DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the passage Examiner relies upon in US 2024/0135471, filed 12/11/2023 which claims priority to its provisional application cannot be used as prior art since support appears to be lacking in the provisional for the relied upon elements in the rejection. Examine respectfully disagrees.
Page 5 of the provisional application 63/405671 (hereinafter “the provisional”) discloses “the tray tripper calls for a tray of dough balls to be tripped, the balls falling into chutes leading to a gate below”. From the center figure of page 6 it is clear the dough ball is falling from the cup to the “gate” which is “on a load cell” (also on page 6). This figure is faithfully reproduced in figure 3 of the US PGPub US 2014/0081348 (hereinafter “the PGPub”) in which the load cell (16) is shown integrated with the same structure defined as a “gate” in the provisional but called a “weight bucket” in the PGPub. The bottom two figures in the provisional application on page 6 show a series of these “gates” as cradling the dough balls. These figures are faithfully reproduced as figures 5 and 6 of the PGPub, again being referred to as a weight bucket rather than a gate. On page 7 of the provisional the weighing process is described as “the weights are compared against the standard in an algorithm…[t]he row of doughballs is then released and falls into the original tray, which is empty, and traveling beneath the gate”. It is clear to one having ordinary skill in the art that the “gate” of the provisional application is the exact same structure as the “weight bucket” of the US PGPub. The question then becomes whether one can reasonably interpret this structure as a “bucket” if it is originally called a “gate” by Campbell.
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “bucket” as “something resembling a bucket: such as a:the scoop of an excavating machine, b: one of the receptacles on the rim of a waterwheel, c: one of the cups of an endless-belt conveyor” (emphasis added). Based on this definition, Examiner concludes that consistent with office policy, the structure referred to as a “gate” in the provisional can reasonably be interpreted by a skilled artisan as a “bucket”. MPEP § 2173.01 requires that “during examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” For this reason, Examiner determines that the “weight bucket” relied upon in the PGPub finds support in the provisional filed 09/12/2022 as the “gate” and still reads on the claimed weigh bucket. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
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 limitations is/are: “feed mechanism” (claims 1-7), “dividing mechanism” (claims 1-7, 15-22) , “device that feeds” (claims 15-21) and “tipping mechanism” (claims 6 and 13).
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.
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebenstreit in view of Campbell et al. (US 2024/0081348; “Campbell”).
Regarding claim 1, Hebenstreit discloses in figures 1 and 2 an apparatus for producing a plurality of portions of semi-solid matter, each portion having a substantially uniform preselected target weight (¶¶ [0004]-[0006]), comprising a feed mechanism (12) that has an operating rate that is controlled by inputting a control signal (¶¶ [0004], [0017], [0034]), a dividing mechanism (14) configured to receive a continuous flow of the semi-solid matter from the feed mechanism (12) and to divide the semi-solid matter into portions sized in proportion to the operating rate of the feed mechanism (12) (¶¶ [0005], [0012], [0017], [0034]), a proofer (20) downstream from said dividing mechanism (14) configured to receive and transport the portions as the portions are released from the dividing mechanism (14) (¶ [0017]), a weigh conveyor (24) having a tare weight downstream from said proofer (20) configured to receive the portions from the proofer (20) (¶ [0017]), the weigh conveyor (24) having a load cell (16) configured for producing indications representative of the weight of a portion resting in the weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0027]), a processor (18) in electrical communication with the feed mechanism (12) and the load cell (16) (¶¶ [0017], [0031]), the processor (18) programmed to send the operating rate control signal to the feed mechanism (12) (¶ [0036]), receive a group of a predetermined number of successive weight indications from the load cell (16) (¶ [0038]), calculate the average weight indication of the group (¶ [0038]), determine whether all of the weight indications in the group fall within a predetermined standard deviation of the average weight indication of the group (¶ [0039]), and if so, calculate the difference between the average weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight of the weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0039]), and if the difference is less than a predetermined tare set point, to use the average weight as the tare weight for subsequent weight indications (¶ [0040]), and if the difference is greater than the predetermined tare set point, to include the average weight indication of the group in an array of a predetermined number of weight samples (¶ [0041]), calculate the average of the weight samples in the array (¶ [0041]), and adjust the operating rate control signal according to the difference between the average sample weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight of the weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0041]).
Hebenstreit discloses a weigh conveyor with a load cell underneath (¶ [0017]) rather than a weigh bucket.
Hebenstreit further teaches after weighing the dough, inserting the portions back into the process stream (¶ [0006]), but discloses inserting them into a molder and then into baking pans (¶ [0017]).
Hebenstreit is silent to the portion resting in the weigh bucket is released when the proofer is positioned underneath the weigh bucket.
In the same field of endeavor, Campbell teaches an apparatus for producing portions of semi-solid matter wherein the means for weighing is a weighing bucket (34), wherein the portion resting in the weigh bucket (34) is released when the proofer (30) is positioned underneath the weigh bucket (34) (¶¶ [0026]-[0027]; corresponding to “gate” in the provisional and disclosed on page 6 of the provisional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to replace Hebenstreit’s weigh conveyor with Campbell’s weigh bucket for the purpose of maintain the shape of the portion to ensure the weight distribution for each portion is consistent to achieve the predictable result of more accurate weight measurements due to more consistent measurement methods.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Campbell’s weigh buckets in a position of the process stream where the portions are returned to the proofer as taught by Campbell for the purpose of allowing the portions to rest for a longer amount of time in order to optimize the proofing process.
Regarding claim 2, Hebenstreit discloses the weigh conveyor (24) is configured to accommodate a single portion, and the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between loadings of successive portions in to the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
Campbell further teaches the weigh bucket (34) is configured to accommodate a single portion (¶ [0026]).
Therefore, the combination of Hebenstreit and Campbell discloses the limitation without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between the loading and unloading of a single portion (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between the unloading of a single portion and the loading of the next successive portion (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 5, Hebenstreit discloses the load cell (16) comprises a strain gauge load cell (¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Hebenstreit discloses a tipping mechanism (no reference numeral, shown in figure 1) wherein the tipping mechanism tips the proofer (20) to allow the portion in the proofer (20) to fall to the weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0017]).
When Hebenstreit is combined with Campbell in the manner of the rejection of claim 1, the weighing means is a weigh bucket without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Campbell teaches the portion is released from the weigh bucket (34) when the proofer (30) that delivered the portion to the weigh bucket (34) is positioned underneath the weigh bucket (34) (¶¶ [0026]-[0027]; disclosed on top of page 7 of the provisional).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Hebenstreit discloses in figures 1 and 2 an apparatus for producing a plurality of portions of semi-solid matter, each portion having a substantially uniform preselected target weight (¶¶ [0004]-[0006]), comprising a means for feeding (12) a semi-solid matter to a dividing means (14) at a rate which varies in response to an operating rate control signal (¶¶ [0004], [0017], [0034]), a means for proofing (20) the matter downstream from the dividing means (14) wherein the matter is stored for processing (¶¶ [0017], [0034]), a means for weighing (24) that receives the matter from the means for proofing (20) (¶ [0017]), having a load cell (16) for producing indications representative of a weight of a portion of the semi-solid matter (¶ [0017]), a processor (18) in communication with the means for feeding (12) and means for weighing (24) for providing the operating rate control signal to the means for feeding (12) (¶¶ [0017], [0031]), wherein the process (18) is programmed to receive a group of a predetermined number of successive weight indications from the load cell (16) (¶ [0038]), calculate the average weight indication of the group (¶ [0038]), determine whether all of the weight indications in the group fall within a predetermined standard deviation of the average weight indication of the group, and if so, calculate the difference between the average weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight of the empty means for weighing (24) (¶ [0039]), and if the difference is less than a predetermined tare set point, to use the average weight as the tare weight for subsequent weight indications (¶ [0040]), and if the difference is greater than the predetermined tare set point, to include the average weight indication of the group in an array of a predetermined number of weight samples, calculate the average of the weight samples in the array, and adjust the operating rate control signal according to the difference between the average sample weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight (¶ [0041]).
Hebenstreit further teaches after weighing the dough, inserting the portions back into the process stream (¶ [0006]), but discloses inserting them into a molder and then into baking pans (¶ [0017]).
Hebenstreit is silent to the portion resting in the weigh bucket is released when the proofer is positioned underneath the weigh bucket.
In the same field of endeavor, Campbell teaches an apparatus for producing portions of semi-solid matter wherein the means for weighing is a weighing bucket (34), wherein the portion resting in the weigh bucket (34) is released when the proofer (30) is positioned underneath the weigh bucket (34) (¶¶ [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Campbell’s weigh buckets in a position of the process stream where the portions are returned to the proofer as taught by Campbell for the purpose of allowing the portions to rest for a longer amount of time in order to optimize the proofing process.
Regarding claim 9, Hebenstreit discloses the means for weighing (24) is configured to accommodate a single portion, and the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between loadings of successive portions in to the means for weighing (24) (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between the loading and unloading of a single portion (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 11, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between the unloading of a single portion and the loading of the next successive portion (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 12, Hebenstreit discloses the load cell (16) comprises a strain gauge load cell (¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, Hebenstreit discloses a tipping mechanism (no reference numeral, shown in figure 1) wherein the tipping mechanism tips the means for proofing (20) to allow the portion in the means for proofing (20) to fall to the means for weighing (24) (¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Campbell teaches the portion is released from the means for weighing (34) when the means for proofing (30) that delivered the portion to the means for weighing (34) is positioned underneath the means for weighing (34) (¶¶ [0026]-[0027], disclosed on the top of page 7 of the provisional).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 15, Hebenstreit discloses in figures 1 and 2 a method of providing a dough proofing system for continuously dividing a mass of semisolid matter into a plurality of portions, each portion having a preselected target weight (¶¶ [0004]-[0006]), comprising the steps of providing a device (12) that feeds a mass of semi-solid matter to a dividing mechanism (14) and has an operating rate that is controlled by inputting an operating rate control signal (¶¶ [0004], [0017], [0034]), providing the dividing mechanism (14) that divides the matter into portions (¶¶ [0005], [0012], [0017], [0034]), providing a conveyor (no reference numeral, shown in figure 1) configured to receive and transport the portions from the dividing mechanism (14) (¶ [0017]), providing a proofer (20) downstream from the conveyor configured to receive and transport the portions of semi-solid matter from the conveyor to a weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0017]), providing a load cell (16) to support the weigh conveyor (24) that provides an indication of the weight of the empty weigh conveyor (24) and the weight of the portions on the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶ [0017], [0023]), providing a processor (18) in electrical communication with the device that feeds (12) the semi-solid matter to the dividing mechanism (14) and the load cell (16) (¶¶ [0017], [0031]), the processor (18) programmed to obtain a group of a predetermined number of successive weight indications from the load cell (16) (¶ [0038]), calculate the average weight indication of the group (¶ [0038]), determine whether all of the weight indications in the group fall within a predetermined standard deviation of the average weight indication of the group, and if so, calculating the difference between the average weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight of the empty weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0039]), and if the difference is less than a predetermined tare set point, use the average weight as the tare weight for subsequent weight indications (¶ [0040]), and if the difference is greater than the predetermined tare set point, including the average weight indication of the group in an array of a predetermined number of weight samples, calculate the average of the weight samples in the array, and adjust the operating rate control signal according to the difference between the average sample weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight (¶ [0041]).
Hebenstreit discloses a weigh conveyor with a load cell underneath (¶ [0017]) rather than a weigh bucket.
In the same field of endeavor, Campbell teaches an apparatus for producing portions of semi-solid matter wherein the means for weighing is a weighing bucket (34), wherein the portion resting in the weigh bucket (34) is released when the proofer (30) is positioned underneath the weigh bucket (34) (¶¶ [0026]-[0027]; disclosed on page 6 of the provisional and referred to as “gate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to replace Hebenstreit’s weigh conveyor with Campbell’s weigh bucket for the purpose of maintain the shape of the portion to ensure the weight distribution for each portion is consistent to achieve the predictable result of more accurate weight measurements due to more consistent measurement methods.
Regarding claim 16, Hebenstreit discloses the operating rate control signal corresponds to a numerical value, and the device that feeds (12) the mass of semi-solid matter to the dividing mechanism (14) has an upper operating rate corresponding to an upper operating rate control signal, at which rate portions having maximum weight are divided, and a lower operating rate corresponding to a lower operating rate control signal, at which rate minimum weight portions are divided; and the step of adjusting the operating rate control signal according to the difference between the average weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight comprises adjusting the numerical value of the operating rate control signal by an amount equal to the difference between the numerical value of the upper operating rate control signal and the numerical value of the lower operating rate control signal, multiplied by the (sum of the target weight and the tare weight less the average weight), multiplied by a predetermined moderating factor (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 17, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined moderating factor is the reciprocal of the target weight (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 18, Hebenstreit discloses the weigh conveyor (24) is configured to accommodate a single portion and the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between loadings of successive portions in to the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
Campbell further teaches the weigh bucket (34) is configured to accommodate a single portion (¶ [0026]).
Therefore, the combination of Hebenstreit and Campbell discloses the limitation without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 19, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between the loading and unloading of a single portion in the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶ [0009]-[0010]).
When Hebenstreit is combined with Campbell in the manner of the rejection of claim 15 above, the weigh conveyor is replaced with a weigh bucket without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 20, Hebenstreit discloses the predetermined number of successive weight indications received from the load cell (16) is selected to encompass a time period less than the interval between the unloading of a single portion and the loading of the next successive portion in to the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶ [0009]-[0010].
When Hebenstreit is combined with Campbell in the manner of the rejection of claim 15 above, the weigh conveyor is replaced with a weigh bucket without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 21, Hebenstreit providing a tipper (no reference numeral, shown in figure 1) for tipping the proofer (20) to deliver the matter in the proofer (20) to the weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0017]).
When Hebenstreit is combined with Campbell in the manner of the rejection of claim 15 above, the weigh conveyor is replaced with a weigh bucket without further modification necessary.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 22, Hebenstreit discloses in figures 1 and 2 a method of continuously dividing a mass of semisolid matter into a plurality of portions, each portion having a preselected target weight (¶¶ [0004]-[0006]), comprising the steps of feeding a mass of semi-solid matter to a dividing mechanism (14) with a feed rate that is controlled by inputting an operating rate control signal (¶¶ [0004], [0017], [0034]), dividing the mass of semi-solid matter into portions using the dividing mechanism (14) (¶¶ [0005], [0012], [0017], [0034]), transporting the portions from the dividing mechanism (14) on a conveyor (no reference numeral, shown in figure 1) (¶ [0017]), receiving the portions from the conveyor on a proofer tray (20) downstream from the conveyor configured to transport the portions from the conveyor to a weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0017]), measuring the weight of the empty weigh conveyor (24) and the weight of the portions on the weigh conveyor (24) using a load cell (16) that supports the weigh conveyor (24) (¶¶[0019], [0023]), inputting the operating rate control signal to the device that feeds (12) the semi-solid matter to the dividing mechanism (14) (¶ [0036]), inputting an initial tare weight for the weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0019]), obtaining a group of a predetermined number of successive weight indications from the load cell (16), calculating the average weight indication of the group (¶ [0038]), determining whether all of the weight indications in the group fall within a predetermined standard deviation of the average weight indication of the group, and if so, calculating the difference between the average weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight of the empty weigh conveyor (24) (¶ [0039]), and if the difference is less than a predetermined tare set point, using the average weight as the tare weight for subsequent weight indications (¶ [0040]), and if the difference is greater than the predetermined tare set point, including the average weight indication of the group in an array of a predetermined number of weight samples, calculating the average of the weight samples in the array, and adjusting the operating rate control signal according to the difference between the average sample weight and the sum of the target weight and the tare weight (¶ [0041]).
Hebenstreit discloses a weigh conveyor with a load cell underneath (¶ [0017]) rather than a weigh bucket.
In the same field of endeavor, Campbell teaches an apparatus for producing portions of semi-solid matter wherein the means for weighing is a weighing bucket (34), wherein the portion resting in the weigh bucket (34) is released when the proofer (30) is positioned underneath the weigh bucket (34) (¶¶ [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to replace Hebenstreit’s weigh conveyor with Campbell’s weigh bucket for the purpose of maintain the shape of the portion to ensure the weight distribution for each portion is consistent to achieve the predictable result of more accurate weight measurements due to more consistent measurement methods.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 7-4 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863
Prosecution Insights