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/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 12/17/24. Amended Claims 1-20 are pending.
Regarding the previous drawing objections, applicant submitted drawings with the reply. These drawings are not entered as these drawings contain new matter and do not remedy the original objections. The previous Claim 20 drawing objection resulting from the claim language is removed given the subject matter being clarified by applicant’s amendments and remarks (112(b) remarks section below). Please see drawing section below.
Regarding the previous claim objections, these are remedied by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, Claims 6, 7, and 20 have been clarified by the claim amendments. Consistent with the amendments and the original disclosure, any mention of “slew force” in the claims is interpreted as related to the movement of the piston and not related to another, outside element. Claim 13 continues to be non-idiomatic.
Regarding the previous 102 rejections, applicant argues (begin excerpt/)
PNG
media_image1.png
538
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
With respect to Thoraval, applicant’s arguments are persuasive as the claims have been amended to include “wherein the first EHSV and the second EHSV have a maximum combined capacity configured to operate the actuator at a first slew flow during a normal operation mode of each of the first EHSV and the second EHSV” and Thoraval does not disclose the two EHSVs supplying fluid simultaneously as claimed. With respect to Winyard, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Winyard discloses for example (Col. 7, lines 8-17):
Controller 70 may be programmed to produce any desired performance level using any predetermined combination of the modular servovalve units. For noise and system response reasons, it might be desirable to operate each of the seven servovalve modules shown in FIG. 4 at a small fraction of their flow capacity to produce a total flow output that any one of them could supply. Upon malfunction of any one of them, the remaining units would still be capable of meeting system flow requirements.
Winyard discloses using any combination of the modular servovalve units, including one or two as currently claimed or more and then using fewer or more depending on flow requirements. Examiner also notes the currently claimed “first slew flow” and “second slew rate flow” are not tied to any particular levels or values; the recitations are broad. Winyard discloses meeting a variety of flow requirements for different desired performance levels and is held.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/17/24. These drawings are unacceptable (MPEP 608.02(h)). The drawings contain new matter (MPEP 608.02 II and (b) III). The specification describes reference character 136 as “first transfer valve” (ex. p. 7, line 15); likewise reference character 142 designates “a second transfer valve” (p. 8, line 6). In replacement drawings filed 12/17/24, 136 carries label EHSV1, the same label as box with reference character 102; likewise 142 carries label EHSV2 the same label as box with reference character 116. The new characterization of previous transfer valves 136 and 142 as further parts of the previous boxes 102 and 116 is neither understood nor does this appear to be supported in the originally filed disclosure. 136 is believed to be a “first transfer valve”, as described in the specification. 142 is believed to be a “second transfer valve”, as described in the specification. Further, the symbols used in Fig. 1 for 136 and 142 are non-standard and do not appear to agree with original Fig. 2. The drawings filed 12/17/24 are not entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
108 is described in the specification (ex. p. 6, lines 16-21) differently (connection to pressure supply 104) than depicted in Fig. 1.
The transfer valves 136 and 142 are described as disconnecting the EHSVs 102, 116 and actuator (ex. p. 7-8) but both positions in Fig. 1 are shown as connecting, one position with free flow and one with throttles.
The transfer valves 136 and 142 in Figs. 1-2 carry the label “TV EHSV” but both of these are depicted as pressure actuated.
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.
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 claimed subject matter of
Claim 19
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 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.
Examiner notes:
Any mention of “slew force” in the claims is interpreted as related to the movement of the piston and not related to another, outside element.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, a “first slew flow” is introduced then “a second slew rate flow” is introduced. It is unclear if “rate” should be present. Claim 15 also has a “first slew flow” but has a “second slew flow” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are objected to as being dependent on an objected to claim.
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 1-14 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 in part “wherein the first EHSV or the second EHSV has maximum single capacity configured to operate the actuator at a second slew rate flow than the first slew flow when one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV is in a non-operational mode.” This is indefinite, as the language is non-idiomatic. It may be that Claim 1 should read “wherein the first EHSV or the second EHSV has maximum single capacity configured to operate the actuator at a second slew rate flow --less-- than the first slew flow when one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV is in a non-operational mode”, consistent with the Claim 15 amendment. As currently presented, the metes and bounds are indefinite.
Claim 6 recites in part “in the normal operation mode of the first EHSV, the second EHSV, or both the first EHSV or the second EHSV”. This is indefinite. If there is one “normal operation mode” for the three items simultaneously, then the duplicate presence of “both the first EHSV or the second EHSV” is not understood. Instead, examiner believes there are three “normal operation modes” but there is a numbers mismatch (current “mode” vs. “modes”) for this interpretation.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the controller is configured to lock the actuator in over pressure event during failure of the first EHSV”. This is indefinite, as the language is non-idiomatic.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winyard et al. (US 5322003).
Regarding Claim 1,
A system comprising:
a first electrohydraulic servo valve (EHSV) (any of SVM1-SVM7, ex. Col. 6, lines 10-21, shown in Fig. 4, one servo valve shown in Fig. 3, ex. Col. 5, lines 23-60) configured to be in fluid communication with a pressure supply (“supply”) and with a pressure return (“return”), the first EHSV including a first actuator extend line (ex. with “TO C1”/74) and a first actuator retract line (ex. with “TO C2”/76) and being operatively connected to pressurize one of the first actuator extend line or the first actuator retract line;
a second EHSV (another of SVM1-SVM7) configured to be in fluid communication with the pressure supply (“supply”) and with the pressure return (“return”), the second EHSV including a second actuator extend line (ex. with “TO C1”/74) and a second actuator retract line (ex. with “TO C2”/76) and being operatively connected to pressurize one of the second actuator extend line or the second actuator retract line; and
an actuator (78) with an extend chamber (C1) in fluid communication with both of the first and second extend actuator lines, and a retract chamber (C2) in fluid communication with both of the first and second retract actuator lines for extending an end effector (with 84) when the first and second EHSVs pressurize the extend chamber, and for retracting the end effector when the first and second EHSVs pressurize the retract chamber;
wherein the first EHSV and the second EHSV have a maximum combined capacity configured to operate the actuator at a first slew flow during a normal operation mode of each of the first EHSV and the second EHSV (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17, including ex. Col 7, lines 8-10); and
wherein the first EHSV or the second EHSV has maximum single capacity configured to operate the actuator at a second slew rate flow than the first slew flow when one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV is in a non-operational mode (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17, including ex. Col. 7, lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 2,
The system as recited in claim 1, further comprising a first transfer valve (60, ex. Col. 5, lines 47-57) connected in fluid communication with the first EHSV via the first extend actuator line and via the first retract actuator line, the first transfer valve being configured to connect the first EHSV in fluid communication with the actuator in the normal operation mode of the first EHSV, and to disconnect the first EHSV from fluid communication with the actuator with the first EHSV in the non-operational mode of the first EHSV.
Regarding Claim 3,
The system as recited in claim 2, further comprising a second transfer valve (60, ex. Col. 5, lines 47-57) connected in fluid communication with the second EHSV via the second extend actuator line and via the second retract actuator line, the second transfer valve being configured to connect the second EHSV in fluid communication with the actuator in the normal operation mode of the second EHSV, and to disconnect the second EHSV from fluid communication with the actuator with the second EHSV in the non-operational mode of the second EHSV.
Regarding Claim 4,
The system as recited in claim 3, further comprising a first solenoid valve (58) operatively connected to actuate the first transfer valve, wherein the first solenoid valve is in fluid communication with an actuation port of the first transfer valve, and with the pressure supply and the pressure return for selectively pressurizing/depressurizing the actuation port of the first transfer valve.
Regarding Claim 5,
The system as recited in claim 4, further comprising a second solenoid valve (58) operatively connected to actuate the second transfer valve, wherein the second solenoid valve is in fluid communication with an actuation port of the second transfer valve, and with the pressure supply and the pressure return for selectively pressurizing/depressurizing the actuation port of the second transfer valve.
Regarding Claim 6,
The system as recited in claim 5, further comprising a controller (70, ex. Col. 5, line 64-Col. 9, line 7) operatively connected to control the first and second EHSVs to control the actuator in the normal operation mode of the first EHSV, the second EHSV, or both the first EHSV or the second EHSV (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17).
Regarding Claim 7,
The system as recited in claim 6, wherein the controller operatively connected to control the first solenoid valve to disconnect the first EHSV from the actuator with the first EHSV in the non-operational mode (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17).
Regarding Claim 8,
The system as recited in claim 7, wherein the controller is operatively connected to control the second solenoid valve to disconnect the second EHSV from the actuator with the second EHSV in the non-operational mode (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17).
Regarding Claim 9,
The system as recited in claim 8, wherein the first actuator extend line and the second actuator extend line join into a shared actuator extend line (between 80 and C1) that connects in fluid communication with the extend chamber of the actuator, and wherein the first actuator retract line and the second actuator retract line join into a shared actuator retract line (between 82 and C2) that connects in fluid communication with the retract chamber of the actuator.
Regarding Claim 10,
The system as recited in claim 9, wherein the first transfer valve includes a piston (in 60, Fig. 3) configured in a first position to allow flow through the first actuator extend line and to allow flow through the first actuator retract line, and in a second position to block flow through the first actuator extend line and to block flow through the first actuator retract line.
Regarding Claim 11,
The system as recited in claim 10, wherein the second transfer valve includes a piston (in 60, Fig. 3) configured in a first position to allow flow through the second actuator extend line and to allow flow through the second actuator retract line, and in a second position to block flow through the second actuator extend line and to block flow through the second actuator retract line.
Regarding Claim 12,
The system as recited in claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to disable the first EHSV and continue operating the actuator at reduced power using only the second EHSV (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17).
Regarding Claim 13,
The system as recited in claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to lock the actuator in over pressure event during failure of first EHSV by disabling the first EHSV and the second EHSV (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17).
Regarding Claim 14,
The system as recited in claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to disable the second EHSV and continue operating the actuator at reduced power using only the first EHSV (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17).
Regarding Claim 15,
A method comprising:
using a first electrohydraulic servo valve (EHSVs) (any one of SVM1-SVM7, ex. Col. 6, lines 10-21, shown in Fig. 4, one servo valve shown in Fig. 3, ex. Col. 5, lines 23-60) arranged in parallel with a second electrohydraulic servo valve (EHSV) to move an actuator during a normal operation mode; and upon failure of one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV, continuing to move the actuator with a functional one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV in a backup mode;
wherein the first EHSV and the second EHSV have a maximum combined capacity configured to operate the actuator at a first slew flow during the normal operation mode of each of the first EHSV and the second EHSV; and
wherein the first EHSV or the second EHSV has maximum single capacity configured to operate the actuator at a second slew flow less than the first slew flow when one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV is in the backup mode.
Regarding Claim 16,
The method as recited in claim 15, wherein continuing to move the actuator includes disconnecting the failed one of the EHSVs from fluid communication with the actuator (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17).
Regarding Claim 17,
The method as recited in claim 16, wherein disconnecting the failed one of the EHSVs includes using a first transfer valve (60, Fig. 3) dedicated to the failed EHSV to disconnect an actuator extend line (ex. with “TO C1”/74) and an actuator retract line (ex. with “TO C2”/76) to block fluid communication between the failed EHSV and the actuator.
Regarding Claim 18,
The method as recited in claim 17, wherein using the transfer valve includes controlling the transfer valve with a solenoid valve (58).
Regarding Claim 19,
The method as recited in claim 15, further comprising locking the actuator in position upon detection of an overpressure event (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17).
Regarding Claim 20,
The method as recited in claim 15, selecting one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV to solely drive the actuator, where supply pressure is sufficiently high to meet the second flew flow and a target force output (ex. Col. 6, line 41-Col. 8, line 17).
Claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alvarez et al. (ES 2185502, on applicant’s IDS).
Regarding Claim 1,
A system comprising:
a first electrohydraulic servo valve (EHSV) (ex. 1, Figs. 1, 2) configured to be in fluid communication with a pressure supply (supply 12) and with a pressure return (return 13), the first EHSV including a first actuator extend line (ex. with 22/26) and a first actuator retract line (ex. with 23/27) and being operatively connected to pressurize one of the first actuator extend line or the first actuator retract line;
a second EHSV (ex. 2) configured to be in fluid communication with the pressure supply (supply 12) and with the pressure return (return 13), the second EHSV including a second actuator extend line (ex. from to 2 with 26) and a second actuator retract line (ex. from 2 with 27) and being operatively connected to pressurize one of the second actuator extend line or the second actuator retract line; and
an actuator (with 4) with an extend chamber (ex. chamber with connection to 26) in fluid communication with both of the first and second extend actuator lines, and a retract chamber (ex. chamber with connection to 27) in fluid communication with both of the first and second retract actuator lines for extending an end effector (end of piston rod, note transducer 5) when the first and second EHSVs pressurize the extend chamber, and for retracting the end effector when the first and second EHSVs pressurize the retract chamber;
wherein the first EHSV and the second EHSV have a maximum combined capacity configured to operate the actuator at a first slew flow during a normal operation mode of each of the first EHSV and the second EHSV (ex. 0021]); and
wherein the first EHSV or the second EHSV has maximum single capacity configured to operate the actuator at a second slew rate flow than the first slew flow when one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV is in a non-operational mode (ex. [0022-0024]).
Regarding Claim 2,
The system as recited in claim 1, further comprising a first transfer valve (30, Fig. 3) connected in fluid communication with the first EHSV via the first extend actuator line and via the first retract actuator line, the first transfer valve being configured to connect the first EHSV in fluid communication with the actuator in the normal operation mode of the first EHSV, and to disconnect the first EHSV from fluid communication with the actuator with the first EHSV in the non-operational mode of the first EHSV (ex. [0022-0024]).
Regarding Claim 15,
A method comprising:
using a first electrohydraulic servo valve (EHSV) (ex. 1, Figs. 1, 2) arranged in parallel with a second electrohydraulic servo valve (EHSV) (ex. 2) to move an actuator (with 4) during a normal operation mode (ex. [0021]); and upon failure of one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV, continuing to move the actuator with a functional one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV in a backup mode (ex. [0022, 0024]);
wherein the first EHSV and the second EHSV have a maximum combined capacity configured to operate the actuator at a first slew flow during the normal operation mode of each of the first EHSV and the second EHSV (ex. [0021]); and
wherein the first EHSV or the second EHSV has maximum single capacity configured to operate the actuator at a second slew flow less than the first slew flow when one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV is in the backup mode (ex. [0022-0024]).
Regarding Claim 16,
The method as recited in claim 15, wherein continuing to move the actuator includes disconnecting (see 30, Fig. 3) the failed one of the EHSVs from fluid communication with the actuator (ex. [0022-0024]).
Regarding Claim 17,
The method as recited in claim 16, wherein disconnecting the failed one of the EHSVs includes using a first transfer valve (30, Fig. 3) dedicated to the failed EHSV to disconnect an actuator extend line and an actuator retract line to block fluid communication between the failed EHSV and the actuator (ex. [0022-0024]).
Regarding Claim 19,
The method as recited in claim 15, further comprising locking the actuator in position upon detection of an overpressure event (ex. [0022, 0024]).
Regarding Claim 20,
selecting one of the first EHSV and the second EHSV to solely drive the actuator, where supply pressure is sufficiently high to meet the second flew flow and a target force output (ex. [0022, 0024]).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Winyard.
Regarding Claim 18, Alvarez teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
The method as recited in claim 17, wherein using the transfer valve includes controlling the transfer valve with a solenoid valve.
Alvarez discloses using the transfer valve includes controlling the transfer valve with pressure (at 31, Fig. 3, ex. [0023]) but does not specify this is accomplished with a solenoid valve.
Winyard teaches
For controlling a valve,
wherein using the transfer valve (60) includes controlling the transfer valve with a solenoid valve (58, Fig. 3, ex. Col. 5, lines 47-56).
Since both references are directed to controlling valves, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure control of Alvarez to use a solenoid valve for controlling pressure as taught by Winyard in order to provide an appropriate manner of controlling the actuation of the transfer valve that would perform equally well with predictable results.
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 MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am-4pm.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights