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
The amendment filed September 25th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections over Kalus et al. in view of Kelleher are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, and 8 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant recites, “includes a second triangular planar cross-sectional shape”. Its unclear how a second triangular planar cross-sectional shape is present when there has not been a first triangular planar cross-sectional shape introduced. Thus, the claim is indefinite, as its not clear if there are one or two triangular planar cross-sectional shapes present. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “the plate”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalus et al. (US 2016/0329860 A1) in view of Choi (KR-20190123623-A)
In view of Claim 1, Kalus et al. discloses a solar tracking system (Figure 1-3), comprising: a beam assembly including a pair of spaced apart flanges and a web interposed between each of the pair of spaced apart flanges, wherein each of the pair of flanges defines a flange width extending between a first flange side that is offset from the web and a second, opposite flange side that is offset from the web (See Annotated Kalus Figure 4A, below); and a bearing housing assembly selected coupled to a portion of the beam (Figure 4A, #405 & Paragraph 0037).
Annotated Kalus Figure 4A
PNG
media_image1.png
600
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kalus et al. does not disclose that at least one flange includes a plurality of bores offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate width extending between a first side of the reinforcement plate and a second, opposite side of the reinforcement plate, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate thickness extending between a plate top surface and a plate bottom surface and in a direction transverse to the plate width the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges extending the plate thickness out from the one of the pair of flanges to define a greatest thickness of the beam at the location of the reinforcement plate without extending the plate width past the flange width.
Choi discloses a flange that includes a plurality of bores (Figs. 1-3, #114) offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam (Figs. 1 & 3, #140 is coupled to flange #113 – Paragraph 0050-0052), wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate width extending between a first side of the reinforcement plate and a second, opposite side of the reinforcement plate, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate thickness extending between a plate top surface and a plate bottom surface and in a direction transverse to the plate width the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges extending the plate thickness out from the one of the pair of flanges to define a greatest thickness of the beam the location of the reinforcement plate without extending the plate width past the flange width (See Annotated Choi Figure 1, below). Choi discloses that this configuration is advantageous because the reinforcement plate can cancel the earth pressure by the direction in which the earth pressure occurs (Paragraph 0072). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have at least one flange includes a plurality of bores offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate width extending between a first side of the reinforcement plate and a second, opposite side of the reinforcement plate, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate thickness extending between a plate top surface and a plate bottom surface and in a direction transverse to the plate width the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges extending the plate thickness out from the one of the pair of flanges to define a greatest thickness of the beam at the location of the reinforcement plate without extending the plate width past the flange width as disclosed by Choi in Kalus et al. beam for the advantage of having a configuration that can cancel the earth pressure by the direction in which the earth pressure occurs.
Annotated Choi Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
856
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 3, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Choi teaches a first end portion of the reinforcement includes a blunt profile (Fig. 1, #140, top surface facing outward is flat, thus blunt).
In view of Claim 5, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Choi discloses a first end portion and an opposite second end portion include the same configuration (Figs. 1 & 3, the bottom portion and top portion of the connection plate have a triangular tip on both ends).
In view of Claim 6, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Choi teaches that the reinforcement plate is selectively coupled to a portion of the beam that is at least partially embedded within the earth (Paragraph 0021 & 0072).
In view of Claim 7, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Choi teaches the beam assembly includes a second reinforcement plate selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam, the second reinforcement plate configured to selectively strengthen a second portion of the beam (Figs. 1 & 3, the other #140 - Paragraph 0050-0052).
In view of Claim 9, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Choi discloses the second reinforcement plate is selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam that is longitudinally offset relative to the reinforcement plate (Fig. 1, #140 are longitudinally offset from one another).
In view of Claim 11, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Kalus et al. teaches a slew drive selectively couplable to a portion of the second beam assembly (Figure 3, #210).
In view of Claim 12, Kalus et al. discloses a solar tracking system (Figure 1-3), comprising: a beam assembly including a pair of spaced apart flanges and a web interposed between each of the pair of spaced apart flange, wherein each of the pair of flanges defines a flange width extending between a first flange side that is offset from the web, and a second opposite flange side that is offset from the web (See Annotated Kalus Figure 4A, below); and a bearing housing assembly selected coupled to a portion of the beam (Figure 4A, #405 & Paragraph 0037). Kalus et al. teaches a second beam assembly, the second beam assembly including; a second beam including a pair of spaced apart flanges and a web interposed between each of the pair of spaced apart flanges (Figure 3, plurality of beams present that read on “a second beam”, see Annotated Kalus Figure 4A for flanges and web).
Annotated Kalus Figure 4A
PNG
media_image1.png
600
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kalus et al. does not disclose that at least one flange includes a plurality of bores offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate width extending between a first side of the reinforcement plate and a second, opposite side of the reinforcement plate, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate thickness extending between a plate top surface and a plate bottom surface and in a direction transverse to the plate width the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges extending the plate thickness out from the one of the pair of flanges to define a greatest thickness of the beam at the location of the reinforcement plate without extending the plate width past the flange width.
Choi discloses a flange that includes a plurality of bores (Figs. 1-3, #114) offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam (Figs. 1 & 3, #140 is coupled to flange #113 – Paragraph 0050-0052), wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate width extending between a first side of the reinforcement plate and a second, opposite side of the reinforcement plate, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate thickness extending between a plate top surface and a plate bottom surface and in a direction transverse to the plate width the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges extending the plate thickness out from the one of the pair of flanges to define a greatest thickness of the beam the location of the reinforcement plate without extending the plate width past the flange width (See Annotated Choi Figure 1, below). Choi discloses that this configuration is advantageous because the reinforcement plate can cancel the earth pressure by the direction in which the earth pressure occurs (Paragraph 0072). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have at least one flange includes a plurality of bores offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate width extending between a first side of the reinforcement plate and a second, opposite side of the reinforcement plate, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate thickness extending between a plate top surface and a plate bottom surface and in a direction transverse to the plate width the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges extending the plate thickness out from the one of the pair of flanges to define a greatest thickness of the beam at the location of the reinforcement plate without extending the plate width past the flange width as disclosed by Choi in Kalus et al. beam for the advantage of having a configuration that can cancel the earth pressure by the direction in which the earth pressure occurs.
Annotated Choi Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
856
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 13, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Choi teaches the beam assembly includes a second reinforcement plate selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam, the second reinforcement plate configured to selectively strengthen a second portion of the beam (Figs. 1 & 3, the other #140 - Paragraph 0050-0052).
In view of Claim 16, Kalus et al. teaches a method of installing a solar tracking system comprising: driving beams into the earth (Figure 3, #210 & paragraph 0033) and selectively coupling a bearing housing assembly to a portion of the reinforced beam (Figure 4A, #405 & Paragraph 0037). Kalus et al. discloses the solar tracking system (Figure 1-3), comprises: a beam assembly including a pair of spaced apart flanges and a web interposed between each of the pair of spaced apart flange, wherein each of the pair of flanges defines a flange width extending between a first flange side that is offset from the web, and a second opposite flange side that is offset from the web (See Annotated Kalus Figure 4A, below); and the bearing housing assembly selected coupled to a portion of the beam (Figure 4A, #405 & Paragraph 0037).
Annotated Kalus Figure 4A
PNG
media_image1.png
600
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kalus et al. does not disclose determining if a beam of the solar tracking system needs reinforcement; identifying a portion of the beam that needs to be reinforced and then coupling a first reinforcement plate to the identified portion of the beam to form a reinforced beam or that that at least one flange includes a plurality of bores offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam, the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges increasing a thickness of the one of the flanges to strengthen the beam and at least one flange includes a plurality of bores offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate width extending between a first side of the reinforcement plate and a second, opposite side of the reinforcement plate, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate thickness extending between a plate top surface and a plate bottom surface and in a direction transverse to the plate width the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges extending the plate thickness out from the one of the pair of flanges to define a greatest thickness of the beam at the location of the reinforcement plate without extending the plate width past the flange width.
Choi discloses determining if a beam needs reinforcement by identifying a portion of the beam that needs to be reinforced (Paragraph 0010). Choi discloses coupling a first reinforcement plate to the identified portion of the beam to form a reinforced beam (Fig. 1, any of the locations where #140 is present – Paragraph 0050-0052), wherein the flanges includes a plurality of bores offset from the web (Figs. 1-3, #114) such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam (Figs. 1 & 3, #140 is coupled to flange #113 – Paragraph 0050-0052), the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges increasing a thickness of the one of the flanges to strengthen the beam and at least one flange includes a plurality of bores offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate width extending between a first side of the reinforcement plate and a second, opposite side of the reinforcement plate, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate thickness extending between a plate top surface and a plate bottom surface and in a direction transverse to the plate width the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges extending the plate thickness out from the one of the pair of flanges to define a greatest thickness of the beam at the location of the reinforcement plate without extending the plate width past the flange width (See Annotated Choi Figure 1, below). Choi discloses that this configuration is advantageous because the reinforcement plate can cancel the earth pressure by the direction in which the earth pressure occurs (Paragraph 0072). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine if a beam of the solar tracking system needs reinforcement; identifying a portion of the beam that needs to be reinforced and then coupling a first reinforcement plate to the identified portion of the beam to form a reinforced beam or that that at least one flange includes a plurality of bores offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam, the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges increasing a thickness of the one of the flanges to strengthen the beam and at least one flange includes a plurality of bores offset from the web such that a reinforcement plate is coupled to the plurality of bores of one of the flanges of the beam, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate width extending between a first side of the reinforcement plate and a second, opposite side of the reinforcement plate, wherein the reinforcement plate defines a plate thickness extending between a plate top surface and a plate bottom surface and in a direction transverse to the plate width the coupling of the reinforcement plate to the one of the flanges extending the plate thickness out from the one of the pair of flanges to define a greatest thickness of the beam at the location of the reinforcement plate without extending the plate width past the flange width as disclosed by Choi in Kalus et al. beam for the advantage of having a configuration that can cancel the earth pressure by the direction in which the earth pressure occurs.
Annotated Choi Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
856
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 17, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Choi teaches the beam assembly includes a second reinforcement plate selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam, the second reinforcement plate configured to selectively strengthen a second portion of the beam (Figs. 1 & 3, the other #140 - Paragraph 0050-0052).
In view of Claim 19, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 17. Choi discloses the second reinforcement plate is selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam that is longitudinally offset relative to the reinforcement plate (Fig. 1, #140 are longitudinally offset from one another).
In view of Claim 20, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Choi discloses driving the reinforced beam into the earth includes driving the reinforced beam and a portion of the reinforcement plate into the earth (Paragraph 0021 & 0072).
In view of Claim 21, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Choi discloses that the plate width is equal to or narrower than the flange width of the one of the pair of flanges to which the reinforcement plate is coupled (See Annotated Choi Figure 1, above).
Claims 2, 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalus et al. (US 2016/0329860 A1) in view of Choi (KR-20190123623-A) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2022/0127805 A1).
In view of Claim 2, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Kalus et al. does not disclose that the first end portion of the reinforcement plate includes a V-shaped profile.
Wilson et al. discloses that if a reinforcement plate includes a V-shaped symmetrical pointed configuration that it can help reduce twisting of the foundation posts when being vibrated into the ground thereby facilitating installation of the foundation posts (Fig. 4, #70 is pointed). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first end portion of the reinforcement plate include a V-shaped profile for the advantage of having a symmetrical pointed configuration that it can help reduce twisting of the foundation posts when being vibrated into the ground thereby facilitating installation of the foundation posts.
In view of Claim 4, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Choi discloses that a reinforcement plate should not protrude from the width of an H-beam, e.g., the reinforcement plate has a width equal to or narrow than the flange width (Paragraph 0071 & Fig. 1), but does not disclose the one of the pair of flanges to which the reinforcement plate is coupled defines a rectangular planar cross-sectional includes a first rectangular planar cross-sectional shape and a second end portion of the reinforcement plate includes a second triangular planar cross-sectional shape.
Wilson et al. discloses that if a reinforcement plate includes a V-shaped symmetrical pointed configuration that it can help reduce twisting of the foundation posts when being vibrated into the ground thereby facilitating installation of the foundation posts (Fig. 4, #70 is pointed). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have one of the pair of flanges to which the reinforcement plate is coupled defines a rectangular planar cross-sectional includes a first rectangular planar cross-sectional shape and a second end portion of the reinforcement plate includes a second triangular planar cross-sectional shape for the advantage of having a symmetrical pointed configuration that it can help reduce twisting of the foundation posts when being vibrated into the ground thereby facilitating installation of the foundation posts.
In view of Claim 15, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Choi discloses that a reinforcement plate should not protrude from the width of an H-beam, e.g., the reinforcement plate has a width equal to or narrow than the flange width (Paragraph 0071 & Fig. 1), but does not disclose that the first end portion of the reinforcement plate includes a V-shaped profile.
Wilson et al. discloses that if a reinforcement plate includes a V-shaped symmetrical pointed configuration that it can help reduce twisting of the foundation posts when being vibrated into the ground thereby facilitating installation of the foundation posts (Fig. 4, #70 is pointed). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first end portion of the reinforcement plate include a V-shaped profile for the advantage of having a symmetrical pointed configuration that it can help reduce twisting of the foundation posts when being vibrated into the ground thereby facilitating installation of the foundation posts.
Claims 7-8, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalus et al. (US 2016/0329860 A1) in view of Choi (KR-20190123623-A) in view of Kelleher (US 2018/0155892 A1).
In view of Claims 7-8, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Kalus et al. does not disclose a second reinforcement plate selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam that selectively strengthens a second portion of the beam, wherein the plate thickness is different than a thickness of the second reinforcement plate.
Kelleher discloses additional reinforcement plates can be selectively coupled to different portions of a beam such that they selectively strength a second portion of the beam (Figure 8A-C, #24, #102a & #104 or Fig. 9A, #24, #106, #110 – Paragraph 0050). Kelleher discloses that piles can have multiples plates or scoops mounted thereon, wherein these additional stabilizing elements can stabilize the structure against uplift, twisting, vertical loads, and resistant strength (Paragraph 0050). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a second reinforcement plate selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam that selectively strengthens a second portion of the beam, wherein the plate thickness is different than a thickness of the second reinforcement plate in modified Kalus et al. solar tracking system for the advantage of having additional stabilizing elements can stabilize the structure against uplift, twisting, vertical loads, and resistant strength.
In regards to the limitation that “the plate thickness is different than a thickness of the second reinforcement plate”, the additional plates as disclosed by Kelleher have different thicknesses than the reinforcement plate of Kalus.
In view of Claims 13-14, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Modified Kalus et al. does not disclose a second reinforcement plate selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam that selectively strengthens a second portion of the beam, wherein the plate thickness is different than a thickness of the second reinforcement plate.
Kelleher discloses additional reinforcement plates can be selectively coupled to different portions of a beam such that they selectively strength a second portion of the beam (Figure 8A-C, #24, #102a & #104 or Fig. 9A, #24, #106, #110 – Paragraph 0050). Kelleher discloses that piles can have multiples plates or scoops mounted thereon, wherein these additional stabilizing elements can stabilize the structure against uplift, twisting, vertical loads, and resistant strength (Paragraph 0050). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a second reinforcement plate selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam that selectively strengthens a second portion of the beam, wherein the plate thickness is different than a thickness of the second reinforcement plate in modified Kalus et al. solar tracking system for the advantage of having additional stabilizing elements can stabilize the structure against uplift, twisting, vertical loads, and resistant strength.
In regards to the limitation that “the plate thickness is different than a thickness of the second reinforcement plate”, the additional plates as disclosed by Kelleher have different thicknesses than the reinforcement plate of Kalus.
In view of Claims 17-18, Kalus et al. and Choi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Modified Kalus et al. does not disclose a second reinforcement plate selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam that selectively strengthens a second portion of the beam, wherein the plate thickness is different than a thickness of the second reinforcement plate.
Kelleher discloses additional reinforcement plates can be selectively coupled to different portions of a beam such that they selectively strength a second portion of the beam (Figure 8A-C, #24, #102a & #104 or Fig. 9A, #24, #106, #110 – Paragraph 0050). Kelleher discloses that piles can have multiples plates or scoops mounted thereon, wherein these additional stabilizing elements can stabilize the structure against uplift, twisting, vertical loads, and resistant strength (Paragraph 0050). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a second reinforcement plate selectively coupled to a second portion of the beam that selectively strengthens a second portion of the beam, wherein the plate thickness is different than a thickness of the second reinforcement plate in modified Kalus et al. solar tracking system for the advantage of having additional stabilizing elements can stabilize the structure against uplift, twisting, vertical loads, and resistant strength.
In regards to the limitation that “the plate thickness is different than a thickness of the second reinforcement plate”, the additional plates as disclosed by Kelleher have different thicknesses than the reinforcement plate of Kalus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Kalus does not disclose at least one of the pairs of flanges includes a plurality of bores offset from the web. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Kelleher was relied upon to teach this limitation. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights