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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 05/12/206 and 04/24/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 04/24/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). However, Applicant's amendment(s) introduced new rejections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 4, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the proposed modification of a vibration module would render Lenzen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose which is to recover as much of the unused resin as possible for reuse. According to Applicant, incorporating a vibration module into the apparatus of Lenzen may shake loose uncured resin from different layers comprising different resin types, resulting in contamination of the recovered resin and prevention of the resin's reuse.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the apparatus of Lenzen is provided with independent cleaning devices for cleaning each uncured raw material from the component layer by layer and independent recovering devices for recovering each uncured resin (P0024-0028, 0045, Fig. 1). Thus, no uncured resin from different material layers is expected to be present in the component of Lenzen as Applicant alleges. The independent dispensing, cleaning, and recovering of the different resins already prevent contamination. In fact, the operation/activation of a vibration module during the cleaning of individual resin/layer would have been desirable.
Applicant further argues that the proposed modification of a vibration module would change the basic principle of operation of Lenzen. According to Applicant, by vibrating the component and/or support plate in Lenzen, the different residual resins present on the component and/or support plate may mix and render the recovered resin unusable, which would require an additional step to remove the unusable resin from the apparatus, as opposed to the apparatus recovering and reusing the resin, as designed.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the apparatus of Lenzen is provided with independent cleaning devices for cleaning each uncured resin from the component layer by layer and independent recovering devices for recovering each uncured resin type (P0024-0028, 0045, Fig. 1). Thus, no different residual resins are expected to be present on the component and/or support plate of Lenzen as Applicant alleges. Furthermore, since Lenzen discloses moving a cleaning device 11 such as roller along/near the support plate and configured to contact the component during the cleaning of each excess raw material from the component, the component and/or support plate in Lenzen are subjected to vibrations from the movement, rotation, and direct contact with 11 (P0024-0025, Fig. 2E). Thus, the proposed modification would not change the principle of operation of Lenzen because the component and/or support plate in Lenzen are already subjected to vibrations during the cleaning of each excess raw material from the component.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the 103 rejections are maintained.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“radiant energy device … operable to generate and project radiant energy in a patterned image” in at least claim 1 with a projector, digital micromirror device, a two-dimensional array of LEDs, a two-dimensional array of lasers, and/or energy source with optically addressed light valves as the corresponding structure disclosed in at least [0038] and [0053] of Applicant’s published publication.
“a resin support configured to” in at least claim(s) 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0033], [0040], and [0043], and Figs. 1A-B of Applicant’s published application.
“removal component configured to remove residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position” in at least claim 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0103] and [0138] of Applicant’s published application.
“material depositor configured” in at least claim(s) 5-7 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0042] of Applicant’s published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Other claim interpretations:
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, and 21 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). Thus, the terms “resin”, “first resin” and “cleaning resin” are the materials worked upon by the apparatus.
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 1, 5, 7-9 and 21 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.
Claim 1 recites the newly added limitation “a removal component configured to remove residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position, wherein the removal component comprises at least one of: … or a pneumatic assembly configured to generate at least one of negative pressure or positive pressure on a first surface of the resin support opposite the resin” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant argues that [0057] and [0092] of Applicant’s specification as filed has support for the newly added limitation. However, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Applicant’s disclosed pneumatic assembly 70 configured to generate negative pressure on a first surface of the resin support opposite the resin is incapable of removing residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position because the pneumatic assembly 70 configured to generate negative pressure on a first surface of the resin support opposite the resin is disclosed as being only capable of retaining the resin support 26 during the removal operation ([0092] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s Specification). Applicant’s disclosed pneumatic assembly 70 configured to generate positive pressure on a first surface of the resin support opposite the resin is incapable of removing residual resin from the component by itself because the positive pressure merely presses the resin support into the component and the resin support removes the residual resin from the component ([0092] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s published application; thus, the positive pressure of the pneumatic assembly in combination with the resin support and with specific configuration perform the claimed function in Applicant’s disclosure). Since the scope of the claimed limitation is not commensurate with Applicant’s disclosure, the newly added limitation is considered new matter. See MPEP §§ 2163.04 and 2163.06.
Claim(s) 5, 7-9 and 21 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
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(s) 1, 5, 7-9 and 21 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a removal component configured to remove residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position, wherein the removal component comprises at least one of: … or a pneumatic assembly configured to generate at least one of negative pressure or positive pressure on a first surface of the resin support opposite the resin” which is indefinite. It is unclear how a pneumatic assembly configured to generate at least one of negative pressure or positive pressure on a first surface of the resin support opposite the resin can remove residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position because the resin support would block all the negative pressure or positive pressure (See locations of claimed elements in Applicant’s Fig. 1 and 14). Furthermore, the limitation is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant’s disclosed pneumatic assembly 70 configured to generate negative pressure on a first surface of the resin support opposite the resin is incapable of removing residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position ([0092] of Applicant’s specification as well as the 112a rejection above). Applicant’s disclosed pneumatic assembly 70 configured to generate positive pressure on a first surface of the resin support opposite the resin is incapable of removing residual resin from the component by itself ([0092] of Applicant’s specification as well as the 112a rejection above).
Claim(s) 5, 7-9 and 21 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenzen (US 20220332046 – of record) in view of Thompson (US 20190126535 – of record) and/or Arai (US 20180065302 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lenzen discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract, P0001, Figure 1) comprising:
a resin support (3) configured to support a resin (P0070-0071, Fig. 1; wherein the raw material supported by 3 can be a photopolymerizable binder/resin: P0018; furthermore, 3 of Lenzen is capable of supporting a resin: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115);
a support plate (6) including a window (P0073-0074, Fig. 1; See [0038] of Applicant’s published application);
a stage (build plate 9) configured to hold one or more cured layers of the resin to form a component (P0076, Fig. 1), wherein a cured layer is formed with the stage or the component contacting the resin in a first cure position (a first cured layer is formed with 9 contacting the resin in a first cure position/height: P0080-0082; 9 at the first cure position/height shown in Fig. 2C);
a radiant energy device (7) positioned on an opposite side of the resin support from the stage and operable to generate and project radiant energy in a patterned image through the window (P0074 and Fig. 1); and
an actuator assembly (10) operably coupled with the stage (9) and configured to:
to move the stage in a Z-axis direction (P0076, Fig. 1);
separate the component (8) from the resin support (3) by moving the stage in the Z-axis direction from the first cure position to a removal position (P0082, 0085; Fig. 2E shows 9 at a removal position); and
move the stage from the removal position to a second cure position such that the component contacts the resin (10 is configured for moving 9 from removal position shown in Fig. 2E to a second cure position/height shown in Fig. 2F: P0087-0088, 0081; Fig. 2F shows 9 at the second cure position/height such that the component 8 contacts the resin); and
a removal component (cleaning device 11) configured to remove residual resin from the component while the stage is in the removal position (P0077, 0085, Fig. 2E).
However, Lenzen fails to disclose a vibration module operably coupled with the support plate.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Thompson ‘535 discloses/suggests the techniques of vibrating a support plate 12 (P0034, Fig. 1) and using ultrasonic transducer(s) 394 (vibration module) coupled with a support (391), wherein the ultrasonic transducer(s) (vibration module) is activatable when a stage (14) is in a removal position during a removal/cleaning operation for removing/cleaning residual resin for the component (74: P0066. Fig. 13).
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Arai discloses the technique of coupling a vibration module (212) to a support plate (206), wherein the vibration module (212) is activatable when a stage (203) is in a removal position during removal of uncured resin from a component and/or build zone (P0244, Fig. 10).
Office notice is taken that the provision and activation of a vibration module during a removal/cleaning operation of uncured resin is well-known/desirable in art yielding the predictable result(s) of expediating removal/cleaning of uncured resin.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Lenzen in view of Thompson ‘535 and/or Arai by operably coupling a vibration module to the support plate and activating the vibration module when the stage is in the removal position for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of expediating and/or enhancing removal/cleaning of the residual resin though the vibrations as suggested by Thompson ‘535 and/or Arai.
Regarding claim 5, Lenzen further discloses a material depositor (2a) configured to deposit the resin on the resin support (P0080, Fig. 1, Fig. 2A).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenzen in view of Thompson ‘535 and Arai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boehm (US 20210276248 – of record).
Regarding claim 8, Lenzen, as modified above, fails to disclose wherein the radiant energy device is configured to at least partially cure a portion of the resin on the resin support with the component separated from the resin.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Boehm discloses the technique of irradiating and curing a residual portion of the resin on a resin support (carrier 20) in a state where the component (100) is separated from the resin for the benefit(s) of facilitating disposal of the residual resin (P0057-0059, 0082-0084, claim 7, Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to cure at least portion of the uncured resin on the resin support in the build zone after the component is separated from the uncured resin on the resin support in the build zone for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of expediating disposal of the excess/residual resin as uncured/liquid resin is more difficult to clean than cured/solid resin and/or enhancing disposal of the excess/residual resin as uncured resin is more hazardous/unsafe waste than cured/solid resin.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Lenzen in view of Boehm by configuring the radiant energy device to at least partially cure a portion of the resin on the resin support with the component separated from the resin for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of expediating curing and disposal of the excess/residual portion as uncured/liquid resin is more difficult to clean than cured/solid resin and/or enhancing disposal of the excess/residual resin as uncured resin is more hazardous/unsafe waste than cured/solid resin as suggested by Boehm and/or predicated by a POSITA.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenzen in view of Thompson and/or Arai as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Thompson (US 20190126535).
Regarding claim 7, Lenzen further discloses wherein the resin includes a first resin for forming the component (P0081-0082). Lenzen fails to explicitly disclose a cleaning resin for cleaning the component.
However, the cleaning resin is the material worked upon by the apparatus. Additionally, since the apparatus of Lenzen is configured for dispensing multiple materials/resins (P0087, Fig. 1), the apparatus of Lenzen is expected to be capable of providing/dispensing a cleaning resin as one of the materials/resins. Furthermore, since the apparatus of Lenzen comprises all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Lenzen is expected to be capable of providing/dispensing a cleaning resin (See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenzen in view of Thompson ‘535, Arai and Boehm as applied to claim 8 above, alone or further in view of Sands (US 20180056604 – of record).
Regarding claim 9, the combination as applied above, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the radiant energy device is operable to generate and project radiant energy in a mirrored image through the window to at least partially cure the portion of the resin, wherein the mirrored image is an inverse of the patterned image.
However, since Boehm further discloses/shows that the residual portion (400’) defines a mirror image which is an inverse of the patterned image (P0084-0086, 0093, annotated Fig. 2 below) and curing the residual portion on the resin support for the benefit(s) of facilitating disposal/removal of the residual portion from the resin support (P0058-0059, claim 7), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the apparatus of the combination by configuring the radiant energy device to generate and project radiant energy in a mirrored image through the window to at least partially cure the portion of the resin, wherein the mirrored image is an inverse of the patterned image for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of facilitating/enhancing curing of the residual portion with the radiant energy device and facilitating/enhancing disposal/removal of the residual portion from the resin support as suggested by Boehm.
PNG
media_image1.png
217
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, in the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Sands discloses the technique of operating a radiant energy device (20: Fig. 1) to generate and project radiant energy in a mirrored image (46) to at least partially cure the portion of resin, wherein the mirrored image (46) is an inverse of a patterned image (44) for the benefit(s) of improving curing and/or fidelity (P0026-0031, 0034-0035, Fig. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the apparatus of Lenzen in view of Sands by operating the radiant energy device to generate and project radiant energy in a mirrored image to at least partially cure the portion of resin, wherein the mirrored image is an inverse of a patterned image for the benefit(s) of improving curing and/or fidelity as suggested by Sands.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenzen in view of Thompson and/or Arai as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Schultheiss (US 20170297261) and/or Hundley (US 20180341184).
Regarding claim 21, Lenzen, as modified in claim 4 above, fails to disclose a gasket positioned between the window and the support plate, the gasket comprising a material containing natural rubber or silicone.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Schultheiss discloses the technique of positioning a gasket (sealing ring 70) between a window (36) and a support plate (62) for the benefit(s) of providing a sealing effect (P0039-0040, 0109, Figs. 3-4). Schultheiss fails to disclose the gasket comprising a material containing natural rubber or silicone. However, Office notice is taken that the natural rubber or silicone is a well-known suitable material for gaskets in view of its sealing and attenuating properties.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Hundley discloses the technique of positioning a gasket (boundary seal 13) between a window (12) and a support plate (3: Fig. 5), the gasket comprising a material containing silicone for the benefit(s) of providing/improving a sealing effect (P0076, 0035, Fig. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the apparatus of Lenzen in view of Schultheiss and/or Hundley by positioning a gasket between the window and the support plate, the gasket comprising a material containing natural rubber or silicone for the benefit of yielding the predictable result(s) of providing/improving a sealing effect between the window and the support plate as suggested by Schultheiss and/or Hundley.
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.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Hull (US 20080226346) discloses an apparatus relevant to at least claim 1 (Fig. 1a and accompanying text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights