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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20080109183) in view of KR 19980038539.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a vehicle side door 100 for a vehicle, the vehicle side door 100 comprising: an inner panel 200 including a wall extending in a direction intersecting a panel main body extending in a front-rear direction of a vehicle body of the vehicle (see Figure 4; Paragraph 15); a door beam 300 extending in the front-rear direction of the vehicle body and joined to a front portion of the inner panel 200 and a rear portion of the inner panel 200 (see Figures 4-6; Paragraph 15); and a bracket 400 interposed between the inner panel 200 and the door beam 300; an inner peripheral side wall that extends from an edge of the panel main body in the vehicle width direction intersecting the panel main body; and a stepped portion that extends from an end of the inner peripheral side wall in a direction parallel to the panel main body (see Figure 5 and annotated Figure 5 below), wherein the bracket 400 includes: a beam joint welded in surface contact with an end of the door beam 300 (see Figures 4-6; Paragraph 15); and a panel joint welded in surface contact with the wall of the inner panel 200 (see Figure 6; Paragraph 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
237
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim fails to disclose that the panel joint is continuously welded in surface contact with both (i) the stepped portion and ii) the wall of the inner panel at the same end of the door beam, the panel joint comprising a first flat portion lying flat against and welded to the stepped portion and a second flat portion lying flat against and welded to the wall, the first and second flat portions being angularly connected to each other by a bent portion that abuts a corner formed between the stepped portion and the wall and the wall is an outer peripheral side wall that extends from an edge of the stepped portion at an inclination angle in the vehicle width direction intersecting the stepped portion, such that the corner is defined between the stepped portion and the outer peripheral side wall.
KR 19980038539 discloses a door having an inner panel 1 with a wall 8 that extends in a vehicle width direction having a stepped portion 7 and a flange (see Figure 3; Page 3, lines 20-28). A door beam 3 is attached to the wall 8 by a bracket 4 having a beam joint and a panel joint (see Figure 3; Page 3, lines 29-33). The panel joint has a first flat portion 5 lying flat against and welded to the stepped portion 7 and a second flat portion 6 lying flat against and welded to the wall 8, the first and second flat portions 5, 6 being angularly connected to each other by a bent portion that abuts a corner formed between the stepped portion 7 and the wall 8 (see Figure 3 and annotated Figure 3 below), wherein the wall 8 is an outer peripheral side wall that extends from an edge of the stepped portion 7 at an inclination angle in the vehicle width direction intersecting the stepped portion 7, such that the corner is defined between the stepped portion 7 and the outer peripheral side wall 8 (see Figure 3 and annotated Figure 3 below; Page 3, line 34-Page 4, line 4). The panel joint is welded to the wall 8 and the stepped portion 7 (see Page 3, lines 29-38) in order that the bracket 4 may be firmly fixed regardless of the direction of the external force applied to the mounting bracket 4 in a collision to protect passengers (see Page 4, lines 1-4). Merriam-Webster defines “inclination”, such as in an “inclination angle”, as “the angle determined by two lines or planes”, which does not exclude a perpendicular angle.
PNG
media_image2.png
266
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the bracket of Kim to be welded in surface contact with the stepped portion and the wall, such that a first flat portion lies flat against and is welded to the stepped portion and a second flat portion lies flat against and is welded to the wall, the first and second flat portions being angularly connected to each other by a bent portion that conforms to and abuts a corner formed between the stepped portion and the wall, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the bracket may be firmly fixed regardless of the direction of the external force applied to the mounting bracket in a collision to protect passengers, as taught by KR 19980038539.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wall of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, an outer peripheral side wall that extends from an edge of the stepped portion at an inclination angle in the vehicle width direction intersecting the stepped portion, such that the corner is defined between the stepped portion and the outer peripheral side wall, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by KR 19980038539, so that the bracket may be firmly fixed to outer portion of the door regardless of the direction of the external force applied to the mounting bracket in a collision to protect passengers, as taught by KR 19980038539.
Regarding claim 2, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door 100 according to claim 1, wherein the bracket 400 is interposed between a rear end of the door beam 300 and the rear portion of the inner panel 200 (see Figure 5; Paragraph 15). The bracket 400 is installed at both ends of the door beam 300.
