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 February 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the drawings:
Applicant has argued that the amendments to Fig. 4 “provide the visual detail required by the examiner and are consistent with the written specification and amended claims.” Examiner disagrees, and has issued additional drawing objections in response to the amendments.
Regarding the objection to the Abstract:
Examiner agrees that the amendments to the Abstract overcome the objections set forth in the previous Office Action.
Regarding the Enablement Rejection of claim 20:
Examiner agrees that the deletion of the phrase “by a tool” renders moot the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding the Indefiniteness rejection of claims 11 and 14:
Examiner agrees that the amendments have overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding the Indefiniteness rejection of claim 12:
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive, and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of claims 11 and 14:
Applicant argues that “Sugie fails to teach: (a) an assembly comprising the outer door skin and reinforcing structure pre-assembled as a unit, separate from the inner door panel; and (2) a reinforcing structure inclined such that the flange or welded joint and a horizontal plane enclose an angle of less than 90 degrees, specifically in the context of an inclined flange formed on a pre-assembled sub-unit” (Remarks, bottom of Page 13). While examiner agrees that Sugie does not explicitly teach the “pre-assembly” of the outer door skin to the reinforcing structure before assembling the outer and inner door components, examiner also respectfully asserts that such a teaching is not necessary to anticipate claim 11. Claim 11 is an apparatus claim. The limitations added to claim 11 are being treated as product-by-process limitations in accordance with MPEP 2113. Since Sugie discloses the structural elements required by claim 11, then Sugie anticipates claim 1. The order of assembly does not impart any structural difference into the final product. With respect to claim 14, the rejection has been modified to be an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Thus, applicant’s argument is moot with regard to claim 14.
Applicant further argues that “the beltline outer reinforcement in Sugie is incidental—it is present as a mounting structure for the sensor, not as a component of a unique two-part door assembly construction. Sugie says nothing about the problem of forming a flange in the outer corner regions of the door, nor about any two-part construction enabling this capability” (Remarks, bottom of Page 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is irrelevant whether Sugie’s reinforcement structure is “incidental.” Sugie in fact discloses an element that can be considered a reinforcing structure (42). Sugie also discloses a flange 42A being formed in the outer corner regions of the door (Paragraph 0052—"the front end portions of the beltline outer reinforcement 42 and the beltline inner reinforcement 44 reach the neighborhood of the front pillar 12 (see FIG. 1), and the rear end portions of the beltline outer reinforcement 42 and the beltline inner reinforcement 44 reach the neighborhood of the center pillar 14 (see FIG. 1).” Paragraph 0055 states that “the upper flange portion 42A is hemmed to a terminal portion 34T on the upper portion side of the door outer panel 34.” See also Fig. 1, which shows the reinforcing member 42 extending along the entire door, and thus the flange 34T continues along the door as well). Finally, Sugie does discloses a “two-part construction,” i.e. elements 42 and 34. Elements 42 and 34 are two parts that are connected together, i.e. a “two-part construction.”
Applicant also argues that “Sugie’s conventional one-piece door assembly is precisely the type of prior art construction that the claimed two-part assembly overcomes” (Remarks, first paragraph of Page 15). Respectfully, examiner does not understand this particular argument, as it does not appear to address any of the actual claim language.
Applicant argues that “the claimed inclined flange is structurally distinct from Sugie” (Remarks, Page 15, second paragraph). Applicant continues, asserting that Sugie teaches a “hemmed edge between the beltline reinforcement and the door outer panel at the upper edge of the door—not the inclined flange between the reinforcing structure and the outer door skin at the beltline level running along the entire door length and into the outer corners, as claimed. The structures serve different purposes and have different configurations” (Remarks, Page 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The structure taught by Sugie (42A and 34T) appears to be exactly “an inclined flange between the reinforcing structure and the outer door skin at the beltline level running along the entire door length and into the outer corners.” It is unclear what is different about Sugie’s flange. In any case, if any structural difference exists, it is not captured by the claims.
With regard to claim 12, applicant argues that Sugie lacks the “functional advantage and structural context” of the reinforcing structure being shorter than the outer door skin longitudinally (Remarks, top of Page 16). Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Sugie’s Fig. 1 shows the reinforcing structure 42 stopping short of the very edges of the door skin (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 15, applicant argues that Sugie “does not teach flanging the outer door skin around the reinforcing structure of a pre-assembled unit, which is the specific step recited in claim 15” (Remarks, middle of Page 16). Examiner disagrees, as the rejection of independent claim 14 has been amended to include that the reinforcing structure is pre-assembled to the outer door skin. Thus, the flanging step occurs before assembly of the inner door to the outer door skin.
With regard to claim 16, applicant argues that “Sugie does not teach a hemmed joint between an outer door skin and a separately assembled reinforcing structure. The hemming in Sugie joins the outer panel to the inner panel at the door perimeter, not the outer skin to a beltline reinforcing structure as part of a pre-assembled unit” (Remarks, Page 16). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sugie’s hemmed joint between elements 42A and 34T is a flanged fixing between the outer door skin (34T) and the reinforcing structure (42A). In the modified rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the assembly occurs before joining the outer door to the inner door.
With regard to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues that Renault cannot be combined with Sugie. Applicant asserts that “Renault is fundamentally a lighting/sealing system patent, not a door bodyshell construction patent. A POSITA examining a door bodyshell construction problem would have no reason to look to Renault for guidance on door bodyshell sealing” (Remarks, Page 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. References can be relied on for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. The whole reference is available to provide such teachings, not just the main thrust of the reference. Perhaps applicant is arguing that Sugie and Renault constitute non-analogous art. Examiner also disagrees with that potential argument, as both Sugie and Renault relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e. automotive door body construction.
Applicant also states that Renault’s seal is “explicitly designed to be seen from the outside (as a narrow band of 6-8 mm) to provide a design finish. The structural arrangement and functional purpose of Renault’s seal are entirely different from the claimed seal” (Remarks, bottom of Page 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the rejection of claim 13, Renault’s seal is brought into the Sugie reference simply to seal the window. The function of Renault’s seal is not “entirely different” from the claimed seal, because claim 13 merely requires “sealing contact with the window pane,” and that the seal “closes a window well.” Renault’s seal clearly does that. Nothing about the visibility of the seal is actually claimed.
Applicant further argues that “there is no reasonable motivation for a POSITA to combine Sugie’s sensor-focused door structure with Renault’s complex sealing-plus-lighting system to arrive at the simple seal of claim 13 in the specific structural context of the claimed two-part door construction. Renault’s seal incorporates an optical light guide, clip fastening system, and complex cross-sectional geometry—features entirely superfluous to the claimed function of simply closing a window well to prevent dirt ingress. Moreover, Sugie does not teach or suggest the two-part door construction that creates the specific type of window well and beltline region that the claimed seal is designed to close” (Remarks, top of Page 18). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Renault teaches a seal for a window well, regardless of whatever additional features it has. It is desirable to add this sealing function into Sugie.
With regard to the rejection of claim 17 based on Sugie in view of Hirano, applicant has argued that “combining Hirano’s structural approach with Sugie’s door body would require a wholesale redesign of the door structure, not a mere modification” (Remarks, top of Page 19). Examiner respectfully disagrees. No redesign is necessary. The adhesive is merely used to connect elements that are already connected in Sugie.
Applicant further argues that Hirano’s adhesive is “a structural crash-management measure” while the claimed adhesive is “a temporary fixative applied at the beltline region between the inner door panel and the outer door skin assembly to hold position during joining, curing to form a permanent bond. A POSITA would recognize these as different applications and would have no reason to combine them” (Remarks, Page 19). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hirano is not being combined with the claimed invention. Hirano is being combined with Sugie to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that “Sugie’s disclosure is focused entirely on sensor integration and detection precision maintenance. Hirano’s disclosure is focused on door strength and collision performance via a specific framing structure. Neither reference is concerned with the two-part door construction problem that is the central focus of the claimed invention” (Remarks, bottom of Page 19). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Neither reference needs to have an identical “focus” as the claimed invention. The references are being applied for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. The references can provide additional teachings beyond their “central focus.” Furthermore, Sugie is in fact “concerned with a two-part door construction” because Sugie discloses a two-part door construction (i.e. elements 34 and 42).
With regard to claim 18, applicant argues that “Hirano’s work holes (14) are general-purpose access holes in the panel inner member allowing access to the door hollow portion—they are not specifically sized for or used to perform a one-sided joining step to fix an outer door skin assembly to an inner door panel. The functional purpose and structural context are materially different” (Remarks, Page 20). Examiner respectfully traverses. The reason for providing the openings does not have to be exactly the same as in applicant’s disclosure. While Hirano’s access holes may have an explicitly broader purpose than the claimed invention, the purpose is not materially different. Claim 18 does not positively recite reaching a joining device through the opening. Claim 18 merely requires a joining device to be “reachable” through the opening. Hirano discloses reasonably large access holes that are at least capable of passing a joining tool through them.
With regard to claim 19, applicant argues that the rejection is “fundamentally incorrect.” Applicant states that “Sugie’s upper flange portion (42A) is the upper end of the beltline outer reinforcement (42) that is bent inward and hemmed to the terminal portion (34T) of the door outer panel (34). This is a permanent hemmed joint between the reinforcement and the outer door skin—it secures the reinforcement to the outer door skin, not the assembly to the inner door panel” (Remarks, Page 20). Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn the rejection of claim 19.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 24, 2026. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are objected to because the “compressive force” F shown in amended Fig. 4 is not a compressive force, as the force only comes from one direction. A compressive force should be applied in opposite directions to “squeeze” the tab elements 34. 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
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is unclear if the phrase “as far as” was intended to be deleted from line 14, given that it was deleted from claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 contains antecedent basis issues with respect to claim 14. Examiner suggests the following amendments:
15. (Currently Amended) The production method according to claim 14, wherein the providing of the assembly comprises flanging the outer door skin around the reinforcing structure to form the flange or welding the outer door skin to the reinforcing structure with the formation of [[a]] the welded joint.
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 17, 19 and 20 are 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.
With regard to claim 17, this claim recites that the “connection of the inner door panel to the assembly comprises: applying an adhesive to the inner door panel and/or the assembly level with the inner beltline region.” It is unclear how the adhesive can be applied between the inner door panel and the assembly “level with the inner beltline region,” as the window glass 6 is positioned between the inner door panel and the assembly in the beltline region. Figs. 1 and 4, reproduced below, do not provide any clarity on this issue.
With regard to claim 19, this claim recites that “the reinforcing structure comprises at least one tab and the connection of the inner door panel to the assembly comprises folding over the at least one tab in order thereby to fix the assembly relative to the inner door panel by a compressive force between the at least one tab of the assembly and the inner door panel.” The inner door panel is referenced by numeral 2 in Fig. 1 (reproduced below). The reinforcing panel 31 is the structure that comprises tabs 34 which are to be joined to reinforcement structure 23 (not shown) of the inner door panel 2. It is unclear how any connection can be made between the door panel 2 and the reinforcing panel 31 due to the presence of window glass 6. Additionally, Fig. 4, shown below, does not add any clarity to this. The drawing is simply too small to convey any useful information.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
548
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended claim 14 recites that the outer door skin is “connectable to the reinforcing structure,” and that the “assembly is pre-assembled…before the assembly is fastened to the inner door panel.” Thus, in order for the assembly to be provided and to be ready to be fastened to the inner door panel, the outer door skin must actually be connected to the reinforcing structure. It is suggested that claim 14 be amended to recite a separate step of “connecting the door skin to the reinforcing structure,” or that the word “connectable” be changed to --connected--.
Claims 15-20 are rejected based on their dependence upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugie (US 2017/0136856).
With regard to claim 11, Sugie discloses a door bodyshell of a framed door of a motor vehicle, comprising:
an inner door panel (32) comprising an inner beltline region (proximate numeral 38) and a peripheral frame structure (36), which is connected to the inner beltline region (all components of the door are “connected” to each other), for a motor vehicle side window (40); and
an assembly (34, 42), which is fastened to the inner door panel (all elements of the door are “fastened” to each other, at least indirectly), having a reinforcing structure (42), which is arranged level with the inner beltline region (see Fig. 2, which shows the inner beltline region proximate numeral 38 being level with the reinforcing structure 42), and an outer door skin (34), which is connected to the reinforcing structure level with the inner beltline region via a flange or a welded joint (42A), wherein,
in a state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the reinforcing structure is inclined level with the inner beltline region in the direction of a motor vehicle interior such that the flange or the welded joint and a horizontal plane enclose an angle of less than 90° (see attached Fig. provided below), and
in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the flange or the welded joint is formed as far as into at least an outer corner (see annotated Fig. provided below, which shows the reinforcing structure being located as far as the corners of the door, and thus the flange 34T is also formed into the corner), in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction, of an outer beltline region of the door bodyshell (Fig. 1 shows the reinforcing element 42 extending along substantially the entire length of the door, thus the flange also extends along essentially the entire length of the door);
wherein the assembly comprising the outer door skin and the reinforcing structure is formed as a pre-assembled unit that is separately assembled prior to being fastened to the inner door panel (note that this limitation is being treated as a product-by-process limitation according to MPEP 2113 and is given little patentable weight. The “pre-assembly” step does not impart any particular structural difference to the final product), and
wherein the flange or the welded joint is formed in the assembly prior to the assembly being fastened to the inner door panel (note that this limitation is being treated as a product-by-process limitation according to MPEP 2113 and is given little patentable weight).
PNG
media_image4.png
186
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
270
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 12, Sugie teaches that, in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the outer door skin upwardly delimits the outer beltline region in a motor vehicle vertical direction (the bend in the outer door skin in Fig. 2 of Sugie is the uppermost visible portion of the beltline), and/or
in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the reinforcing structure is shorter than the outer door skin in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction (the annotated Fig. below shows that the reinforcement material 42 is shorter in the longitudinal direction than the door skin).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie.
With regard to claim 14, Sugie discloses a production method for a door bodyshell, the method comprising:
providing an inner door panel (32) comprising an inner beltline region (proximate numeral 44A) and a peripheral frame structure (see Fig. 4, which shows the complete door), which is connected to the inner beltline region, for a motor vehicle side window (40);
providing an assembly (34, 42) having a reinforcing structure (42), which is arrangable level with the inner beltline region (see elements 42A and 34T, which are level with beltline region 44A in Fig. 2), and an outer door skin (34), which is connectable to the reinforcing structure level with the inner beltline region via a flange (34T) or a welded joint; and
fastening the assembly to the inner door panel (the complete door is shown in Fig. 4) such that:
in a state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the reinforcing structure is inclined level with the inner beltline region in the direction of a motor vehicle interior such that the flange or the welded joint and a horizontal plane enclose an angle of less than 90 (see Fig. below), and
PNG
media_image4.png
186
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in the state in which the door bodyshell is installed on the motor vehicle, the flange or the welded joint is formed into at least an outer corner, in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction, of an outer beltline region of the door bodyshell (see Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugie fails to teach that the assembly is pre-assembled as a unit separate from the inner door panel, and wherein the flange or the welded joint is formed in the assembly before the assembly is fastened to the inner door panel. However, Sugie does at least teach that, once the inner and outer doors are assembled together, there is very little working space left between them (see Fig. below).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie such that the reinforcing structure (42) and the outer door skin (34) were pre-assembled before joining them to the inner door panel (32), as the working space to make such a connection is greatly reduced after assembly of the inner and outer door panels (see Fig. below).
PNG
media_image5.png
368
607
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 15, Sugie teaches that providing of the assembly comprises flanging the outer door skin around the reinforcing structure (see connection between elements 34T and 42A) or welding the outer door skin to the reinforcing structure with the formation of a welded joint.
With regard to claim 16, Sugie discloses that providing of the assembly comprises providing a flanged edge fixing (the connection between elements 42A and 34T can be considered a “flanged edge fixing,” and other connections can be considered the same, such as indicated by numeral 52A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie in view of Renault S.A.S. (FR 3051731 A1, hereinafter Renault).
With regard to claim 13, Sugie fails to teach a seal which can be brought into sealing contact with a window pane, and, in the state in which the seal is in sealing contact with the window pane, closes a window well in the outer beltline region.
Renault discloses a framed door similar to that of Sugie, which has a seal (42) that seals with a window pane (31) and closes a window well in the outer beltline region (i.e. letter “J” in Fig. 1).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie by providing the seal of Renault, in order to prevent water ingress into the internal mechanisms of the door.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie in view of Hirano et al. (US 11,407,291.
With regard to claim 17, as best understood, Sugie fails to teach that the connection of the inner door panel to the assembly comprises:
applying an adhesive to the inner door panel.
Hirano teaches a flanged door panel (Fig. 4) similar to that of Sugie, in which an adhesive (16) is provided between the outer door skin (8) and a door reinforcement (25a1).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie by providing the adhesive connection of Hirano between the outer door skin and reinforcement element, in order to increase the strength of the door.
With regard to claim 18, Sugie, as modified by Hirano, teaches that the joining comprises one-sided joining (Fig. 4 of Hirano teaches a “one-sided joining,” given that only one side of the reinforcement element 25a1 is joined to the outer door skin via the adhesive 16). However, Sugie fails to teach that the inner door panel has at least one opening sized such that a joining device for the one-sided joining is reachable through the at least one opening.
Hirano teaches an inner door panel (9) having openings (14) sized that the joining is “reachable” through the opening (Fig. 2).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Sugie by providing the openings in the inner door panel taught by Hirano, in order to “allow access to a door hollow portion” (Hirano, column 2, lines 60-62).
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 ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676