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 07/23/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Eubanks in view of Bermeo, and over Bermeo, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner notes that Eubanks defines the contours of surfaces 11A, 12B, 13C and 13D by exponential/power-law relationships (e.g., see Col. 3, Lns. 16-43 of Eubanks) and expressly characterizes those contours as "exponential tapers" (e.g., see Col. 4, Lns. 36-38), and that the outwardly facing exterior surface 13A of the dielectric core is a cylindrical surface (e.g., see Col. 2, Lns. 27-33) rather than a curved profile. Examiner notes that Bermeo defines its outer portions 115C, 125C by the logarithmic relationship f(x)=Bln(Ax)−B (e.g., see Para. 21) and its inner portions 115A, 125A as straight surfaces at a constant angle θ₁ (e.g., see Para. 17-18). Neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the surfaces having a one-half period sinusoidal shape now recited in claims 1 and 11, nor the surface shapes recited in new claim 21. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and nonstatutory double patenting are set forth below, necessitated by Applicant's amendment and by the addition of claim 21.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 recites "a longitudinally extending exterior surface having a one-half period sinusoidal;" which omits the noun following the modifier "sinusoidal", i.e., “shape”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
It is noted that the embodiments of the claimed inventions in the U.S. Patent and the pending application have significantly similar disclosures which are relied upon for construing obvious claim terminology. See MPEP § 804(B)(1):
Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in the application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). The court in Vogel recognized "that it is most difficult, if not meaningless, to try to say what is or is not an obvious variation of a claim," but that one can judge whether or not the invention claimed in an application is an obvious variation of an embodiment disclosed in the patent which provides support for the patent claim. According to the court, one must first "determine how much of the patent disclosure pertains to the invention claimed in the patent" because only "[t]his portion of the specification supports the patent claims and may be considered." The court pointed out that "this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined."
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,749,896 B1 (hereinafter "the Patent"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Claim 21: The Patent discloses an omni-directional low distortion broadband antenna ("An omni-directional low distortion broadband coaxial horn antenna", see claim 1 of the Patent), comprising: a rotationally symmetric dielectric component composed of a single component ("a dielectric component comprised of a radio frequency transparent material, said dielectric component comprising", see claim 1 of the Patent; the recited hyperboloid of one sheet, frusto-pseudosphere and parabolic surfaces are surfaces of revolution generated by rotation of the governing curvatures about the z-axis and are therefore rotationally symmetric, e.g., see the Patent at Col. 4, Lns. 47-51, Col. 5, Lns. 63-67 and FIGS. 1-4; the Patent further discloses that all of the recited surfaces are provided on "a single main component 100", e.g., see the Patent at Col. 5, Lns. 36-40); comprising: a longitudinally extending exterior surface having a hyperboloid of one sheet shape ("a longitudinally extending exterior surface having a hyperboloid of one sheet shape"); an aperture longitudinally extending through the dielectric component, said aperture defining an interior surface having a frusto-pseudosphere shape with a top opening of the aperture being greater than a bottom opening of the aperture ("an aperture longitudinally extending from a top to a bottom of said dielectric component, said aperture defining an interior surface having a frusto-pseudosphere shape where a top opening of the aperture is greater than a bottom opening of the aperture"); a base comprising: a flat inner portion extending radially outward from the bottom opening of the aperture, and a curved portion extending radially outward from the flat inner portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component, the curved portion having a parabolic shape curving upward toward a top of the rotationally symmetric dielectric component ("a base having said bottom opening at its center, said base comprising: a flat inner portion extending outwardly from said bottom opening, and a curved portion having a parabolic shape curving upward toward said top of the dielectric component and extending outwardly from the flat portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component"); a first electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface comprised of a first metallized layer; and a second electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base comprised of a second metallized layer ("an electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface; and an electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base", see claim 1 of the Patent, in combination with "wherein said electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface or said electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion comprises metallic paint", see claim 7 of the Patent, and "wherein said electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface or said electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion comprises electroplating", see claim 8 of the Patent).
Accordingly, instant claim 21 recites the identical surface geometry of claim 1 of the Patent, and the only nominal differences are: (i) the recitation that the dielectric component is "rotationally symmetric" and "composed of a single component", and (ii) the recitation that the conductors are "comprised of a first metallized layer" and "comprised of a second metallized layer". As to (i), the surfaces recited in claim 1 of the Patent are surfaces of revolution formed on a single dielectric component, such that the recitation is at most an express statement of that which claim 1 of the Patent already requires. As to (ii), metallic paint and electroplating as recited in claims 7 and 8 of the Patent each result in a metallized layer disposed on the respective surface, and a skilled artisan would have found it obvious that applying the conductor of claim 1 of the Patent by the techniques of claims 7 and 8 of the Patent yields a first metallized layer on the interior surface and a second metallized layer on the curved portion of the base. Instant claim 21 also omits the "radio frequency transparent material" limitation of claim 1 of the Patent, and omission of a limitation of a patented claim renders the instant claim broader in scope and therefore an obvious variation. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,749,896 B1 (hereinafter "the Patent"), and claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-14, 17 and 18 of the Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Claim 1 and 11: The Patent discloses an omni-directional low distortion broadband antenna and a method of manufacturing thereof ("An omni-directional low distortion broadband coaxial horn antenna" and "A method of manufacturing an omni-directional low distortion broadband coaxial horn antenna, the method comprising: forming a dielectric component…", see claims 1 and 11 of the Patent), comprising: a rotationally symmetric dielectric component composed of a single component ("a dielectric component comprised of a radio frequency transparent material", said surfaces being surfaces of revolution formed on a single main component, e.g., see the Patent at Col. 4, Lns. 47-51 and Col. 5, Lns. 36-40); a longitudinally extending exterior surface having a one-half period sinusoidal shape (e.g., see claim 3 of the Patent reciting "wherein said exterior surface comprises a non-linear curvature defined by the equation: d₂(i)=dDiel·sin(π·sFreq·(i−1)); x(i)=widRad+d₂(i)·sin θ₂; z(i)=zvar+((height−zvar)·(i−1))/(ePoints−1)−d₂(i)·cos θ₂"); an aperture longitudinally extending through the dielectric component, said aperture defining an interior surface having the one-half period sinusoidal shape ("an aperture longitudinally extending from a top to a bottom of said dielectric component, said aperture defining an interior surface having a frusto-pseudosphere shape…", see claim 1 of the Patent, in combination with claim 4 of the Patent reciting "wherein said interior surface comprises a non-linear curvature defined by the equation: d₃(i)=dConvex·sin(π·sFreq·(i−1))…"); a base comprising: a flat inner portion extending radially outward ("a flat inner portion extending outwardly from said bottom opening"), and a curved portion extending radially outward from the flat inner portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component having the one-half period sinusoidal shape ("a curved portion having a parabolic shape curving upward toward said top of the dielectric component and extending outwardly from the flat portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component", see claim 1 of the Patent, in combination with claim 2 of the Patent reciting "wherein said curved portion of said base comprises a non-linear curvature defined by the equation: d₁(i)=dBase·sin(π·sFreq·(i−1))…"); a first electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface comprised of a first metallized layer; and a second electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base comprised of a second metallized layer (see claims 1, 7 and 8 of the Patent as discussed above with respect to claim 21).
The disclosure of the Patent is reasonably relied upon for the "one-half period sinusoidal" characterization of the non-linear curvatures recited in claims 2-4 and 12-14 of the Patent. Specifically, the Patent states at Col. 6, Lns. 10-23 that "the sinusoidal d equations were added to the governing curvatures (C1, C2, and C3) with their vector components split between the x and z dimensions, according to the elevation angles (θ₁, θ₂, and θ₃) of the parametric line equations present in C1, C2, and C3… Each of these curves (C1, C2, and C3) covers one-half of a period of the sinusoidal waves defined by the d equations. To enforce the half-period structure of these curves, the sFreq variable was created as a spatial frequency…" The Patent further identifies C1 as the curved portion of the base, C2 as the exterior surface, and C3 as the interior surface (e.g., see the Patent at Col. 5, Lns. 66-67 through Col. 6, Lns. 1-3, and Col. 7, Lns. 20-27).
Accordingly, claims 2-4 and 12-14 of the Patent recite precisely the one-half period sinusoidal curvature of the exterior surface, the interior surface, and the curved portion of the base that instant claims 1 and 11 now recite in generic terms, and instant claims 1 and 11 are merely broader recitations of the same subject matter. A later claim that is broader in scope than a patented claim is an obvious variation of that patented claim. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under this heading due to depending on a rejected claim.
The Applicant is respectfully reminded that a nonstatutory double patenting rejection cannot be held in abeyance, see 37 CFR 1.111(b), MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 11 now recite "a longitudinally extending exterior surface having a one-half period sinusoidal shape", "said aperture defining an interior surface having the one-half period sinusoidal shape", and "a curved portion extending radially outward from the flat inner portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component having the one-half period sinusoidal shape". Applicant asserts at Pg. 2 of the Remarks (Pg. 8 of the Response) that support for these limitations is found in Paragraphs 11, 21 and 31 of the Specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph 11 describes the exterior surface as "having a hyperboloid of one sheet shape", the interior surface as "having a frusto-pseudosphere shape", and the curved portion of the base as "having a parabolic shape curving upward toward the top end of the dielectric component". Paragraph 28 similarly describes these three surfaces as a "hyperboloid of one sheet" shape, a "frusto-pseudosphere" shape (also described as "a truncated 'Gabriel's horn' or a truncated lower half of a tractricoid"), and a "parabolic shape" (also described as "the uppermost portion of a torus or donut shape"). Neither paragraph describes any surface of the dielectric component as having a one-half period sinusoidal shape. Paragraph 21 is directed to FIGS. 9A and 9B illustrating the 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional array gains of arrays of the disclosed antennas and is unrelated to the shape of any surface of the dielectric component.
Paragraph 31 is the only paragraph of the Specification which mentions a sinusoid. That paragraph states that "the equations for the governing curvatures (C1, C2, and C3) were designed originally as straight lines in which the d equations (d₁, d₂, and d₃, respectively) were equal to 0" and that "the sinusoidal d equations were added to the governing curvatures (C1, C2, and C3) with their vector components split between the x and z dimensions, according to the elevation angles (θ₁, θ₂, and θ₃) of the parametric line equations present in C1, C2, and C3" [emphasis added], and that "[e]ach of these curves (C1, C2, and C3) covers one-half of a period of the sinusoidal waves defined by the d equations." What is therefore described is a parametric straight line to which a one-half period sinusoidal displacement is added in a direction normal to that line as determined by the respective elevation angle. The described surface is not itself a one-half period sinusoid; it is a line-plus-sinusoidal-offset construction in which the sinusoid is a perpendicular deviation from a reference line. A claim reciting that the surface has a one-half period sinusoidal shape, without any recitation of the underlying parametric line or the elevation angle from which the sinusoidal displacement is measured, encompasses surfaces whose profile in the x-z plane is itself a one-half period sinusoid, which is not what is described in the Specification. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 recite subject matter broader than and different from that which is described, and the Specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed subject matter.
Additionally, claims 1 and 11 recite "the one-half period sinusoidal shape" for both the interior surface and the curved portion of the base, thereby requiring these surfaces to have the same one-half period sinusoidal shape as the exterior surface. However, the Specification describes three distinct curves having three distinct peak amplitudes (dBase, dDiel and dConvex for C1, C2 and C3 respectively, see Paragraph 31), three distinct elevation angles (θ₁, θ₂ and θ₃, see Paragraph 31), and three distinct underlying parametric line equations. The Specification nowhere describes the curved portion of the base, the exterior surface, and the interior surface as sharing a single common shape. This limitation is therefore likewise unsupported.
Because the recitations identified above are not described in the Specification as originally filed, this subject matter constitutes new matter. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a) and MPEP § 2163.06.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under this heading due to depending on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim 1-7, 9-17 and 19-21 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 1, 11 and 21 recite "a rotationally symmetric dielectric component composed of a single component comprising:" followed by a listing of a longitudinally extending exterior surface, an aperture, and a base. It is unclear what is meant by a component that is composed of a single component. The transitional phrase "composed of" is a closed or partially closed transitional phrase which may be interpreted as either "consisting of" or "comprising" depending on the Specification, see MPEP § 2111.03, and it is here immediately followed by the open transitional phrase "comprising", such that a skilled artisan cannot determine whether the recitation excludes additional structure. It is further unclear whether the recited base, the recited first and second electrical conductors, and/or the recited first and second metallized layers are within or excluded from the "single component". Accordingly the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 1, 11 and 21 further recite "a first electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface of the rotationally symmetric dielectric composed of a single component comprised of a first metallized layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the rotationally symmetric dielectric" in these claims, which previously recite "a rotationally symmetric dielectric component". It is unclear whether "the rotationally symmetric dielectric" refers to the previously recited dielectric component or to some other element such as a dielectric material.
Claim 1, 11 and 21 further recite "…comprised of a first metallized layer" and "…comprised of a second metallized layer". It is unclear which element these phrases modify, i.e., whether the first metallized layer is a component of the first electrical conductor, of the interior surface, or of the rotationally symmetric dielectric component composed of a single component, since the phrase immediately follows the recitation of the dielectric component. It is noted that the phrase "comprised of" is itself ambiguous and should be avoided, as it may be interpreted as either "comprising" or "composed of", see MPEP § 2111.03(IV). The same ambiguity applies to the second metallized layer with respect to the second electrical conductor, the curved portion, and the base.
Claim 1 and 11 recite "a longitudinally extending exterior surface having a one-half period sinusoidal shape". As discussed above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Paragraph 31 of the Specification describes the governing curvatures as parametric straight line equations to which a sinusoidal d equation is added as a displacement resolved into the x and z dimensions according to an elevation angle (θ₁, θ₂, θ₃), and describes the sFreq variable as being created "[t]o enforce the half-period structure of these curves". The claims recite no reference line, no reference axis, no elevation angle, no amplitude, and no spatial frequency from which the recited one-half period sinusoid is to be measured. A one-half period of a sinusoid is defined only with respect to some reference along which the period is measured, and absent any such reference a skilled artisan cannot determine what geometric constraint is being placed on the recited surface of revolution, nor determine whether a given surface falls inside or outside the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the 'metes and bounds' of the limitation could not be appropriately determined.
Claim 1 and 11 further recite "said aperture defining an interior surface having the one-half period sinusoidal shape" and "the exterior surface of the dielectric component having the one-half period sinusoidal shape". The use of the definite article indicates that the interior surface and the base's curved portion have the same shape as the previously recited exterior surface. However, as discussed above, the Specification at Paragraph 31 describes three different curves C1, C2 and C3 having different peak amplitudes (dBase, dDiel, dConvex), different elevation angles (θ₁, θ₂, θ₃), and different underlying parametric line equations, and FIGS. 2-3 illustrate three visibly different curvatures. It is therefore unclear whether the claims require the three surfaces to have an identical shape, which would be inconsistent with the disclosure, or merely to be of the same general type of curve, and a skilled artisan would be unable to determine which interpretation is intended.
Claim 1 and 11 further recite "a curved portion extending radially outward from the flat inner portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component having the one-half period sinusoidal shape". It is unclear whether the modifying phrase "having the one-half period sinusoidal shape" modifies the curved portion, the exterior surface, or the dielectric component. If the phrase modifies the exterior surface or the dielectric component, the limitation is redundant of the recitation earlier in the same claim and places no requirement on the curved portion of the base. Applicant appears to intend that the curved portion has the recited shape, see Pg. 2-3 of the Remarks (Pg. 8-9 of the Response) stating that "a curved portion extending radially outward from the flat inner portion of the base has the one-half period sinusoidal shape", but the claim as presented does not so recite. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 further recites "a longitudinally extending exterior surface having a one-half period sinusoidal;" which omits the structure or property that the exterior surface is said to have. It cannot be determined whether the exterior surface is intended to have a one-half period sinusoidal shape, curvature, profile, or some other characteristic, and the limitation is therefore incomplete and indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under this heading due to depending on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
No claim is presently allowable. Claim 21 is free of the prior art of record; however, claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as set forth above. Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are free of the prior art of record; however, these claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as set forth above.
Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner to discuss claim language that would place the application in condition for allowance. In particular, amendment of claims 1 and 11 to recite the underlying parametric line equations and the elevation angle from which the one-half period sinusoidal displacement is measured, consistent with Paragraph 31 of the Specification, would be expected to overcome both the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Filing of a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) would be expected to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Finality
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/AMAL PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights