DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending on the application, of which claims 1 ,11 & 18 are amended.
In light of the amendments, the previous rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, & 18 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection utilizing a different reference to meet the new limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant alleges that none of the secondary references teach or suggest the limitation of transferring heat from the sensor to the gas via a first heat exchange, wherein the first heat exchanger is a wall of the first flow channel. This argument is not found persuasive as the Ehrmann reference utilized previously does appear to teach the such a feature (see Fig.6).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the heat exchanger being a wall of the first flow channel and the flow channel being located in the reservoir, as recited in claim 4; the heat being generated by a part different from the sensor, as required by claim 6-7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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 4 & 7 is 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 4 requires the heater be provided in the reservoir. However, claim 1 requires that the heater be a heat exchanger, wherein said wall of the first flow channel that exchanges heat with a sensor is the heat exchanger. Accordingly, claim requires that the first flow channel wall be in contact with the sensor (e.g., see Figs.12-13 of the instant application). The specification is devoid of any mention of the first flow channel wall being a heat exchanger which is provided in the reservoir.
Claims 6-7 requires that the heat transferred from the sensor to the heat exchanger is generated by “a part”. Although support is provided for a sensor, the specification is devoid of support for the heat from a sensor being generated by another sensor, a battery, a motor, or an engine of the vehicle and transferred to the heat exchanger.
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 4, 6-7, 12, & 19 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.
With respect to claim 4, applicant has recited that the heater is provided in the reservoir, however claim 1 requires that heater is a heat exchanger, which is a wall of the first flow channel in thermal communication with the sensor (e.g., in contact with the sensor). It is unclear as to what the structure of the invention is, as recited by claim 4. Is applicant stating that the sensor to be cleaned is located within the reservoir and the flow channel/heat exchanger is also provided in the reservoir? The claim is so indefinite, with respect to the structure claimed, that application of prior art is not possible in the current form of the claim. Clarification and correction are required.
Claims 6-7 recite that the heat is generated by “a part”, where claim 7 states that the part can be “the sensor, another sensor, a battery, a motor, or an engine of the vehicle”. Claim 1 requires that the heat is transferred from the sensor. Thus, it is unclear as to how another sensor, a battery, a motor, or an engine of the vehicle provide such heat which is transferred from the sensor. For examination purposes, the limitation will be ignored and will be understood as though applicant is attempting to state that the heat is generated during an operation of the vehicle.
Claims 12 & 19 recites the limitation "a heat exchanger" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if applicant is referring to a different heat exchanger or the heat exchanger recited in claims 11 & 18 respectively. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as the same heat exchanger as those recited in claims 11 & 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10, & 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ehrmann (US20240367619A1).
As to claim 1 Ehrmann teaches a system for cleaning a sensor of a vehicle (abstract) with a gas [0065], comprising: a heater (i.e., heat exchanging portion of ref 42) to: receive the gas [0065] through a first flow channel (portion of ref 42 which absorbs heat from ref 16), and transfer heat from the sensor to the gas via a first heat exchanger, wherein the first heat exchanger is a wall of the first flow channel (Fig.6 & [0065]); and a spraying assembly (ref 38) to: after the gas is heated, receive the gas through a second flow channel (portion of ref 42 after ref 16 and leading to ref 38), and spray the gas onto a surface of the sensor to clean the sensor with the gas [0065].
As to claim 2, Ehrmann teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the gas comprises ambient air [0035 & 0065]. Further, limitations directed towards the gas are not positively recited limitations, as the gas is not a positively recited limitation. Thus, since the heater is capable of receiving gas which could be ambient air it reads on the claim.
As to claims 6-7, Ehrmann teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the heat is generated by the sensor of the vehicle during an operation of the vehicle [0019 & 0065]. Further, limitations directed towards the sensor are not positively recited limitations, as the sensor is not a positively recited limitation. Thus, since the system is capable of cleaning a sensor which can generate heat during operation of the vehicle it and transfers said heat it reads on the claim.
As to claim 10, Ehrmann teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is affixed to an exterior surface of the vehicle (see Fig.1).
As to claims 18-19 Ehrmann teaches a system for cleaning a sensor (abstract) of a vehicle with ambient air [0035 & 0065], comprising: a flow channel (ref 42), wherein the flow channel includes a first wall and wherein the first wall is a heat exchanger configured to transfer heat between the sensor and the flow channel (see Fig.6 & [0065]); a fan to direct the ambient air into the flow channel(ref 40, see [0065]); and a spraying assembly (ref 38) to: receive the ambient air through the flow channel, and spray the ambient air onto a surface of the sensor [0065].
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10, & 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sviberg (US20230256941A1).
As to claim 1, Sviberg teaches a system for cleaning a sensor (abstract) of a vehicle with a gas [0036-0039], comprising: a heater (e.g., Fig.3 refs 28 & 34) to: receive the gas (see [0039 & 0043] stating a cleaning fluid can be gas) through a first flow channel (ref 34 and internal of ref 28, see also [0042] and ref 32), and transfer heat from the sensor to the gas via a first heat exchanger (ref 30), wherein the first heat exchanger is a wall of the first flow channel (see [0041] stating a heat pipe may be present or [0044] stating that heat exchanger can be disposed on sensor housing thus heat transfer occurs via the wall of fluid carrying line); and a spraying assembly (ref 25) to: after the gas is heated, receive the gas through a second flow channel (portion of ref 34 after ref 28), and spray the gas onto a surface of the sensor to clean the sensor with the gas [0040].
As to claim 2, Sviberg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the gas comprising ambient air is intended use and the system is capable of receiving air from a fan, and thus capable of receiving ambient air [0019 & 0042]. Further, limitations directed towards the gas are not positively recited limitations, as the gas is not a positively recited limitation. Thus, since the heater is capable of receiving gas which could be ambient air it reads on the claim.
As to claims 6-7, Sviberg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the heat is generated by the sensor of the vehicle during an operation of the vehicle [0012-0014 & 0021-0023]. Further, limitations directed towards the sensor are not positively recited limitations, as the sensor is not a positively recited limitation. Thus, since the system is capable of cleaning a sensor which can generate heat during operation of the vehicle it and transfers said heat it reads on the claim.
As to claim 10, Sviberg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is affixed to an exterior surface of the vehicle (see Fig.1).
As to claims 18-19, Sviberg teaches a system for cleaning a sensor of a vehicle (abstract) with ambient air (see [0019 & 0042] indicating use of fan and air, and thus indicating that the system can be utilized with ambient air), comprising: a flow channel (ref 28, see specifically ref 32 in ref 28), wherein the flow channel includes a first wall and wherein the first wall is a heat exchanger configured to transfer heat between the sensor and the flow channel (see Fig.3 & [0041] stating a heat pipe may be present or [0044] stating that heat exchanger can be disposed on sensor housing thus heat transfer occurs via the wall of fluid carrying line); a fan [0042] to direct the ambient air into the flow channel; and a spraying assembly (ref 25) to: receive the air from the flow channel, and spray the air onto a surface of the sensor (see Fig.3 & [0040]).
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrmann (US20240367619A1) in view of Bissonnette (US20030222156A1).
As to claims 8-9, Ehrmann teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose a liquid reservoir, additional heater, and additional spraying assembly. However, such features are known in the art, as seen by Bissonnette.
Bissonnette discloses an art related vehicle cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that components of vehicles require washing, such as cameras and windshields [0028 & 0030], and that hot fluid is better for cleaning [0005]. Bissonnette discloses the use of a reservoir (Fig.1 ref 20) to store washer fluid and supplying said washer fluid to a heater via a flow channel (Fig.1 see ref 11A or 11B) and then to a nozzle to clean a surface via another flow channel (see Fig.1 flow channel from heater to nozzles refs 4, 5, 6, or 14). Accordingly, a flow channel exists from the reservoir to the heater (ref 11A) and to windshield washer nozzles (ref 14, see also [0039 & 0066]). It is understood that the fluid in the reservoir and suppled to the nozzles for cleaning of the windshield is liquid [0002 & 0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ehrmann to incorporate a washing system (including the heater, flow channel, and nozzles) for the sensor and windshields of a vehicle, as such elements are known to require cleaning on vehicles and are conventionally known in the art (Bissonnette [0028-0030]). Such a modification would also enable the use of heated liquid for improved debris removal from surfaces (Bissonnette [0005]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrmann (US20240367619A1) in view of Deane (US20200006320A1).
As to claim 20, Ehrmann teaches the system of claim 18, but does not disclose the presence of a reservoir and additional sprayer. However, such features would have been obvious in view of Deane.
Deane discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize spraying of air after spraying of a cleaning liquid in order to dry the sensor to thereby provide improved cleaning [0134]. To this extent, Deane showcases the use an air source (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1852, 1957, 2057, 2352, 2452) that provides air to air nozzles (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1855, 1955, 2055, 2355, and similar unlabeled portion in Fig.24) via a flow channel (see Figs.18-20 & 23-24 respective channel leading to air nozzles) to spray air on the sensor; a reservoir for cleaning liquid (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1802, 1902, 2002, 2302, 2402); and an additional spray nozzle (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1817, 2317, 2417, and similar unlabeled elements in Figs.19-20) that receives cleaning liquid from the reservoir through an additional flow channel (see Figs.18-20 & 23-24 respective channels leading to liquid nozzles) and spray the cleaning liquid onto the sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Baldovino to include a reservoir, nozzle, and flow channel to spray the sensor with cleaning fluid and then dry the sensor with air in order to improve sensor cleaning performance (Deane [0134]).
Claim(s) 3, 5, & 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sviberg (US20230256941A1) in view of Cohrs (US20230104642A1).
As to claim 3, Sviberg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein an air supply member is utilized (e.g., a fan [0042]) but does not explicitly disclose or suggest the presence of a compressor and reservoir for storing the compressed air. However, a skilled artisan recognizes that a compressor and air reservoir is merely a known alternative air supply source and such a configuration is well-known in the art, as seen by Cohrs.
Cohrs discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to provide a compressor and compressed air reservoir in order to reduce dependence on a compressed air source after long downtime of a vehicle [0035]. Accordingly Cohrs indicates that a compressor and reservoir is a known air supply source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sviberg to provide a compressor and reservoir for storage of the air compressed by the compressor in order to reduce dependence on a compressed air source after long downtime of a vehicle (Cohrs [0035]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known air source arrangement in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 5, Modified Sviberg teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the heater is closer to the sensor than the reservoir (see Sviberg Fig.3 heater is attached to the sensor and thus closer to the sensor than the reservoir).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sviberg (US20230256941A1) in view of Bissonnette (US20030222156A1).
As to claims 8-9, Sviberg teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose a liquid reservoir, additional heater, and additional spraying assembly. However, such features are known in the art, as seen by Bissonnette.
Bissonnette discloses an art related vehicle cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that components of vehicles require washing, such as cameras and windshields [0028 & 0030], and that hot fluid is better for cleaning [0005]. Bissonnette discloses the use of a reservoir (Fig.1 ref 20) to store washer fluid and supplying said washer fluid to a heater via a flow channel (Fig.1 see ref 11A or 11B) and then to a nozzle to clean a surface via another flow channel (see Fig.1 flow channel from heater to nozzles refs 4, 5, 6, or 14). Accordingly, a flow channel exists from the reservoir to the heater (ref 11A) and to windshield washer nozzles (ref 14, see also [0039 & 0066]). It is understood that the fluid in the reservoir and suppled to the nozzles for cleaning of the windshield is liquid [0002 & 0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sviberg to incorporate a washing system (including the heater, flow channel, and nozzles) for the sensor and windshields of a vehicle, as such elements are known to require cleaning on vehicles and are conventionally known in the art (Bissonnette [0028-0030]). Such a modification would also enable the use of heated liquid for improved debris removal from surfaces (Bissonnette [0005]).
As to claims 11-12, Sviberg teaches system for cleaning a sensor of a vehicle (abstract) with a gas [0036-0039], comprising: a flow channel (ref 34 and internal of ref 28, see also [0042] and ref 32), wherein the flow channel includes a first wall and wherein the first wall is a heat exchanger configured to transfer heat between the sensor and the flow channel (see ref 30; also see [0041] stating a heat pipe may be present or [0044] stating that heat exchanger can be disposed on sensor housing thus heat transfer occurs via the wall of fluid carrying line); and a spraying assembly (ref 25) to: receive the gas from the flow channel, and spray the gas onto a surface of the sensor (e.g., see Fig.3 & [0040]). Sviberg does not disclose a compressor, a reservoir for storing the compressed air, and the first flow channel associated with said reservoir to receive the compressed air therefrom and supply the compressed air to the nozzle. However, Sviberg utilizes an air supply to feed the flow channel and the nozzle (see [0019 & 0042]) and a skilled artisan recognizes that a compressor and air reservoir is merely a known alternative air supply source. Further the configuration of a compressor and reservoir is well-known in the art, as seen by Cohrs.
Cohrs discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to provide a compressor and compressed air reservoir in order to reduce dependence on a compressed air source after long downtime of a vehicle [0035]. Accordingly Cohrs indicates that a compressor and reservoir is a known air supply source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sviberg to provide a compressor and reservoir for storage of the air compressed by the compressor in order to reduce dependence on a compressed air source after long downtime of a vehicle (Cohrs [0035]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known air source arrangement in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would allow for compressed air from the reservoir to feed the flow channel and nozzle.
As to claim 13, Sviberg teaches the system of claim 11, wherein limitations directed towards the gas are not positively recited limitations, as the gas is not a positively recited limitation. Thus, since the compressor is capable of receiving gas which could be ambient air it reads on the claim.
As to claim 14, Sviberg teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the sensor is affixed to an exterior surface of the vehicle (see Sviberg Fig.1).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sviberg (US20230256941A1) in view of Cohrs (US20230104642A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Deane (US20200006320A1).
As to claims 15-17, Modified Sviberg teaches the system of claim 11, but does not disclose the presence of an additional reservoir, nozzle, and heater for spraying of heating liquid to the sensor prior to spraying of air. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Deane.
Deane discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize spraying of air after spraying of a cleaning liquid in order to dry the sensor to thereby provide improved cleaning [0134]. To this extent, Deane showcases the use an air source (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1852, 1957, 2057, 2352, 2452) that provides air to air nozzles (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1855, 1955, 2055, 2355, and similar unlabeled portion in Fig.24) via a flow channel (see Figs.18-20 & 23-24 respective channel leading to air nozzles) to spray air on the sensor; a reservoir for cleaning liquid (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1802, 1902, 2002, 2302, 2402); and an additional spray nozzle (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1817, 2317, 2417, and similar unlabeled elements in Figs.19-20) that receives cleaning liquid from the reservoir through an additional flow channel (see Figs.18-20 & 23-24 respective channels leading to liquid nozzles) and spray the cleaning liquid onto the sensor. The liquid from the reservoir is also capable of being heated by a heater (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1812, 1912, 2012, 2312, 2412) prior to being supplied to the additional nozzle, as it is known heated cleaning liquid is desirable in certain scenarios [0113].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sviberg to include an additional reservoir, a heater, an additional nozzle, and another flow channel to spray the sensor with cleaning fluid and then dry the sensor with air in order to improve sensor cleaning performance while also allowing heated fluid when desired (Deane [0113 & 0134]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sviberg (US20230256941A1) in view of Deane (US20200006320A1).
As to claim 20, Sviberg teaches the system of claim 18, but does not disclose the presence of a reservoir and additional sprayer. However, such features would have been obvious in view of Deane.
Deane discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize spraying of air after spraying of a cleaning liquid in order to dry the sensor to thereby provide improved cleaning [0134]. To this extent, Deane showcases the use an air source (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1852, 1957, 2057, 2352, 2452) that provides air to air nozzles (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1855, 1955, 2055, 2355, and similar unlabeled portion in Fig.24) via a flow channel (see Figs.18-20 & 23-24 respective channel leading to air nozzles) to spray air on the sensor; a reservoir for cleaning liquid (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1802, 1902, 2002, 2302, 2402); and an additional spray nozzle (Figs.18-20 & 23-24 refs 1817, 2317, 2417, and similar unlabeled elements in Figs.19-20) that receives cleaning liquid from the reservoir through an additional flow channel (see Figs.18-20 & 23-24 respective channels leading to liquid nozzles) and spray the cleaning liquid onto the sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sviberg to include a reservoir, nozzle, and flow channel to spray the sensor with cleaning fluid and then dry the sensor with air in order to improve sensor cleaning performance (Deane [0134]).
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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights