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 2/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant asserts that:
“In particular, the prior art fails to teach at least "the translational acceleration direction and/or the rotational axis are oriented in an arbitrarily selectable spatial direction or in arbitrarily selectable spatial directions," so that "the acceleration direction and/or the rotational axis are orientable along any spatial direction, or along any spatial directions" according to claim 1, where "the rotation axis is orientable perpendicular and parallel to the stator surface," as amended herein. Claim 1 is allowable as presented, whether the Lu, Nickel, Grimm Hauer, Herzog and Kittelson references are considered individually under 35 U.S.C. § 102, or in any combination under § 103”.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Claim 1 uses the alternative language “and/or” regarding “an accelerated translational movement in a translational acceleration direction” and/or “an accelerated rotational movement about a rotational axis”. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the prior art is only required to teach only one of the movements, i.e., an accelerated translational movement in a translational acceleration direction in this instant action. Accordingly, the prior art is not required to teach the newly added claimed limitations “wherein the rotation axis is orientable perpendicular and parallel to the stator surface”.
Applicant asserts that:
“As discussed in detail on the record, the Lu reference teaches to accelerated translational movements, which are restricted to a stator surface. See, e.g., Lu at col. 3, line 58 - col. 4, line 12; Figs. 20A-20B, 21A, 3A, 23A. Lu, moreover, does not describe rotational movement about a rotational axis, and Lu does not teach translational movement in an out-of-plane direction”. Emphasis added.
As discussed above, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the prior art is not required to teach rotational movement about a rotational axis. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
“For at least these reasons, Lu does not teach "the accelerating movement arranging the object positioned on the rotor in the first arrangement state relative to the rotor into a second arrangement state relative to the rotor in an arranging step" according to claim 1, where the arrangement states include at least one of "positioning or orienting the object relative to the rotor, a degree of ordering or sorting of a plurality of such objects, a degree or state of mixing or de- mixing of the object, a degree or state of dissolution of a granular, powdered or liquid configuration of the object having at least two components, or a degree or state of compacting of the object configured as a bulk material," as further recited in the claim.
Rather, the planar drive system taught by Lu is obviously intended for operation as a transport system. The accelerated movements discussed in the Lu specification do not contemplate changing the arrangement of an object positioned on a movable stage, and it is not at all obvious that this would have been the result.
To the contrary, changing the arrangement state of an object that is positioned on a moveable stage according to Lu would have been considered potentially detrimental to the safety and security of the object, and to the transportation system as whole. Nickel, Grimm, Hauer, Herzog and Kittelson do not remedy this obvious deficiency, and claim 1 is patentable whether the references are considered individually under 35 U.S.C. § 102, or in combination under § 103.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
It appears that applicant attacks the references individually under a 103 rejection. Rather, under a 103 rejection the applied references must be considered as a whole. In this instance, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the above claimed limitations.
Applicant asserts that:
“Nickel teaches a linear motor system with a guide track. Nickel at [0041], [0042], [0045], [0046]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2. The accelerated movement of the movable stage is thus restricted to the guide track, as arranged for guiding the movable stage. Id. As a result, the proposed combination of Lu with Nickel also fails to teach accelerated movements along arbitrarily selectable directions, including at least "wherein the translational acceleration direction and/or the rotational axis are oriented in an arbitrarily selectable spatial direction or in arbitrarily selectable spatial directions, such that the acceleration direction and/or the rotational axis are orientable along any spatial direction, or along any spatial directions," according to claim 1, where "the rotation axis is orientable perpendicular and parallel to the stator surface," as amended herein.
The other references do not remedy these deficiencies either. Herzog, for its part, merely teaches a magnetically operated shaking machine that provides for shaking movement of a movable stage with respect to a planar stator. Herzog at [0068]. The accelerated movements of the movable stage, however, are again restricted to in-plane motion with regard to the stator surface. Herzog does not provide any teaching, suggestions or other obviously hints that out-of-plane movements of the movable stage are intended, nor any indication that such motions could be beneficial. Hence, the combination of Lu and Nickel with Herzog again fails to teach accelerated movements in arbitrarily selectable spatial directions as claimed.
The newly cited reference to Grimm et al, does not provide any additional technical teachings that would exceed those of Lu, Nickel, Herzog with regard to accelerated movements and rotational axes oriented in arbitrarily selectable spatial directions, nor do any of the other cited references, including Kittelson and Hauer. Rather, Grimm merely teaches a magnetically driven planar transport system with a stator comprising magnetic elements providing variational ("travelling") magnetic fields, and a movable stage comprising magnetic elements providing a constant magnetic field to interact with the variational magnetic field of the stator. Grimm at [0011], [0027]-[0028]; Fig. 1.”
The examiner, however, disagrees
As discussed above, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the prior art is not required to teach the newly-added claimed limitations “the rotation axis is orientable perpendicular and parallel to the stator surface”. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant asserts that:
“For at least these reasons, the prior art does not teach "wherein the rotation axis is orientable perpendicular and parallel to the stator surface," in combination with the other features of claim 1. Even combining the technical teachings of Grimm with those of Lu, Nickel, Herzog, Kittelson, and Hauer, or any of the other cited references, a skilled person would still not arrive at the method of claim 1. None of the cited references teaches, discloses or anticipates "the translational acceleration direction and/or the rotational axis are oriented in an arbitrarily selectable spatial direction or in arbitrarily selectable spatial directions," as claimed, "such that the acceleration direction and/or the rotational axis are orientable along any spatial direction, or along any spatial directions," and "the rotation axis is orientable perpendicular and parallel to the stator surface," as amended herein.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
As discussed above, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the prior art is not required to teach the newly-added claimed limitations “the rotation axis is orientable perpendicular and parallel to the stator surface”. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims 1, and 3-20 are proper.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Lu (US 10,116,195), and in view of Nickel (US 2022/0055842) and Grimm (EP
1443632).
As to claim 1, Lu discloses a method for controlling a planar drive system, wherein the planar
drive system comprises at least a controller (60; Column 6, lines 10-15), a stator module (30; Column 6,
lines 10-15) having a stator surface (26; Column 7, lines 14-17) and a rotor (10; Column 6, lines 13-15;
Fig. 2) which is positionable and movable on the stator surface, wherein a magnetic coupling is
achievable between a rotor magnetic field of the rotor and stator magnetic fields generated by the
stator module (Column 17; lines 17-23), and wherein a movement of the rotor relative to the stator
module is allowed for by a targeted control of the stator magnetic fields (Column 5, lines 15-29), the
method comprising: positioning an object on a rotor a positioning step (Column 79, lines 51-65); carrying
out an accelerating movement of the rotor according to a defined movement pattern (Column 45, lines
14-22), wherein the accelerating movement of the rotor is achieved by actuating the stator magnetic
fields accordingly (Column 44, lines 51-57), wherein the movement pattern comprises at least an
acceleration pulse having an acceleration strength and an acceleration duration in an acceleration
direction (Column 47, lines 25-60), wherein the movement pattern comprises an accelerated
translational movement in a translational acceleration direction and/or an accelerated rotational
movement about a rotational axis (Column 68, lines 6-9), and wherein the translational acceleration
direction is oriented in an arbitrarily selectable spatial direction (Column 45, lines 20-22), wherein the rotation axis is orientable perpendicular and parallel to the stator surface.
Lu fails to disclose a first arrangement state of the object relative to the rotor; an accelerating
movement arranging the object positioned on the rotor in the first arrangement state relative to the
rotor into a second arrangement state relative to the rotor in an arranging step; the object is configured as a solid object or as a liquid object or as a powdered object or as a granular object; and the first or
second arrangement state comprises at least one of positioning or orienting the object relative to the
rotor, a degree of ordering or sorting of a plurality of such objects, a degree or state of mixing or de-
mixing of the object, a degree or state of dissolution of a granular, powdered or liquid configuration of
the object having at least two components, or a degree or state of compacting of the object configured
as a bulk material, the translational acceleration direction is oriented in an arbitrarily selectable spatial
direction or in arbitrarily selectable spatial directions, such that the acceleration direction and/or the
rotational axis are orientable along any spatial direction, or along any spatial directions.
Nickel, however, discloses a first arrangement state of the object relative to the rotor
(Paragraph 0033); an accelerating movement arranging the object positioned on the rotor in the first
arrangement state relative to the rotor into a second arrangement state relative to the rotor in an
arranging step (Paragraph 0007-0008 and 0037); the object is configured as a powdered object
(Paragraph 0034); the first or second arrangement state comprises at least one sorting of a plurality of
such objects (Paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Lu with the object is configured as a
powdered object; the first or second arrangement state comprises at least one sorting of a plurality of
such objects, as disclosed by Nickel, to allow for a flexible use of the planar motor system for powdered
objects.
Grimm, however, discloses arbitrarily selectable spatial directions, such that the acceleration
direction are orientable along any spatial direction, or along any spatial directions (Paras 0018, 0025,
0039, 0041, and 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Lu with arbitrarily selectable spatial
directions, such that the acceleration direction are orientable along any spatial direction, or along any
spatial directions, as disclosed by Grimm, to allow for functionality in multiple directions.
As to claim 3, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to claim
1, wherein the movement pattern comprises an oscillatory movement pattern with temporally
successive acceleration pulses in oppositely oriented acceleration directions, and wherein the
movement pattern has a variable frequency (Paragraph 0051 of Nickel).
As to claim 4, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm disclose the method according to claim
3, wherein the movement pattern is a movement pattern that is individually adjustable to the object to
be arranged (Column 79, lines 51-67, Column 80, lines 1-3; Fig. 24 of Lu), and wherein a translation
acceleration direction (Column 79, line 67, Column 80, lines 1-3 of Lu) and a rotational axis (Column 80,
lines 1-3 of Lu) and an acceleration strength of the acceleration pulses (Column 47, lines 35- 38 of Lu)
and an acceleration duration of the acceleration pulses (Column 47, lines 61-66 of Lu) is adjustable.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to claim
1, further comprising: moving the rotor from a first position of the rotor relative to the stator module to
a second position of the rotor relative to the stator module and transporting the object arranged on the
rotor in a transporting step (Column 79, lines 51-65 of Lu), wherein the accelerating movement is
performed simultaneously with the moving of the rotor (Column 45, lines 14-19 of Lu).
As to claim 8, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to claim
1, further comprising: determining a type of the object, the first arrangement state of the object and the
second arrangement state of the object to be achieved in a determining step (Paragraph 0015 of Nickel),
wherein the type of the object comprises a size, a shape, a mass, a form, a bulk property, a liquid
property, a degree of mixing (Paragraph 0021 of Nickel), and a degree of dissolution of the object
(Paragraph 015 and 0017 of Nickel), and wherein the first arrangement state and the second
arrangement state comprise, depending on the type of object, a positioning relative to the rotor
(Paragraph 0030 of Nickel), a degree of compaction (Paragraph 0017 of Nickel), a degree of mixing, a
degree of de-mixing, a degree of dissolution, of the object; and selecting a movement pattern from a list
of possible movement patterns (Paragraph 0003 of Nickel), wherein the movement pattern defines a
translational acceleration direction and a frequency (Paragraph 0051 of Nickel) and an acceleration
strength of the acceleration pulses (Paragraph 0018 of Nickel) and an acceleration duration of the
acceleration pulses (Paragraph 0030 of Nickel), which is or are suitable for transferring the object from
the first arrangement state to the second arrangement state, in a movement pattern selecting step.
As to claim 9, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to claim
1, wherein the arranging step comprises: monitoring the object and detecting one of the first
arrangement state of the object in a first detecting step (Paragraph 0031 of Nickel); adjusting the
execution of the accelerating movement in the arranging step on the basis of the detected first
arrangement state in an adjusting step (Paragraph 0030 of Nickel), wherein adjusting the execution of the accelerating movement comprises adjusting the movement pattern or executing a further
movement pattern (Paragraph 0051 of Nickel); and monitoring the object during the arranging step and
detecting the object in the second arranging state and terminating the accelerating movement in a
second detecting step (Paragraph 0031 of Nickel).
As to claim 11, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm disclose the method according to claim
9, wherein the first detecting step: monitoring the object on the rotor via a monitoring device in a
monitoring step (Paragraph 0049 of Nickel), wherein the monitoring device is configured as an
electromagnetic monitoring device and is configured to determine the first arrangement state of the
object by receiving corresponding electromagnetic measuring signals (Paragraph 0049-0050 of Nickel).
As to claim 14, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to
claim 1, wherein the object comprises a bulk material filled into a container (Paragraph 0017 of Nickel),
and wherein the first and second arrangement state of the object comprises filling the bulk material in
the container with a selected filling density (Paragraph 0035 of Nickel).
As to claim 15, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to
claim 1, wherein the object comprises a bulk material and fluid filled into a container with at least two
components (Paragraph 0021 of Nickel), and wherein the first arrangement state of the object
comprises filling the bulk material or fluid in the container with a selected mixing or de-mixing of the at
least two components (Paragraph 0034-0035 of Nickel).
As to claim 17, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to
claim 1, further comprising compacting a bulk material in a container provided for receiving the bulk
material by positioning the container filled with the bulk material on the rotor and carrying out the
accelerating movement of the rotor (Paragraph 0035 of Nickel).
As to claim 18, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to
claim 1, further comprising mixing a bulk material with at least two components in a container provided
for receiving the bulk material by positioning the container filled with the bulk material on the rotor and
carrying out the accelerating movement of the rotor (Paragraph 0015 and 0021 of Nickel).
As to claim 20, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to
claim 1, having: at least a controller, a stator module having a stator surface and a rotor which is
positionable on the stator surface, wherein the magnetic coupling is achievable between the rotor
magnetic field of the rotor and stator magnetic fields generated by the stator module, wherein the
movement of the rotor relative to the stator module is allowed for via a targeted control of the stator
magnetic fields (See the rejection to claim 1).
Lu, further, discloses a planar drive system (Column 7, lines 15-18).
Claims 5, 7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, Nickel,
and Grimm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauer (US 2021/0331878).
As to claim 5, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to claim
1, wherein the movement pattern further comprises a braking movement (Column 45, lines 20-43).
Lu fails to disclose the braking movement comprises an acceleration direction opposite to the
acceleration direction of the acceleration pulse, wherein the braking movement has a smaller
acceleration strength and/or a larger acceleration duration and/or a smaller temporal acceleration
change than the acceleration pulse, and wherein the braking movement moves the rotor to an initial
position of the rotor prior to the start of the accelerating movement.
Hauer, however, discloses the braking movement comprises an acceleration direction opposite
to the acceleration direction of the acceleration pulse (Paragraph 0013), wherein the braking movement
has a larger acceleration duration than the acceleration pulse (Paragraph 0013), and wherein the
braking movement moves the rotor to an initial position of the rotor prior to the start of the accelerating movement (Paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Lu with the braking
movement comprises an acceleration direction opposite to the acceleration direction of the acceleration
pulse, wherein the braking movement has a larger acceleration duration than the acceleration pulse,
and wherein the braking movement moves the rotor to an initial position of the rotor prior to the start
of the accelerating movement, as disclosed by Hauer, to allow for controlled slowing and stopping of the
rotor.
As to claim 7, the combination Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to claim 6.
Lu fails to disclose unloading the object in the second arrangement state of the rotor in the
second position of the rotor relative to the stator module in an unloading step.
Hauer, however, discloses unloading the object in the second arrangement state of the rotor in
the second position of the rotor relative to the stator module in an unloading step (Paragraph 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Lu with unloading the
object in the second arrangement state of the rotor in the second position of the rotor relative to the
stator module in an unloading step, as disclosed by Hauer, to allow for the release of products once they
have arrived at a desired location.
As to claim 10, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm disclose the method according to claim
9, and the first detecting step and the second detecting step.
Lu fails to disclose determining a magnetic force required to hold the rotor in a floating position
above the stator surface of the stator module with the aid of the magnetic coupling between the rotor
magnetic field and the stator magnetic field, and/or required to accelerate and/or decelerate the rotor
in the accelerating movement with the aid of the magnetic coupling between the rotor magnetic field and the stator magnetic field and/or required to move the rotor with the aid of the magnetic coupling
between the rotor magnetic field and the stator magnetic field, in a force determining step; and
determining the first arrangement state and/or the second arrangement state of the object taking into
account the required magnetic force.
Hauer, however, discloses determining a magnetic force required to hold the rotor in a floating
position above the stator surface of the stator module with the aid of the magnetic coupling between
the rotor magnetic field and the stator magnetic field (Paragraph 0056), and required to move the rotor
with the aid of the magnetic coupling between the rotor magnetic field and the stator magnetic field
(Paragraph 0027), in a force determining step (Paragraph 0027); and determining the first arrangement
state and the second arrangement state of the object taking into account the required magnetic force
(Paragraph 0053).
As to claim 13, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to
claim 1, wherein the object comprises a component or a plurality of components (Paragraph 0021 of
Nickel), wherein an arrangement state of the object relative to the rotor comprises a position of each of
the components on the rotor (Paragraph 0021 of Nickel), and wherein two positions of a component on
the rotor are convertible into each other by a translational movement of the component on the rotor
(Paragraph 0021 of Nickel).
Lu fails to disclose the first and second orientations of a component relative to the rotor are
convertible into each other by a rotation of the component about a rotational axis; and wherein via
movement of the rotor being accelerated in a jerky manner based on the accelerating pulse the object
carries out translational movement and/or tilting movement and/or rotary movement relative to the
rotor, due to inertia of the object.
Hauer, however, discloses two orientations of a component relative to the rotor are convertible
into each other by a rotation of the component about a rotational axis (Paragraph 0078); and wherein via movement of the rotor being accelerated in a jerky manner based on the accelerating pulse the
object carries out translational movement relative to the rotor, due to inertia of the object (Paragraph
0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Lu and Nickel with two
orientations of a component relative to the rotor are convertible into each other by a rotation of the
component about a rotational axis; and wherein via movement of the rotor being accelerated in a jerky
manner based on the accelerating pulse the object carries out translational movement relative to the
rotor, due to inertia of the object, as disclosed by Hauer, to improve controlled rotation of the rotor
about a rotational axis.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, Nickel, and Grimm as
applied to claim 8, and further in view of Herzog (US 2022/0134295).
As to claim 12, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm disclose the method according to claim
8, and determining the type of the object in the determining step and selecting the movement pattern
in the movement pattern selecting step and detecting the arrangement state in a first detecting step
and adjusting the movement pattern in the adjusting step and detecting the object in a second
arrangement state in the second detecting step.
Lu fails to disclose a correspondingly trained neural network.
Herzog, however, discloses a correspondingly trained neural network (Paragraph 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Lu and Nickel with a correspondingly
trained neural network, as disclosed by Herzog, to provide a coherent network of devices that operate
fluidly with each other.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, Nickel, and
Grimm as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kittelson (US 2016/0341649).
As to claim 16, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to
claim 1.
Lu fails to disclose comprising sorting a plurality of components into a sorting device provided
for this purpose by positioning the sorting device and the components on the rotor and carrying out the
accelerating movement of the rotor, wherein the sorting device comprises at least a receiving opening
which is suitable for receiving at least one of the components.
Kittelson, however, discloses comprising sorting a plurality of components into a sorting device
provided for this purpose by positioning the sorting device and the components on the rotor and
carrying out the accelerating movement of the rotor (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0064), wherein the sorting device
comprises at least a receiving opening which is suitable for receiving at least one of the components
(Fig. 3; Paragraph 0035).
PNG
media_image2.png
564
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Lu with sorting a plurality
of components into a sorting device provided for this purpose by positioning the sorting device and the
components on the rotor and carrying out the accelerating movement of the rotor, wherein the sorting
device comprises at least a receiving opening which is suitable for receiving at least one of the
components, as disclosed by Kittelson, to provide more services to the user such as sorting of a plurality
of components.
As to claim 19, the combination of Lu, Nickel, and Grimm discloses the method according to
claim 1.
Lu fails to disclose de-mixing a bulk material having at least two components and separating the
at least two components into a respective container provided for receiving the bulk material by
positioning the container filled with the bulk material on the rotor and carrying out the accelerating
movement of the rotor, wherein the container further comprises a filter element.
Kittelson, however, discloses de-mixing a bulk material having at least two components and
separating the at least two components into a respective container provided for receiving the bulk
material by positioning the container filled with the bulk material on the rotor and carrying out the
accelerating movement of the rotor (Paragraph 0035 and 0064), wherein the container further
comprises a filter element (54; Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
493
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Lu with de-mixing a bulk
material having at least two components and separating the at least two components into a respective
container provided for receiving the bulk material by positioning the container filled with the bulk
material on the rotor and carrying out the accelerating movement of the rotor, wherein the container
further comprises a filter element, as disclosed by Kittelson, to allow for the de-mixing of multiple
components.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can
normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5pm.
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,
Christopher M Koehler can be reached on 571 272 3560. 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.
/ETHAN NGUYEN VO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834