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
Claims 1-26 are pending, with claim 22 cancelled. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laro et al. (US 10,222,495 B2) in view of Sitton et al. (US 8,462,587 B2), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Leist (US 6,131,461 A) and Butts (US 4,858,488) teaching amended claim language of five or more rods and rotatably connected, respectively. Due to amendment, prior claim objections and 35 U.S.C. l 12(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) rejections are withdrawn.
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 1-2, 5-7, 10, 23, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laro et al. (US 10,222,495 B2) in view of Sitton et al. (US 8,462,587 B2), Leist (US 6,131,461 A), and Butts (US 4,858,488).
Regarding Claim 1, Laro et al. discloses a seismic shaker (1; Col. 3, Lines 30-60; Fig. 1-2; See Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2) comprising:
a base plate (3);
a column mounted onto the base plate (B mounted to 3);
a guiding mechanism (Rods A); and
a motor arranged to generate a single force on the column in a first direction (Actuator/motor 9 with force 35 in direction E; Col. 1, Lines 40-45; Col. 3, Lines 40-45,60-67),
wherein the column is provided with a single stator, wherein the electromagnetic motor is formed by a mover and the single stator arranged to interact with each other to generate the single force (Column B with stator C wherein motor 9 formed by mover D and stator C to interact and generate force 35), and
wherein the guiding mechanism comprises rods connecting the column to the mover, the guiding mechanism being configured to enable a displacement of the mover relative to the column in the first direction and restrict a displacement in a plane perpendicular to the first direction (Guiding mechanism rods A connecting column B to mover D; A enabling displacement in direction E).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2
Laro et al. fails to explicitly disclose an electromagnetic motor arranged to generate a single force on the column in a first direction (Actuator/motor 9 with force 35 in direction E; Col. 1, Lines 40-45; Col. 3, Lines 40-45,60-67); rods as five or more rods; and wherein the rods are rotatably connected to both the stator and the mover.
However, Sitton et al. (US 8,462,587) discloses an electromagnetic motor arranged to generate a single force on the column in a first direction (Sitton: Motor 730 generating force along vertical axis; Col. 12, Lines 10-21; Fig. 7. Electric driver/motor 412 with electromagnetic devices; Col. 6, Lines 30-45; Fig. 4). Sitton et al. and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising shakers. Modifying Laro et al. with teachings of Sitton et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein an electromagnetic motor arranged to generate a single force on the column in a first direction for the purpose of energy efficiency.
Further, Leist (US 6,131,461 A) teaches five or more rods (Leist: Six arms/rods of 40; Col. 5, Lines 14-35; Fig. 5). Leist, Sitton et al. and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising shakers. Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al. with teachings of Leist would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have five or more rods for the purpose of preventing lateral or torsional movement relative to the vibration axis (Leist: Col. 5, Lines 14-20).
Further, Butts (US 4,858,488) teaches wherein the rods are rotatably connected to both the stator and the mover (In structure of Butts: Link arms/rods 46 permit pivotal during up and down movement between mover 30 and stator 11; Col. 4, Lines 1-15; Col. 7, Lines 15-60; Fig.1,2,6). Butts, Leist, Sitton et al. and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising shakers. Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al. and Leist with teachings of Butts would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the rods are rotatably connected to both the stator and the mover for the purpose of restricting any movement other than in the axial direction (Butts: Col. 4, Lines 65-67).
Regarding Claim 2, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 1. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts fail to explicitly disclose wherein the five or more rods (Rods A of Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2) comprise through holes provided with interface members that provide an interface between the rods and the mover or stator, wherein the interface members comprise a ductile material. However, Butts further teaches wherein the plurality of rods comprise through holes provided with interface members that provide an interface between the rods and the mover or stator (Butts: Link arms/rods 46 comprise bores/holes 96/85 provided with interface members 75-77 to interface between rods 46 and mover 30; Col. 7, Lines 15-60; Fig. 1, 6). Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts with additional teachings of Butts would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the plurality of rods comprise through holes provided with interface members that provide an interface between the rods and the mover or stator for the purpose of allowing pivotal movement about the interface (Butts: Col. 7, Lines 15-20 ).
Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts fail to explicitly disclose wherein the interface members (Butts: 75-77; Col. 7, Lines 45-60; Fig. 6) comprise a ductile material. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of durability without fracturing, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 5, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 1. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts fails to explicitly disclose wherein the single stator is rigidly mounted to the column, and wherein the column is rigidly mounted to the base plate (Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2: Stator C on column B on base plate 3). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by choosing from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions of rigidly mounted or not rigidly mounted, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of maintaining accurate displacement.
Regarding Claim 6, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 1, wherein the column comprises a bottom flange and a top flange, the guiding mechanism comprising a first plurality of rods connecting the top flange to the mover and a second plurality of rods connecting the bottom flange to the mover (Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2: Column B with flanges F; guiding mechanism comprising first plurality of rods A above C and second plurality of rods A below C; rods A connecting flanges F to mover D).
Regarding Claim 7, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 6, wherein the single stator is arranged between the top flange and the bottom flange (Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2: Stator C between flanges F).
Regarding Claim 10, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 1, comprising a vibration isolator, wherein the mover serves as reaction mass and is supported by the base plate via the vibration isolator (Resilient structure/ vibration isolator 7, wherein mover D with reaction mass 5 supported by base plate 3 via 7; Col. 3, Lines 30-45; Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al, Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 1, further comprising a position measurement system configured to generate a position signal representing a position of the mover relative to the stator in the vertical direction (Control unit 29 with displacement/position sensor 17; Col. 3, Lines 45-60; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 26, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al, Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 1, wherein the first direction is a vertical direction (Direction E in Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2).
Claims 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laro et al. (US 10,222,495 B2) in view of Sitton et al. (US 8,462,587), Leist (US 6,131,461 A), Butts (US 4,858,488), and Woyski et al. (US 5,343,752 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts discloses the seismic shaker according to claim 1. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts fail to explicitly disclose wherein the five or more rods (Rods A of Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2) comprises one or more spherical bearings. However, Woyski et al. teaches wherein the plurality of rods comprises one or more spherical bearings (Woyski: Rods 20, 22 with spherical bearings 54; Col. 8, Lines 55-68; Col. 9, Lines 1-15; Fig. 1). Woyski et al., Butts, Leist, Sitton et al., and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising shakers. Modifying Laro et al. and Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts with teachings of Woyski et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the plurality of rods comprises one or more spherical bearings for the purpose of providing “freedom of sliding and rotating motion with respect to the force applying ends” (Woyski: Col. 5, Lines 5-20).
Regarding Claim 4, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts and Woyski et al. disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 3, wherein the spherical bearings are spherical plain bearings (Woyski: Structure of spherical bearings 54 not having rolling elements; Col. 8, Lines 55-68; Col. 9, Lines 1-15; Fig. 1).
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laro et al. (US 10,222,495 B2) in view of Sitton et al. (US 8,462,587) , Leist (US 6,131,461 A), Butts (US 4,858,488), and Denney et al. (US 2013/0228017 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 1. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts fail to explicitly disclose wherein the baseplate (3; Fig. 2) comprises a hollow ribbed structure. However, Denney et al. (US 2013/0228017 A1) teaches wherein the baseplate comprises a hollow ribbed structure (Denney: Baseplate 400 hollowed with ribs 430/440/450; Para. 0083; Fig. 12A-C). Denney et al., Butts, Leist, Sitton et al., and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising shakers. Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts with teachings of Denney et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the baseplate comprises a hollow ribbed structure for the purpose of increasing stiffness and inhibiting transverse bending (Denney: Para. 0058).
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laro et al. (US 10,222,495 B2) in view of Sitton et al. (US 8,462,587) , Leist (US 6,131,461 A), Butts (US 4,858,488), and Anderson et al. (US 5661446 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 1. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts fail to explicitly disclose wherein the single stator comprises an array of coils arranged along the first direction and the mover comprising an array of permanent magnets arranged along the first direction. However, Anderson et al. teaches wherein the single stator comprises an array of coils arranged along the first direction and the mover comprising an array of permanent magnets arranged along the first direction (Anderson: Stator 14 with windings/coil array 16A-F and armature rod/mover 12 with array 20A-F of permanent magnets 22 along direction 18; Col. 3, Lines 1-20; Fig. 1-2). Anderson et al., Butts, Leist, Sitton et al., and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising actuators. Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts with teachings of Anderson et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the single stator comprises an array of coils arranged along the first direction and the mover comprising an array of permanent magnets arranged along the first direction for the purpose of controlling displacement along the first direction (Anderson: Col. 3, Lines 30-41).
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laro et al. (US 10,222,495 B2) in view of Sitton et al. (US 8,462,587 B2) , Leist (US 6,131,461 A), Butts (US 4,858,488), and Sturges (US 3,576,312).
Regarding Claim 11, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts discloses the seismic shaker according to claim 10. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts fail to explicitly disclose wherein the vibration isolator (7; Fig. 2) comprises a gas mount. However, Sturges teaches wherein the vibration isolator comprises a gas mount (Sturges: Isolators 67 as a pneumatic (air or gas) mount on plate 75; Col. 3, Lines 5-15; Fig. 2,5). Sturges, Butts, Leist, Sitton et al., and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising actuators. Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts with teachings of Sturges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the vibration isolator comprises a gas mount for the purpose of isolating vibration on the plate on which it is mounted.
Regarding Claim 12, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al, Leist, Butts and Sturges disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 10. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al, Leist, Butts, and Sturges fail to explicitly disclose wherein the vibration isolator comprises a plurality of vibration isolators (Sturges: isolators 67; Fig. 2,5) arranged on the base plate (Base plate 3; Fig. 2). However, Sturges further teaches wherein the vibration isolator comprises a plurality of vibration isolators arranged on the base plate (Sturges: Isolators 67 as a pneumatic (air or gas) mount on plate 75; Col. 3, Lines 5-15; Fig. 2,5). Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al, Leist, Butts, and Sturges with additional teachings of Sturges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the vibration isolator comprises a plurality of vibration isolators arranged on the base plate for the purpose of isolating vibration on the plate on which it is mounted.
Claims 13-17, 20-22, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laro et al. (US 10,222,495 B2) in view of Sitton et al. (US 8,462,587 B2) , Leist (US 6,131,461 A), Butts (US 4,858,488), and Xing et al (US 11,686,869 B2).
Regarding Claim 13, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 1. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts fail to explicitly disclose further comprising a power supply for powering the electromagnetic motor and a control unit (29; Fig. 2) for controlling the power supply, wherein the control unit is configured to the control the power supply to perform a frequency sweep (Spring suspension with resonance frequency/natural frequency of mass-spring-damper system of 1.2Hz; hydraulic shakers limited to no less than 5hz or signal sweep of 5-200Hz; Col. 1, Lines 10-12,60-67;Col. 2, Lines 35-50). However, Sitton et al. further teaches a power supply for powering the electromagnetic motor and a control unit for controlling the power supply, wherein the control unit is configured to the control the power supply (Sitton: Control unit 424 adjusts current/power to motor 412 through 412 powered by three phase power supply 414; Col. 5, Lines 50-67; Col. 1, Lines 35-50; Col. 8, Lines 1-10; Fig. 4). Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts with additional teachings of Sitton et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a power supply for powering the electromagnetic motor and a control unit for controlling the power supply, wherein the control unit is configured to the control the power supply for the purpose of generate ng sufficient power to the seismic shaker system and selectively controlling movement of the reaction mass (Sitton: Col. 6, Lines 1-25).
Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to the control the power supply to perform a frequency sweep (Spring suspension with resonance frequency/natural frequency of mass-spring-damper system of 1.2H; hydraulic sakers limited to no less than 5hz or signal sweep of 5-200Hz; Col. 1, Lines 10-12,60-67;Col. 2, Lines 35-50). However, Xing et al. (US 11,686,869 B2) teaches wherein the control unit is configured to the control the power supply to perform a frequency sweep (Xing: Control unit 11 controls frequency sweep to signal generation module 12 with power amplifier 1023; Col. 16, Lines 20-25; Col. 17, Lines 5-55; Fig. 15;18b). Xing et al., Butts, Leist , Sitton et al., and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising seismic shakers. Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, and Butts with teachings of Xing et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the control unit is configured to the control the power supply to perform a frequency sweep for the purpose of optimizing amplitude and direction of the seismic shaker (Xing: Col. 1, Lines 45-55; Col. 19, Lines 1-20).
Regarding Claim 14, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 13, wherein performing the frequency sweep comprises generating a force by the electromagnetic motor, the force having a variable frequency in accordance with the frequency sweep (Xing: Frequency sweeping drive mode with different frequencies with start and end frequency with force adjustable via frequency of control signal; Col. 17, Lines 5-55; Col. 19, Lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 15, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al. Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 13, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the frequency sweep (Xing: Control unit 11 controls frequency sweep to signal generation module 12 with power amplifier 1023; Col. 16, Lines 20-25; Col. 17, Lines 5-55; Fig. 15;18b) by superimposing a low-frequent displacement on the frequency sweep (In structure of Laro: Low frequencies under 5Hz based on displacement meter is superimposed on high frequencies based on accelerometer from 5-200Hz results in broadening of sweep to 1-200Hz; Col. 2, Lines 35-67).
Regarding Claim 16, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 15, wherein the low-frequent displacement has a frequency that is smaller than a lowest frequency of the frequency sweep (In structure of Laro: Low frequencies under 5Hz based on displacement meter is smaller than high frequencies based on accelerometer from 5-200Hz; Col. 2, Lines 35-67).
Regarding Claim 17, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 15, comprising a vibration isolator, wherein the mover serves as reaction mass and is supported by the base plate via the vibration isolator (Resilient structure/ vibration isolator 7, wherein mover D part of reaction mass 5 supported by base plate 3 via 7; Col. 3, Lines 30-45; Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2),
wherein the vibration isolator and the reaction mass form a dynamic system having an eigenfrequency (Spring suspension 7 with eigenfrequency/natural frequency of mass-spring-damper system of 1.2Hz; Col. 1, Lines 60-67. Dynamic system shown in Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lines 30-40),
wherein the low-frequent displacement has a frequency that is equal to the eigenfrequency (Low frequencies under 5Hz based on displacement meter (Col. 2, Lines 35-67) contains 1.2Hz eigenfrequency).
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laro et al. (US 10,222,495 B2) in view of Sitton et al. (US 8,462,587 B2), Leist (US 6,131,461 A), Butts (US 4,858,488), Xing et al (US 11,686,869 B2), and Suzuki et al. (WO 2019/008908 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 15. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the low-frequent displacement (Low frequencies under 5Hz based on displacement meter; Col. 2, Lines 35-67) comprises a non-sinusoidal displacement of the mover relative to the stator (Mover D to stator C; Examiner Annotated Laro Fig. 2). However, Suzuki et al. (WO 2019/008908 A1) teaches wherein the low-frequent displacement comprises a non-sinusoidal displacement of the mover relative to the stator (Suzuki: non-sinusoidal displacement “stroke” of mover clips above shown in Examiner Annotated Suzuki Fig. 11; a voltage or current as a sine/rectangular wave is applied to the mover for displacement; Para. 0014,0033-0036). Suzuki et al., Xing et al., Butts, Leist, Sitton et al., and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising actuators. Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. with teachings of Suzuki et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the low-frequent displacement comprises a non-sinusoidal displacement of the mover relative to the stator for the purpose of controlling desired movement such as limiting displacement length during transient periods and to prevent collisions (Suzuki: Para. 0014-0015,0018,0043).
PNG
media_image2.png
1057
1003
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Suzuki Fig. 11
Regarding Claim 19, Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. disclose the seismic shaker according to claim 15. Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the low-frequent displacement (Low frequencies under 5Hz based on displacement meter; Col. 2, Lines 35-67) has an amplitude that is equal to or larger than half a magnetic pitch of the electromagnetic motor (Sitton: Electromagnetic motor 730/412; Fig. 7,4). However, Suzuki et al. teaches a magnetic pitch of the electromagnetic motor (Suzuki: Half a magnet pitch as width of magnet 2a or 2b; Para. 0013-0014; Fig. 4-5). Suzuki et al., Xing et al., Butts, Leist, Sitton et al., and Laro et al. are in similar fields comprising actuators. Modifying Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, and Xing et al. with teachings of Suzuki et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a magnetic pitch of the electromagnetic motor for the purpose of actuating displacement by magnetism (Suzuki: Para. 0014).
Laro et al. as modified by Sitton et al., Leist, Butts, Xing et al., and Suzuki et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the low-frequent displacement has an amplitude that is equal to or larger than half a magnetic pitch of the electromagnetic motor. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing displacement through changing amplitude of voltage and current applied to the mover (Suzuki: Para. 0015), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. 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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights