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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-8, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "The case of claim 1, wherein the composite sheet comprising" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood that said “composite sheet” of claim 6 refers to the “multilayer composite sheet” recited in line 4 of claim 1. A similar issue in claims 11, 12, and 14 is observed and requires corrective action.
In addition, a related issue would also arise about the correspondence between elements recited in Claim 6 to elements already recited in Claim 1, for instance:
Claim 1
Claim 6
a back glass or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) layer
a back glass or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
a first UV-curable adhesive layer
a layer of first compound UV glue
an intermediate polycarbonate (PC) sheet
an intermediate polycarbonate (PC) sheet
a second UV-curable adhesive layer
a layer of second compound UV glue
a front glass or PET layer
a front glass or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
If the elements of Claim 6 listed above are the same as those in claim 1 listed above, article “the” should be used instead of “an” for element of dependent claim 6. In addition, use of the same terminology is required. On the other hand, if elements of claim 6 are different, or separate, elements than those recited in claim 1 and have adequate support in the disclosure, it should be indicated so.
Claim 7 recites elements that are similar to elements already recited in claim 1. For instance claim 7, ln. 1-2 recites “the magnetic unit further comprises: a polycarbonate (PC) ring with an intermediate processing slot for receiving one or more magnets” while claim 1, ln. 9 recites “the magnetic unit comprising a PC ring”. It is not clear whether they refer to the same element or not. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination and based on the fact that the specification of the instant application refers to element 402 of magnetic unit shown in fig. 4 as “PC ring”, element “polycarbonate (PC) ring” of claim 7 will be read as “PC ring” of claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected based on its dependency.
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, 5-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 218603504 U, and Yang hereinafter) in view of Smith et al. (US 9419669 B2, and Smith hereinafter), further in view of Zeng (US 20220140852 A1, and Zeng hereinafter), Lin (CN 218352539 U, and Lin hereinafter) and Chen (US 20180147761 A1, and Chen hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses a case for an electronic device having a front face, a rear face, a top edge, a bottom edge, and two opposing side edges, the case comprising:
a body (including 2-5, fig. 1) for covering at least a portion of the rear face of the electronic device (fig. 1), the body comprising multi-layer composite sheet (including 2, 4, 5, fig. 1) comprising a back glass or Polyethylene terephthalate layer (41, fig. 5; “the second fixing layer 41 … made of PET”, [0046]), a first adhesive layer (43, fig. 5; “second adhesive layer 43”, [0045]), an intermediate polycarbonate (PC) sheet (5, fig. 1; “the plate 5 is made of PC … the PC is made of polycarbonate”, [0039]), a second adhesive layer (23, fig. 4; “first adhesive layer 23”, [0044]), and a front glass or PET layer (21, fig. 5; “the first fixing layer 21 … made of PET”, [0046]);
a magnetic unit (3, fig. 1) embedded within the intermediate PC sheet through a slot (51; fig. 3; “groove 51 is also an annular structure … and is used for placing the magnet body 32 and the magnet support 31”, [0036]), the magnetic unit comprising, a first adhesive layer (34, fig. 3; “second glue layer 34”, [0040]), one or more magnets (32, fig. 3; “magnet body 32”) placed on the first adhesive layer (fig. 3), and a second adhesive layer (33, fig. 3; “first glue layer 33”, [0040]) attaching a cover (31, fig. 3); and
a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) bumper (1, fig. 1; “protective shell main body 1 is made of TPU material”, [0047]), such that the body is integrated with the TPU bumper to form the case (figs. 1-2, “the protective case main body 1 cooperates with the first fixing component 2, the magnet component 3 and the second fixing component 4”, [0048]).
Yang does not explicitly disclose the first adhesive layer is UV-curable; the second adhesive layer is UV-curable; the slot being CNC-processed; the magnetic unit comprising a PC ring; the cover being a PET cover; the bumper adhesively bonded to the composite sheet.
Smith discloses adhesive layers that are UV-curable (fig. 17G; “adhesive may be cured by, for example, radiation (from a light source such as ultraviolet (UV) light) and/or a time lapse sufficient for the adhesive to bond first layer 1710 and second layer 1712 to shell 1700”, Col. 20, ln. 18-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Smith so that the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layers are UV-curable, in order to control the adhesion curing time (“a time lapse sufficient for the adhesive to bond first layer 1710 and second layer 1712 to shell 1700”, Col. 20, ln. 20-22).
Zeng discloses a slot being CNC-processed (fig. 2; “the back inner wall of the main body 1 through CNC processing the magnetic sheet assembly 2' embedded in the groove 12',”, [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Zeng so that the slot is CNC-processed, in order to provide a precise automated machining process for the slot.
Lin discloses a magnetic unit (25, fig. 3) comprises a PC ring (26, fig. 3; “the fixing ring 26 is made of opaque hard plastic material, for example: polycarbonate (PC)”, [0052]); and a PET cover (29, fig. 3 “the transparent positioning film 29 … is a plastic film with high transparency, such as: polyethylene terephthalate (PET)”, [0052]);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang, Smith, and Zeng to incorporate the teachings of Lin so that the magnetic unit comprises a PC ring; and a PET cover, in order to provide enhanced protection to the bottom part of the magnetic unit in case of accidental fall (“opaque hard plastic material”, [0052] of Lin) while allowing transparency to the top of the magnetic unit to facilitate visual inspection (“plastic film with high transparency, such as: polyethylene terephthalate (PET)” , [0052] of Lin).
Chen discloses a bumper (91, fig. 1) adhesively bonded to a sheet (90, fig. 1; bonded through bonding layer 94, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang, Smith, Zeng, and Lin to incorporate the teachings of Chen so that the bumper is adhesively bonded to the composite sheet, in order to prevent accidental separation.
Regarding Claim 5, Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the body is made from at least one of metal, glass, concrete, epoxy, plastics, nylon, polylactic acid, high impact polystyrene, polycarbonate, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, graphene, Kevlar, fiberglass, and carbon fiber (fig. 1; “plate (5) is made of PC material”, Claim 8 of Yang).
Regarding Claim 6 (as best understood), Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen the case of claim 1, wherein the composite sheet comprising:
a back glass or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) acting as the rear face of the case (41, figs. 1 and 5 of Yang);
a layer of first compound UV glue applied on top of the back glass or PET (43, fig. 5 of Yang; “second adhesive layer 43”, [0045] of Yang);
an intermediate polycarbonate (PC) sheet placed on the first compound UV glue (5, fig. 1 of Yang; “the plate 5 is made of PC … the PC is made of polycarbonate”, [0039] of Yang), the intermediate PC sheet containing the CNC-processed slot in which the magnetic unit is embedded (see rejection of Claim 1 above);
a layer of second compound UV glue applied on top of the intermediate PC sheet (23, fig. 4 of Yang; “first adhesive layer 23”, [0044] of Yang); and
a front glass or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) configured on top of the intermediate PC sheet through the second compound UV glue and acts as the front face of the case (21, fig. 5 of Yang; “the first fixing layer 21 … made of PET”, [0046] of Yang).
Regarding Claim 7 (as best understood), Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the magnetic unit further comprises:
a polycarbonate (PC) ring with an intermediate processing slot for receiving one or more magnets (Yang as modified by Lin. See rejection of claim 1 above; PC ring 26, fig. 3 of Lin);
a first layer of adhesive applied on the polycarbonate (PC) ring (adhesive layer 34, fig. 3 of Yang. See rejection of claim 1 above);
the one or more magnets placed on adhesive layer (fig. 3 of Yang); and a second adhesive layer securing a PET cover over the one or more magnets (Yang as modified by Lin. See rejection of claim 1 above; adhesive layer 33, fig. 3 of Yang).
Regarding Claim 8 (as best understood), Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 6, wherein the back glass or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and the front glass or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) comprises a printed layer shaped like a magnetic unit (22 and 42, figs. 4-5 of Yang).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the magnetic unit allows for secure attachment of compatible accessories ( “the magnet assembly in the protective case enables the protective case to match the wireless magnetic charger, because the magnet of the magnet assembly the body is stuck inside the protective case and fixed by the magnet support”, [0057] of Yang; wireless magnetic charger being a compatible accessory).
Regarding Claim 10, Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the composite sheet is securely attached to the TPU bumper through an adhesive bonding process forming a continuous sealed interface (Yang as modified by Chen; fig. 1 of Chen. See rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 13, Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a cellular telephone or a smart phone (“The present disclosure aims to provide a one-piece magnetic attraction type mobile phone protection shell”, Summary section of Yang).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, and Chen, further in view of Zheng et al. (US 11973528 B2, and Zheng ‘528 hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the body comprises at least one first cut-out portion for revealing at least one camera of the electronic device (portion of 2, 4, and 5 where 13 is located, figs. 1-2), the first cut-out portion configured to removably receive a camera ring (13, fig. 2) but does not explicitly disclose a groove.
Zheng ‘528 discloses one cut-out portion (12, fig. 2) includes a groove (121, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Zheng ‘528 so that the at least one first cut-out portion includes a groove, in order to retain and align a camera ring evenly with the surface of the case body (“the limit part is embedded in the first retention groove, and the inner end surface of the camera decorative ring is evenly aligned with or lower than the inner surface of the back plate”, Abstract section of Zheng ‘528).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen/ Zheng ‘528 discloses the case of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose each of the side edges of the case comprises at least one second cut-out portion configured to removably receive at least one button.
Zheng ‘528 discloses each of the side edges of the case comprises at least one second cut-out portion (cut out portions on left and right sidewall of 100, fig. 1) configured to removably receive at least one button (buttons on left and right sides of 200, figs. 9 and 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, Chen, and Zheng ‘528 to incorporate the additional teachings of Zheng ‘528 so that each of the side edges of the case comprises at least one second cut-out portion configured to removably receive at least one button, in order to allow the user access to button of the electronic device without the need to remove it from the case.
Regarding Claim 4, Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen/Zheng ‘528 discloses the case of claim 2, wherein the at least one first cut-out portion is accommodated with a groove made around the removable camera ring groove (121, fig. 2 of Zheng ‘528 and rejection of Claim 2 above).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, and Chen, further in view of Schmidt (US 20160373152 A1, and Schmidt hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the magnetic unit embedded within the composite sheet facilitates magnetic attachment to compatible accessories, such as magnetic car mounts or stands.
Schmidt discloses a magnetic unit (164a-b, fig. 7) embedded within a composite sheet (including 152 and 160, fig. 7) facilitates magnetic attachment to compatible accessories, such as magnetic car mounts or stands (110, figs. 1 and 12-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt so that the magnetic unit embedded within the composite sheet facilitates magnetic attachment to compatible accessories, such as magnetic car mounts or stands, in order to provide secure attachment that withstand movement or slipping (“conventional device holders … do not provide for secure attachment to withstand movement or slipping due to vibratory forces or due to more extreme sporting activities. Accordingly, a need exists to improve the mounting assemblies for mobile devices”, Col. 1, ln. 24-32 of Schmidt).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, and Chen, further in view of Zheng et al. (US 12005656 B2, and Zheng ‘656 hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 12 (as best understood), Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the composite sheet is formed through a molding process, ensuring precise fit and alignment of the components of the composite sheet.
Zheng ‘656 discloses a composite sheet (including 10, 20, and 30, fig. 1) is formed through a molding process (“shaping mold”, S200, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Zheng ‘656 so that the composite sheet is formed through a molding process, in order to provide a manufacturing process that consistently reproduces the desired shape of the case (see references to lower shaping mold and upper shaping mold in Col. 2, ln. 42 through Col. 3, ln. 29 of Zheng ‘656). Furthermore, the use of shaping molds to sandwich the magnetic interlayer helps ensure precise fit and alignment of the components of the composite sheet (“The upper shaping mold and the lower shaping mold can have an clamping effect on the assembly obtained in step S400, so as to shape the assembly during the hot pressing process and keep the assembly flat”. See also, Col. 7, ln. 32-35 of Zheng ‘656).
Regarding Claim 14 (as best understood), Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the composite sheet is formed using injection molding or other suitable manufacturing processes.
Zheng ‘656 discloses a composite sheet (including 10, 20, and 30, fig. 1) is formed through a molding manufacturing process (“shaping mold”, S200, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Zheng ‘656 so that the composite sheet is formed through a (suitable) molding manufacturing process, in order to provide a fabrication method that consistently reproduces the desired shape of the case (see references to lower shaping mold and upper shaping mold in Col. 2, ln. 42 through Col. 3, ln. 29 Zheng ‘656).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, and Chen, further in view of Chiang et al. (US 10441044 B2, and Chiang hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang/Smith/Zeng/Lin/Chen discloses the case of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the TPU bumper is constructed with a shock-absorbing material to provide enhanced impact resistance.
Chiang discloses a TPU bumper (3, fig. 14) is constructed with a shock-absorbing material to provide enhanced impact resistance (“3 is preferably formed from a soft elastomeric material which provides at least some shock protection from impact events such as drops or falls. Examples of suitable materials include … thermoplastic polyurethane (“TPU”)”, Col. 5, ln. 14-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang, Smith, Zeng, Lin, and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Chiang so that the TPU bumper is constructed with a shock-absorbing material to provide enhanced impact resistance, in order to protect the electronic device in case of events such as drops or falls (“provides at least some shock protection from impact events such as drops or falls”, Col. 5, ln. 15-16 of Chiang).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Smith.
Regarding Claim 16, Zeng discloses a case for an electronic device having a front face, a rear face, a top edge, a bottom edge, and two opposing side edges, the case comprising:
a body (1, fig. 4) for covering at least a portion of the rear face of the electronic device (“As shown in FIG. 3 to FIG. 5, a one-piece magnetic attraction type mobile phone protection shell is provided”, [0018]. See also fig. 1), the body comprising a composite sheet (fig. 5);
wherein the composite sheet comprising:
a back glass or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) acting as the rear face of the case (13, fig. 5; “The surface plate 12 and the bottom plate 13 are respectively polyethylene terephthalate (PET) sheet materials”, [0023]);
an intermediate polycarbonate (PC) sheet (11, fig. 5; “base plate 11 is a polycarbonate (PC) sheet”, [0023]), wherein the top side of the PC sheet is used for placement of a magnetic unit (3, fig. 5); and
a front glass or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) configured on top of the intermediate PC sheet (12, fig. 5; “The surface plate 12 and the bottom plate 13 are respectively polyethylene terephthalate (PET) sheet materials”, [0023]) and acts as the front face of the case (figs. 3-5).
a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) bumper (2, fig. 3; “The covered edge 2 is a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material”, [0023]), wherein the body is integrated with the TPU bumper to form the case (figs. 3-4).
Zeng does not explicitly disclose a layer of first compound UV glue applied on top of the back glass or PET; an intermediate sheet is placed on the first compound UV glue, the bottom side of the intermediate sheet is placed on the first compound UV glue; a layer of second compound UV glue applied on top of the intermediate sheet; and a front layer on top of the intermediate sheet through the second compound UV glue.
Smith discloses a layer of first compound UV glue applied on top of a back layer (1712, fig. 17G; “second layer 1712 (also referred to as an outer layer) can be adhesively coupled to an exposed portion of shell 1700”, Col. 19, ln. 60-62 in view of “the adhesive may be cured by, for example, radiation (from a light source such as ultraviolet (UV) light)”, Col. 20, ln. 18-20); an intermediate sheet (1700, fig. 17G) is placed on the first compound UV glue, the bottom side of the intermediate sheet is placed on the first compound UV glue (Col. 19, ln. 60-62); a layer of second compound UV glue applied on top of the intermediate sheet (adhesive between shell and first layer: “adhesive may be cured by, for example, radiation (from a light source such as ultraviolet (UV) light) and/or a time lapse sufficient for the adhesive to bond first layer 1710 and second layer 1712 to shell 1700”, Col. 20, ln. 18-22) ; and a front layer (1710, fig. 17G) configured on top of the intermediate sheet through the second compound UV glue (fig. 17G and Col. 20, ln. 18-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng to incorporate the teachings of Smith so that a layer of first compound UV glue applied on top of the back glass or PET; an intermediate polycarbonate (PC) sheet IS placed on the first compound UV glue and the bottom side of the PC sheet is placed on the first compound UV glue; a layer of second compound UV glue applied on top of the intermediate PC sheet through the second compound UV glue, in order to bond adjacent layers and prevent accidental disassembly (“any technically feasible adhesive can be used to form a reliable connection”, Col. 9, ln. 45-46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claim 16, Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Zeng does not disclose a laminated composite sheet comprised of (1) a back glass or PET layer, (2) a first compound UV glue layer, (3) an intermediate polycarbonate (PC) sheet having defined top and bottom surfaces, (4) a second compound UV glue layer, and (5) a front glass or PET layer bonded through the second UV glue layer. Rather, Zeng describes a substantially different structure, namely a simple molded protective back plate, not a laminated stack of multiple UV-bonded layers arranged in the particular order recited in Claim 16”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that Zeng describes a substantially different structure. Zeng discloses a case for an electronic device comprising a back plate 1 and a covered edge 2 (fig. 1); the back plate, as shown in fig. 5, comprises layers 11, 12, 13, that are configured to be stacked together (fig. 4). Since layers 11-13 are made of different materials (“the base plate 11 is a polycarbonate (PC) sheet material. The surface plate 12 and the bottom plate 13 are respectively polyethylene terephthalate (PET) sheet materials”, [0023]),, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the back plate 1 is considered to be a composite sheet. Furthermore, since Zeng discloses that layers 11-13 are configured to be joined so that the back plate behaves as one piece (“the surface plate 12, the base plate 11, and the bottom plate 13 are fitted in sequence, and the magnetic sheet subassembly 3 is clamped and fixed in the hollow part 110 through the surface plate 12 and the bottom plate 13, so that the entire back plate 1 is one-piece”, [0021]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would find said disclosure a suggestion for the layer structure to be adhesively bonded, since glue bonding is a known technique in the art (see rejection of claim 16 above for more details).
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 Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841