25]) to provide cooling for a device (paragraph [61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “a cooling apparatus comprising: the compressor configured to compress a working fluid in a gas phase; a condenser configured to condense the working fluid in the gas phase compressed by the compressor into a working fluid in a liquid phase; an expander configured to decompress the working fluid in the liquid phase condensed by the condenser and change the working fluid in the liquid phase to a working fluid in which the liquid phase and the gas phase are mixed; and an evaporator, the evaporator being configured to change the working fluid flowing from the expander to the working fluid in the gas phase and discharge the changed working fluid in the gas phase to the compressor” in view of the teachings of Uchida to provide cooling for a device.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the evaporator coupled to a power supply to transfer heat from the power supply”.
However, Rockenfeller teaches an evaporator (the disclosed “evaporator plate” in paragraph [0012] corresponds to the evaporator of Uchida) coupled to a power supply (paragraph [0012]) to transfer heat from the power supply (paragraph [0012]) to provide cooling for a wide range of heat generating components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the evaporator coupled to a power supply to transfer heat from the power supply” in view of the teachings of Rockenfeller to provide cooling for a wide range of heat generating components.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikazono, in view of Azuma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rockenfeller.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “an electronic equipment”.
However, Rockenfeller teaches an electronic equipment (disclosed “electronic components” in paragraph [0012]) to provide cooling for a wide range of heat generating components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “an electronic equipment” in view of the teachings of Rockenfeller to provide cooling for a wide range of heat generating components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to Applicant' s arguments on pages 7-8 that Shikazono does not teach or suggest “a slide member disposed through the first communication hole of the first segmenting part” as recited by amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, Shikazono teaches a slide member (reciprocating member 40 Fig. 1) disposed through a first communication hole (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Shikazono) of a first segmenting part (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Shikazono).
PNG
media_image2.png
650
1044
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Applicant' s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763