Regarding claim 5, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 1, further comprising a flange that extends from an end of the wall in a direction parallel to the panel main body (see Figure 5 and annotated Figure 5 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
237
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 6, further comprising a flange that extends from an end of the wall in the direction parallel to the panel main body and the stepped portion (see Figure 5 and annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 9, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 1, wherein the door beam 300 is disposed along the front-rear direction of the vehicle body from the stepped portion provided on the front portion of the inner panel 200 to the stepped portion provided on the rear portion of the inner panel 200 (see Figure 5 and annotated Figure 5 above; Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 10, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 1, wherein a front end of the door beam 300 is joined to the inner panel 200 by welding to the stepped portion (see Figure 5 and annotated Figure 5 above; Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 11, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 1, wherein the panel joint is welded in surface contact with the wall of the inner panel on a side of the beam opposite to the panel main body (see Figure 5; Paragraph 15). The panel joint is attached to a side of the door beam 5 that is opposed to, or facing, the panel main body, making the side opposite the panel main body.
Regarding claim 14, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 1, wherein the beam joint is formed into a shape conforming to a bent shape of a rear end of the door beam 300 (see Figure 6; Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 15, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 1, wherein the panel joint is formed into a flat plate shape conforming to a shape of the wall (see Figures 5-6; Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 16, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 1, wherein the beam joint is formed into a shape conforming to a bent shape of a rear end of the door beam, and wherein the panel joint is formed into a flat plate shape conforming to a shape of the wall (see Figures 5-6; Paragraph 15).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20080109183) in view of KR 19980038539 and Bedekar et al. (US PG Pub 2012/0036785).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses a vehicle side door 100 for a vehicle, the vehicle side door 100 comprising: an inner panel 200 including a wall extending in a direction intersecting a panel main body extending in a front-rear direction of a vehicle body of the vehicle (see Figure 4; Paragraph 15); a door beam 300 extending in the front-rear direction of the vehicle body and joined to a front portion of the inner panel 200 and a rear portion of the inner panel 200 (see Figures 4-6; Paragraph 15); a bracket 400 interposed between the inner panel 200 and the door beam 300; an inner peripheral side wall that extends from an edge of the panel main body in the vehicle width direction intersecting the panel main body; and a stepped portion that extends from an end of the inner peripheral side wall in a direction parallel to the panel main body (see Figure 5 and annotated Figure 5 below), wherein the bracket 400 includes: a beam joint welded in surface contact with an end of the door beam 300 (see Figures 4-6; Paragraph 15); a panel joint welded in surface contact with the wall of the inner panel 200 (see Figure 6; Paragraph 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
237
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim fails to disclose that the panel joint is welded in surface contact with the stepped portion and the wall of the inner panel and a ratchet mechanism comprising a ratchet engageable with a striker that is provided in a door opening of the vehicle body, the ratchet mechanism being attached to the wall at the rear portion of the inner panel, wherein the protrusion is opposed to the ratchet mechanism in a normal state of the vehicle side door, and wherein the protrusion is configured to deform, in a side collision of the vehicle, to a position where the protrusion interferes with rotation of the ratchet so as to prevent the ratchet from releasing the striker in a side collision of the vehicle.
KR 19980038539 discloses a door having an inner panel 1 with a wall 8 that extends in a vehicle width direction having a stepped portion 7 and a flange (see Figure 3; Page 3, lines 20-28). A door beam 3 is attached to the wall 8 by a bracket 4 having a beam joint and a panel joint (see Figure 3; Page 3, lines 29-33). The panel joint is welded to the wall 8 and the stepped portion 7 (see Page 3, lines 29-38) in order that the bracket 4 may be firmly fixed regardless of the direction of the external force applied to the mounting bracket 4 in a collision to protect passengers (see Page 4, lines 1-4).
Bedekar et al. disclose a vehicle side door 12 having a door beam 62, a bracket 60 having a protrusion 74 (see Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 34 and 53), and a ratchet mechanism 14 comprising a ratchet 36 engageable with a striker 30 that is provided in a door opening of the vehicle body 16 (see Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 43-44), the ratchet mechanism 14 being attached to the wall at the rear portion of the door panel (see Figures 3-5; Paragraph 34), wherein the protrusion 74 is opposed to the ratchet mechanism 14 in a normal state of the vehicle side door (see Figure 4; Paragraphs 36 and 53), and wherein the protrusion 74 is configured to deform, in a side collision of the vehicle, to a position where the protrusion 74 interferes with rotation of the ratchet 36 so as to prevent the ratchet 36 from releasing the striker 30 in a side collision of the vehicle (see Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 53-55). The protrusion 74 is positioned adjacent a second transition part 72, which is a ben that connects an inclined part 70 to the protrusion 74, making it protrude toward the inner panel 22 and meeting the definition of a “protrusion” (see Paragraph 53). The protrusion 74 has an opening 80 which engages the ratchet 36 and because the opening 80 is positioned on the protrusion 74 and a peripheral wall 74a defines at least an upper portion of the opening 80, which means the protrusion 74 engages the ratchet 36 and prevents movement (see Figure 5; Paragraphs 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the bracket of Kim to be welded in surface contact with the stepped portion and the wall, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the bracket may be firmly fixed regardless of the direction of the external force applied to the mounting bracket in a collision to protect passengers, as taught by KR 19980038539.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the side door of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, having a ratchet mechanism comprising a ratchet engageable with a striker that is provided in a door opening of the vehicle body and being attached to the wall at the rear portion of the inner panel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Bedekar et al., to secure the door in a closed position when the vehicle body is moving.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the bracket of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539 and Bedekar et al., opposed to the ratchet mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Bedekar et al., to provide protection to the passenger in a more central location of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a protrusion on the bracket and opposed to the ratchet mechanism of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539 and Bedekar et al. twice, such that the protrusion to deforms to a position that interferes with the ratchet in a side collision of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the door does not inadvertently open in the event of a side collision and cause additional harm to passengers, as taught by Bedekar et al..
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, in view of Bedekar et al..
Regarding claim 4, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 2.
Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, fails to disclose a ratchet mechanism comprising a ratchet engageable with a striker that is provided in a door opening of the vehicle body and being attached to the wall at the rear portion of the inner panel; and the bracket comprises a protrusion opposed to the ratchet mechanism, and the protrusion is configured to deform to a position where the protrusion interferes with the ratchet in a side collision of the vehicle.
Bedekar et al. disclose a vehicle side door 12 having a door beam 62, a bracket 60 having a protrusion 74 (see Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 34 and 53), and a ratchet mechanism 14 comprising a ratchet 36 engageable with a striker 30 that is provided in a door opening of the vehicle body 16 (see Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 43-44), the ratchet mechanism 14 being attached to the wall at the rear portion of the door panel (see Figures 3-5; Paragraph 34), wherein the protrusion 74 is opposed to the ratchet mechanism 14 in a normal state of the vehicle side door (see Figure 4; Paragraphs 36 and 53), and wherein the protrusion 74 is configured to deform, in a side collision of the vehicle, to a position where the protrusion 74 interferes with rotation of the ratchet 36 so as to prevent the ratchet 36 from releasing the striker 30 in a side collision of the vehicle (see Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 53-55). The protrusion 74 is positioned adjacent a second transition part 72, which is a ben that connects an inclined part 70 to the protrusion 74, making it protrude toward the inner panel 22 and meeting the definition of a “protrusion” (see Paragraph 53). The protrusion 74 has an opening 80 which engages the ratchet 36 and because the opening 80 is positioned on the protrusion 74 and a peripheral wall 74a defines at least an upper portion of the opening 80, which means the protrusion 74 engages the ratchet 36 and prevents movement (see Figure 5; Paragraphs 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the side door of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, having a ratchet mechanism comprising a ratchet engageable with a striker that is provided in a door opening of the vehicle body and being attached to the wall at the rear portion of the inner panel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Bedekar et al., to secure the door in a closed position when the vehicle body is moving.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the bracket of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539 and Bedekar et al., opposed to the ratchet mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Bedekar et al., to provide protection to the passenger in a more central location of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a protrusion on the bracket and opposed to the ratchet mechanism of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539 and Bedekar et al. twice, such that the protrusion to deforms to a position that interferes with the ratchet in a side collision of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the door does not inadvertently open in the event of a side collision and cause additional harm to passengers, as taught by Bedekar et al..
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, in view of Ishigame et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0246879).
Regarding claim 8, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, disclose the vehicle side door according to claim 1, having a door beam 300.
Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, fails to disclose the door beam includes: a ridge protruding toward the outer panel at a center portion in a width direction; a bead with a U-shape protruding toward the inner panel formed at a suitable position of the ridge; and a flat flange formed on a tip end of the door beam.
Ishigame et al. disclose a side door 1 for a vehicle having a door beam 16, an inner panel 3 and an outer panel 2 (see Figures 1-2; Paragraph 23). The door beam 16 includes: a ridge 16F protruding toward the outer panel 2 at a center portion in a width direction (see Figures 3 and 4B; Paragraphs 28-29); a bead 17 with a U-shape protruding toward the inner panel 3 formed at a suitable position of the ridge 16F (see Figures 3 and 4B; Paragraph 28); and a flat flange 16H formed on a tip end of the door beam 16 (see Figure 3; Paragraphs 32-33). The ridge 16F and bead 17 assist in improving the rigidity and strength of the door beam 16 (see Paragraph 40). The flat flange 16H ensures the collision load of a head-on collision can be properly received (see Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the door beam of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, having a ridge protruding toward the outer panel at a center portion in a width direction and a bead with a U-shape protruding toward the inner panel formed at a suitable position of the ridge, with a reasonable expectation of success, to improve the rigidity and strength of the door beam to brace against impact in a collision, as taught by Ishigame et al..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the door beam of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539 and Ishigame et al., with a flat flange formed on a tip end of the door beam, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the beam is properly secured with a large contact area in the event of a head-on collision, as taught by Ishigame et al..
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as modified by KR 1998038539, in view of Jang et al. (KR 20170091384) and Cohoon et al. (US Pat 8,727,421).
Regarding claim 17, Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, discloses the vehicle side door according to claim 1.
Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, fails to disclose at least one of the following conditions is satisfied: (i) the single-piece bracket is thicker than the inner panel; (ii) a strength of the single-piece bracket is greater than a strength of the inner panel and less than a strength of the door beam.
Jang et al. disclose a vehicle side door having an impact beam 40 made from an aluminum alloy (see Figures 2-3; Paragraphs 13-15 of “Description of Embodiments”) and an inner panel 30 that is formed from a polymer composite material (see Figure 2; Paragraphs 10-11 of “Description of Embodiments”). An aluminum alloy is stronger than a polymer composite.
Cohoon et al. disclose a vehicle side door having a door beam 21 that is attached to the side door by brackets 22-24 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 2, lines 22-41). The brackets 22-24 have a much lower tensile strength than the door beam 21 (see Col. 3, lines 18-20). The configuration of the door beam assembly 20 using lower strength brackets 22-24 improves the overall impact strength and energy absorbing capability of the door beam assembly 20 (see Col. 3, lines 29-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the single-piece bracket of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, with a greater strength than the strength of the inner panel, with a reasonable expectation, as taught by Jang et al., to allow the inner panel to deform more easily than the bracket to ensure the bracket remains secured and the impact beam remains in place, thereby protecting passengers from intrusion of the impact beam in the event of a collision.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the single-piece bracket of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539 and Jang et al., with a lower strength than the door beam, with a reasonable expectation of success, to improve the impact strength and energy absorbing capability of the door beam assembly as a whole, as taught by Cohoon et al..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding arguments pertaining to the 112(a) rejection of claim 1, on pages 7-8 of Remarks, filed May 8, 2026, Examiner notes the removal of the limitation from claim 1 that was considered new matter. The 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding arguments pertaining the 103 rejection of claim 1, on pages 8-11 of Remarks, filed May 8, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous rejection, but a new rejection is made in view of Kim, as modified by KR 19980038539, as presented in paragraph 4 above.
Applicant argues that “the bent portion does not physically contact or conform to the corner.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Figure 3, shown below, shows constant contact between the outer peripheral wall 8 and the first flat portion 6, and the stepped portion 7 and the first flat portion 5, including at the corner or bent portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
266
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues, with respect to claim 1, “Moreover, and critically for the amended claim, the wall in KR 19980038539 (surface 8) appears to be substantially perpendicular to the stepped portion (surface 7), i.e., at approximately 90 degrees.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Merriam-Webster defines “inclination”, such as in an “inclination angle”, as “the angle determined by two lines or planes”, which does not exclude a perpendicular angle. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a 90 degree angle is not excluded by this definition, as Applicant asserts. The rejection in view of KR 19980038539 is therefore appropriate.
In response to Applicant’s argument, on pages 11-13 of Remarks, filed May 8, 2026, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in the 103 rejection of claim 3, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would use the teaching of a protrusion to prevent the rotation of a latch on a door beam bracket to simplify the manufacturing of the door and use less material, reducing costs and weight of the door.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fütterer (DE 102006058108) discloses a vehicle door having an outer peripheral side wall that extends from an edge of a stepped portion of the door at an inclination angle and has a door beam bracket that conforms to the shape of the door. Omori et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0001448) disclose a vehicle door having a peripheral side wall that extends from an edge of a stepped portion of the door and has a reinforcement bracket that conforms to a shape of the door. Hasegawa et al. (US Pat 11,820,211) disclose a vehicle door beam structure for a vehicle door having a peripheral side wall that extends from an edge of a stepped portion of the door at an inclination and has a door beam bracket that conforms to a shape of the door. Kovie et al. (US Pat 11,840,127) disclose a vehicle door having a latch mechanism positioned level with a reinforcement member of the door.
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 VERONICA M CONDO whose telephone number is (571)272-9415. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-3pm EST.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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.
/VERONICA M CONDO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights