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 Amendment
Claims 25-48 pending in the Application.
In view of the amendments to the drawings and specification, the previous drawing objection is withdrawn.
Claim 9 cancelled by Applicant. In response, the previous corresponding claim objection is withdrawn.
Claims 4, 8, 16-17, 19-20 cancelled by Applicant. In response, the previous corresponding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Also, claims 1-24 cancelled by Applicant and new claims 25-48 pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second tubular member being at least partially filled with a substrate” recited in claim 35 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 25-48 objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the claims, consistent claim language should be used when referring various components/pieces of the device. For example, “the substrate” and “the molded substrate” appear to be used interchangeably. Consistent terminology should be used. Similarly, “flexible tubular body” and “tubular body” appear to be used interchangeably. Applicant’s assistance in resolving similar issues throughout the claims is respectfully requested.
Claim 37 recites: “wherein the tubular body extends from the closed end first end beyond the molded substrate to the open second end” which appears to contain a typographical error
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 35-36 and 38 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 35 recites “the second tubular member being at least partially filled with a substrate as claimed.” This feature is not shown in the drawing, nor described in the specification.
Claim 38 recites: “wherein the tubular body comprises a coloring agent that visibly alters the color of the tubular body as compared to the color of the tubular body without the coloring agent.”
The specification details color particles or color concentrates per page 19, but does not disclose an “agent.” The specification also does not disclose visibly altering the color of the tubular body as compared to the color of the tubular body without the coloring agent.
Claim 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being dependent on a rejected base 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 26, 33-36, 43-46 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. For purposes of examination on the merits, the claims, as best understood, are examined in the Action below.
Claim 26 recites: “… consisting of the molded substrate and the protective member.”
The phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. See MPEP 2111.03 citing In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931).
What elements are included in the “protective structure” and the “substrate”?
It is also, unclear if the plant is included since the plant may be grown in or on the substrate per claim 25.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the protective body” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
RE Claim 35: It is unclear how the second tubular member being at least partially filled with a substrate as claimed. This feature is not shown in the drawing, nor described in the specification.
As currently drafted, claim 43 depends on claim 15. However, claim 15 was cancelled by Applicant. Therefore, it is unclear which claim 43 is supposed to depend upon.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "first support structure” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should claim 44 depend on a different claim?
Claims 34-36 and 45-46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Mechanical protection means in claim 30
Browsing protection means in claim 30 and 46
The aforementioned limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because in each recitation the term “means” is not modified by functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25-36, 43, and 47 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cook (US 2003/0041516 A1)(hereinafter Cook).
RE Claim 25: Cook discloses a device useful in the cultivating and protecting of forest and/or crop plants grown in or on a substrate, the device comprising:
a substrate (10) and a protective structure (10’);
the substrate being a molded substrate extending along a length dimension (para 0021-0022), the molded substrate having an outer surface of a uniform, pre determined cross-sectional shape extending along the length of the molded substrate (para 0021-0022);
the protective structure (10’) comprising a flexible (flexible to some degree, deforms under some amount of pressure) tubular body extendable along opposite first and second ends (top and bottom), the first end being a closed end of the tubular body (lowermost/bottom end is closed as seen in Fig 7), the second end being an open end of the tubular body (uppermost/top end is open as seen in Fig 7);
the molded substrate being disposed inside the tubular body (Fig 7); and
the molded substrate and the tubular body being cooperatively sized wherein the tubular body is against and closely conforms with the outer surface of the substrate body (para 0021-0022).
RE Claim 26 (as best understood): Cook discloses the device of claim 25.
Insomuch as Applicant’s device consists of the molded substrate and the protective member, so does the device of Cook (para 0021-0023).
RE Claim 27: Cook discloses the device of claim 25,
wherein the molded substrate (10) has a circular cross-sectional shape (diameter at uppermost end).
RE Claim 28: Cook discloses the device of claim 25,
wherein the tubular body is an open-mesh body or a biomesh body defining a plurality of through-openings extending through the tubular body (porous per para 0008).
RE Claim 29: Cook discloses the device of claim 25,
wherein the tubular body is made of a biodegradable material (per abstract)(compressed organic materials per para 0021)(biodegradable per para 0022).
RE Claim 30: Cook discloses the device of claim 25,
comprising mechanical protection means and/or browsing protection means (the shell 10 and 10’ provide provided mechanical protection to a plant within by offering support during transporting, transplanting, and early growth)(see for example, para 0008, 0011).
RE Claim 31: Cook discloses the device of claim 25,
wherein the protective structure comprises chemical, biological, fertilizer, and/or mycological agents that assist a plant growing in the device (per abstract, para 0021-0023)(also see para 0005, 0007-0008).
RE Claim 32: Cook discloses the device of claim 25,
comprising a plurality of through-openings extending through the tubular body (porous per para 0008).
RE Claim 33 (as best understood): The device of claim 25
wherein the molded substrate (10) and at least a portion of the protective body (10’) surrounding the molded substrate is disposed in a first tubular member (16);
the tubular member comprising an internal wall surrounding the interior volume of the tubular member (Fig 7), the molded substrate and the tubular body being against the internal wall wherein the internal wall defines the cross-sectional shape of the molded substrate (Fig 7).
RE Claim 34 (as best understood): Cook discloses the device of claim 33,
wherein the tubular member has a circular internal tubular wall (diameter of upper most end, also see Fig 7).
RE Claim 35 (as best understood): Cook discloses the device of claim 33.
As best understood, the second tubular member is the plunger 31 of Applicant’s disclosure (page 44 and Fig 6).
Therefore, insomuch as Applicant’s device comprises a second tubular member being partially inserted into the tubular body of the protective member and extending into the first tubular member, the second tubular member being at least partially filled with a substrate, so does the device of Cook.
Cook teaches a second tubular member (shaft of 24) partially inserted into the tubular body of the protective member (Fig 6) and extending into the first tubular member (Fig 6).
RE Claim 36 (as best understood): Cook discloses the device of claim 33
wherein the tubular body extends out from the first tubular member to the open end of the tubular member (Fig 6).
RE Claim 43 (as best understood): Cook discloses the device of claim 25
comprising a second support structure (15) that receives and supports the closed end of the tubular body.
RE Claim 47: Cook discloses the device of claim 25,
comprising a support structure (ground structure) that receives and supports the closed end of the tubular body (Fig 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Kosderka et al. (US 2008/0078117 A1)(hereinafter Kosderka).
RE Claim 37: Cook discloses the device of claim 25.
Cook teaches the closed end as previously discussed. Cook does not explicitly teach wherein the tubular body extends from the closed end first end beyond the molded substrate to the open second end.
However, Kosderka teaches a device with a tubular body 16 and a substrate material 12 (analogous art). Kosderka further teaches wherein the tubular body extends from the first end beyond the molded substrate to the open second end (Fig 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cook in view of Kosderka such that the tubular body extends from the first end beyond the molded substrate to the open second end as taught by Kosderka for the advantages of enhanced protection.
Claim 38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Lais (US 8,307,580 B2)(hereinafter Lais).
RE Claim 38 (as best understood): Cook discloses the device of claim 25.
Cook does not explicitly teach wherein the tubular body comprises a coloring agent that visibly alters the color of the tubular body as compared to the color of the tubular body without the coloring agent.
However, Lais teaches a tubular body for protection of a growing plant (analogous art). Lais further teaches the tubular body comprises a coloring agent that visibly alters the color of the tubular body as compared to the color of the tubular body without the coloring agent (col 16, ln 55-62)(also see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cook in view of Lais such that the tubular body comprises a coloring agent that visibly alters the color of the tubular body as compared to the color of the tubular body without the coloring agent as taught by Lais for the advantages of enhancing plant growth.
Claims 39-42 and 44-46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Scharf, Sr. (US 4,268,992)(hereinafter Scharf).
RE Claim 39: Cook discloses the device of claim 25.
Cook does not explicitly teach wherein the protective structure comprises a first support structure surrounding the tubular body and connected to the tubular body, the first support structure being spaced away from the first end of the tubular body.
However, Scharf teaches a tree protector (analogous art).
Scharf further teaches the protective structure comprises a first support structure (16) surrounding the tubular body and connected to the tubular body (14), the first support structure being spaced away from the first end of the tubular body (above the ground)(the first end is in the ground as previously discussed and seen in Cook Figs 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cook in view of Scharf such that the protective structure comprises a first support structure surrounding the tubular body and connected to the tubular body, the first support structure being spaced away from the first end of the tubular body as taught by Scharf for the advantages of enhanced protection.
RE Claim 40: Cook as modified discloses the device of claim 39 as previously discussed.
Scharf further discloses wherein the first support structure (16) comprises one or more through-cavities (aperture which receives 26) disposed along an outer perimeter of the first support structure (Fig 3), each through-cavity of the one or more through-cavities enabling hooking of the first support structure (Fig 3)(col 2, ln 35-45).
RE Claim 42: Cook as modified discloses the device of claim 39 as previously discussed.
Scharf further discloses wherein the first support structure is a flange-shaped member (Figs 1-3).
RE Claim 44 (as best understood): Cook discloses the device of claim 43.
Cook does not explicitly teach wherein first support structure is coupled to the second support structure by a mechanical coupling.
However, Scharf teaches a tree protector (analogous art) comprising a first support structure (14) and a second support structure (16).
Scharf further teaches wherein first support structure is coupled to the second support structure by a mechanical coupling (via 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cook in view of Scharf such that wherein first support structure is coupled to the second support structure by a mechanical coupling as taught by Scharf for the advantages of secure attachment between components.
RE Claim 45 (as best understood): Cook as modified discloses the device of claim 44.
Scharf discloses wherein the mechanical coupling (26) is disposed to transfer a force applied to the first support structure urging the first support structure along the tubular body towards the closed end of the tubular body is transmitted from the first support structure to the second support structure through the mechanical coupling (fasteners 26 secure 14 and 16 together).
RE Claim 46 (as best understood): Cook as modified discloses the device of claim 43.
Scharf discloses wherein the second support structure extends along the tubular body towards and beyond the first support structure (Figs 1-2), an upper end portion of the second support structure being disposed beyond the first support structure, the upper end portion of the second support structure being accessible for mounting browsing protection means thereto (Figs 1-2).
Claims 39 and 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Otwell (US 1,936,988)(hereinafter Otwell).
RE Claim 39: Cook discloses the device of claim 25.
Cook does not explicitly teach wherein the protective structure comprises a first support structure surrounding the tubular body and connected to the tubular body, the first support structure being spaced away from the first end of the tubular body.
However, Otwell teaches a planting cartridge (analogous art).
Otwell further teaches the protective structure comprises a first support structure (portion of A above the ground) surrounding the tubular body and connected to the tubular body (A), the first support structure being spaced away from the first end of the tubular body (above the ground)(the first end is in the ground as previously discussed and seen in Cook Figs 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cook in view of Otwell such that the protective structure comprises a first support structure surrounding the tubular body and connected to the tubular body, the first support structure being spaced away from the first end of the tubular body as taught by Otwell for the advantages of enhanced protection.
RE Claim 41: Cook as modified discloses the device of claim 39 as previously discussed.
Otwell further discloses wherein the first support structure (A) comprises a plurality of outer sides surrounding the first support structure wherein adjacent pairs of the outer sides intersect at and define respective corners of the first support structure (Fig 1), and at least one corner of the first support structure comprises a slot open at the corner (A’) that is capable of receiving a separate additional support member (F) into the slot (Figs 2-3).
Claim 48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Hyde (US 20090229177 A1)(hereinafter Hyde).
RE Claim 48: Cook discloses the device of claim 25 as previously discussed.
Cook does not explicitly teach comprising indicia that represents data associated with the device and/or a plant that will be grown in the device.
However, Hyde discloses a plant container (analogous art) and further teaches comprising indicia that represents data associated with the device and/or a plant that will be grown in the device (104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cook in view of Hyde such that the device comprises indicia that represents data associated with the device and/or a plant that will be grown in the device as taught by Hyde for the advantages of monitoring and assessment of plant growth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various devices for protecting plants from various elements during growth.
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 MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights