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 submitted 04/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 remain pending. Claims 4, 6, 13, and 16 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered and were found persuasive. However, the amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection. Please see new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 each recite “wherein the airfoil is formed to have an inner surface defining the inner cavity, wherein a wall thickness of the airfoil is measured from the inner surface to the outer surface of the airfoil, wherein a distance from the outer surface of the cover to the inner surface of the blade body is greater than a wall thickness of the blade body at a region spaced from the groove” which is not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. Applicant indicates support for the subject claim limitations to be found in Figure 3 however the only structure of Figure 3 fitting the subject claim limitations is an “additional groove” which is formed “in a region distanced to the trailing edge” (Paragraph 0020) and the cover of the groove of the claimed invention is required to be “adjacent the trailing edge” (disclosed in Paragraph 0013 by Applicant as being between 1-20 percent of the total length of the airfoil in the axial direction at the respective radial position) and that the fluid passage be inclined relative to the groove (described in Par 0080 as relating to passages 116 adjacent to the trailing edge as shown in Figs 3-5), neither of which is disclosed by the groove spaced from the trailing edge in Figure 3. Moreover, there is no inner surface as claimed to be measured relative to the outer surface of covers (5) in grooves located adjacent the trailing edge (e.g. as shown in section Z in Figure 3).
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-12, 15, and 17-20 depend from one of claims 1 and 14 and inherit all deficiencies of the parent claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9828915 to Miranda in view of US 10933481 to Dyson in further view of DE 19944923 to Brandl in even further view of US 20160146019 to Pizano.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Miranda discloses a method for manufacturing a blade for a gas turbine (see abstract; blade 26, Fig 2), the method comprising:
forming a blade body including an airfoil (airfoil 32, Fig 3) that extends in a chord or axial direction between a leading edge and a trailing edge (36 and 40, respectively, Fig 3),
the airfoil having an outer surface (outer surface 76 of substrate 74, Fig 8) that defines a pressure side surface and a suction side surface meeting at the leading edge and the trailing edge (pressure side surface 58 and suction side surface 60, Fig 3);
forming a groove (recesses 68 including bottom surface 70 and micro-channels 30, Figs 5/8; space receiving preform 80, Fig 6) in the outer surface of the airfoil in at least one of the pressure side surface and the suction side surface (Figs 5-6/8; Col 7 Lns 23-27) adjacent to the trailing edge (Figs 5-6);
forming a fluid passage (inlet passages 64, Figs 6/8) extending between an internal cavity of the blade body (plenum 84, Fig 6) and the groove (Figs 6/8).
positioning a cover (preform 80, Figs 5-6/8) on the blade body such that it covers the groove (Figs 5-6/8) and such that an outer surface of the cover forms a continuous surface with the outer surface of the airfoil (Figs 6/8), and such that a central axis of the fluid passage intersects the cover (Figs 6/8); and
joining the cover to the airfoil so that the cover and the groove define a cooling channel (micro-channels 30, Figs 5-6/8),
wherein the airfoil is formed to have an inner surface (inner surface 78, Fig 6) defining the inner cavity (Fig 6), wherein a wall thickness of the airfoil is measured from the inner surface to the outer surface of the airfoil (as defined), and
a distance from the outer surface of the cover to the inner surface of the blade body (as defined).
(ii) Miranda suggests (channels 64 appearing inclined relative to a groove, e.g. channel 64 to the left of line of reference marker 80 in Figure 6 appears inclined with groove, but is not sufficiently clear) does not explicitly disclose the fluid passage being inclined relative to the groove.
(iii) Dyson is also in the field of cooling passages (see title) and teaches:
forming a groove (metering end 224, Fig 7-10; diffuser area 226, Figs 7/10; diffuser section 242, Figs 8-9/11-13/15);
forming a fluid passage (metering section 222, Figs 7-10/12/14-16) extending between an internal cavity (cooling chamber 216, Figs 7-10/14-16) and the groove (Figs 7-10/12/14-15);
the fluid passage being inclined relative to the groove (Figs 7-10/12/15; angle β, Fig 8);
positioning a cover (cap element 250, Figs 7-10/12/15) that covers the groove (Figs 7-10/12/15), and
such that a central axis of the fluid passage intersects the cover (Figs 7-10/12/15).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid passage as disclosed by Miranda to be inclined as taught by Dyson for the purpose of reducing overall coolant usage thereby increasing turbine efficiency while maintaining acceptable part temperature (Col 1 Lns 49-50), spreading coolant better, benefitting packaging, and creating high heat transfer on the surface (Col 9 Lns 45-52), extending part life through reductions in metal temperature and decreased likelihood of TBC spallation, reduce the likelihood of unplanned outages, and increase the duration of time in which parts need to be repaired (Col 12 Lns 6-13).
(v) Miranda as modified by Dyson does not teach wherein the groove and an inner surface of the cover are formed with at least one of projections and recesses, and the projections and recesses of the groove and the cover face each other, and the projections and recesses of the groove and the cover spaced apart in the width direction of the cover.
(vi) Brandl is also in the field of gas turbine blades (see title) and teaches a groove (cavities 9, Figs 10C/19-20) and a cover (wall on pressure side 3 defining cavity 9, Fig 10C; closure 41, Fig 19), wherein the groove and an inner surface of the cover are formed with at least one of projections and recesses (Fig 10C), and the projections and recesses of the groove and the cover face each other (Fig 10C), and the projections and recesses of the groove and the cover spaced apart in a width direction of the cover (Fig 10C).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groove and cover as taught by the combined teachings of Miranda as modified by Dyson with the above aforementioned projections and recesses as taught by Brandl for the purpose of locally adjusting the heat transfer (Par 0047) and increasing cooling effectiveness (Par 0055).
(viii) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl does not teach wherein the distance from the outer surface of the cover to the inner surface of the blade body is greater than a wall thickness of the blade body at a region spaced from the groove.
(ix) Pizano is also in the field of airfoils and teaches a distance from an outer surface of a cover (326 of pocket 310, Fig 3B) to an inner surface of a blade body (inner surface 303, Fig 3B) is greater than a wall thickness of the blade body at a region spaced from the groove (leading edge of pocket 310 has a distance greater than wall thickness of pocket 312 and further greater than wall thickness at airfoil wall 301, Fig 3B).
(x) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance from the outer surface of the cover to the inner surface of the blade to be greater than a wall thickness of the blade body at a region spaced from the groove as claimed for the purpose of achieving a desired flow rate within the groove to balance internal heat pickup and maintain a desired heat transfer coefficient (Par 0042).
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the method of claim 1.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein forming the blade body includes casting the blade body (Col 5 Lns 40-41).
(c) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the method of claim 1.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein the groove is formed when forming the blade body (Col 5 Lns 40-41), or wherein the groove is formed by applying a subtractive manufacturing process to the outer surface of the airfoil after forming the blade body (Col 5 Lns 42-48).
(d) Regarding claim 5:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the method of claim 1.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein the wall thickness is within a range between 1.5 and 4 times of a depth of the groove measured from the outer surface of the airfoil to a bottom of the groove (reasonably disclosed in Figs 6/8).
(e) Regarding claim 7:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the method of claim 1.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein the groove is formed with a support (bottom surface 70, Fig 8) defining a support surface (bottom surface 70 supports preform 80, Fig 8) being oriented such that a normal vector to the support surface has a component perpendicular to a region of the outer surface of the airfoil adjacent to the groove (Fig 8).
(f) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the method of claim 7.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein the support is formed by a step in a sidewall of the groove (Fig 8), the support surface connecting two laterally spaced portions of the sidewall (Figs 5-6/8).
(g) Regarding claim 9:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the method of claim 1.
(ii) Brandl further teaches:
wherein the cover includes a spacer (pins 42, Fig 19) protruding from an inner surface of the cover (Fig 19), and
wherein positioning the cover on the blade body includes introducing the spacer into the groove so that the spacer contacts a bottom or a support surface of the groove (Fig 19, Par 0055) to hold the outer surface of the cover in a position in which it forms a continuous surface with the outer surface of the airfoil (Fig 19).
(h) Regarding claim 11:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the method of claim 1.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein the cover has a thickness in a range between 0.5 mm and 2.0 mm (0.125mm to 12.7 mm, preferably 0.5 mm; Col 8 Lns 64-67).
(i) Regarding claim 12:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the method of claim 1.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein joining the cover to the blade body includes material bonding (Col 9 Lns 5-14).
(j) Regarding claim 14:
(i) Miranda discloses a blade for a gas turbine (see abstract; blade 26, Fig 2), comprising:
a blade body including an airfoil (airfoil 32, Fig 3) that extends in a chord or axial direction between a leading edge and a trailing edge (36 and 40, respectively, Fig 3),
the airfoil having an outer surface (outer surface 76 of substrate 74, Fig 8) that defines a pressure side surface and a suction side surface meeting at the leading edge and the trailing edge (pressure side surface 58 and suction side surface 60, Fig 3),
wherein a groove (recesses 68 including bottom surface 70 and micro-channels 30, Figs 5/8; space receiving preform 80, Fig 6) is formed in at least one of the pressure side surface and the suction side surface of the airfoil (Figs 5-6/8; Col 7 Lns 23-27);
a fluid passage (inlet passages 64, Figs 6/8) extending between an internal cavity of the blade body (plenum 84, Fig 6) and the groove (Figs 6/8);
a cover (preform 80, Figs 5-6/8) positioned such that it covers the groove (Figs 5-6/8) and such that an outer surface of the cover forms a continuous surface with the outer surface of the airfoil (Figs 6/8), wherein a central axis of the fluid passage intersects the cover (Figs 6/8); and
wherein the cover is joined to the airfoil (Col 9 Lns 5-14), and
wherein the cover and the groove define a cooling channel (micro-channels 30, Figs 5-6/8).
(ii) Miranda suggests (channels 64 appearing inclined relative to a groove, e.g. channel 64 to the left of line of reference marker 80 in Figure 6 appears inclined with groove, but is not sufficiently clear) does not explicitly disclose the fluid passage being inclined relative to the groove.
(iii) Dyson is also in the field of cooling passages (see title) and teaches:
a groove (metering end 224, Fig 7-10; diffuser area 226, Figs 7/10; diffuser section 242, Figs 8-9/11-13/15);
a fluid passage (metering section 222, Figs 7-10/12/14-16) extending between an internal cavity (cooling chamber 216, Figs 7-10/14-16) and the groove (Figs 7-10/12/14-15);
the fluid passage being inclined relative to the groove (Figs 7-10/12/15; angle β, Fig 8);
a cover (cap element 250, Figs 7-10/12/15) that covers the groove (Figs 7-10/12/15), and
wherein a central axis of the fluid passage intersects the cover (Figs 7-10/12/15).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid passage as disclosed by Miranda to be inclined as taught by Dyson for the purpose of reducing overall coolant usage thereby increasing turbine efficiency while maintaining acceptable part temperature (Col 1 Lns 49-50), spreading coolant better, benefitting packaging, and creating high heat transfer on the surface (Col 9 Lns 45-52), extending part life through reductions in metal temperature and decreased likelihood of TBC spallation, reduce the likelihood of unplanned outages, and increase the duration of time in which parts need to be repaired (Col 12 Lns 6-13).
(v) Miranda as modified by Dyson does not teach wherein the groove and an inner surface of the cover are formed with at least one of projections and recesses, and the projections and recesses of the groove and the cover face each other, and the projections and recesses of the groove and the cover spaced apart in the width direction of the cover.
(vi) Brandl is also in the field of gas turbine blades (see title) and teaches a groove (cavities 9, Figs 10C/19-20) and a cover (wall on pressure side 3 defining cavity 9, Fig 10C; closure 41, Fig 19), wherein the groove and an inner surface of the cover are formed with at least one of projections and recesses (Fig 10C), and the projections and recesses of the groove and the cover face each other (Fig 10C), and the projections and recesses of the groove and the cover spaced apart in a width direction of the cover (Fig 10C).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groove and cover as taught by the combined teachings of Miranda as modified by Dyson with the above aforementioned projections and recesses as taught by Brandl for the purpose of locally adjusting the heat transfer (Par 0047) and increasing cooling effectiveness (Par 0055).
(viii) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl does not teach wherein the distance from the outer surface of the cover to the inner surface of the blade body is greater than a wall thickness of the blade body at a region spaced from the groove.
(ix) Pizano is also in the field of airfoils and teaches a distance from an outer surface of a cover (326 of pocket 310, Fig 3B) to an inner surface of a blade body (inner surface 303, Fig 3B) is greater than a wall thickness of the blade body at a region spaced from the groove (leading edge of pocket 310 has a distance greater than wall thickness of pocket 312 and further greater than wall thickness at airfoil wall 301, Fig 3B).
(x) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance from the outer surface of the cover to the inner surface of the blade to be greater than a wall thickness of the blade body at a region spaced from the groove as claimed for the purpose of achieving a desired flow rate within the groove to balance internal heat pickup and maintain a desired heat transfer coefficient (Par 0042).
(k) Regarding claim 15:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano the blade of claim 14.
(ii) Miranda further discloses:
wherein the airfoil is formed to have an inner surface (inner surface 78, Figs 6/8) defining an inner cavity (plenum 84, Fig 6),
wherein a wall thickness of the airfoil is measured from the inner surface to the outer surface of the airfoil (distance between inner surface 78 and outer surface 78, Figs 6/8),
wherein the wall thickness is within a range between 1.5 and 4 times of a depth of the groove measured from the outer surface of the airfoil to a bottom of the groove (reasonably disclosed in Figs 6/8).
(l) Regarding claim 17:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the blade of claim 14.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein the groove is formed with a support (bottom surface 70, Fig 8) defining a support surface (bottom surface 70 supports preform 80, Fig 8) being oriented such that a normal vector to the support surface has a component perpendicular to a region of the outer surface of the blade body adjacent to the groove (Fig 8).
(m) Regarding claim 18:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the blade of claim 17.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein the support is formed by a step in a sidewall of the groove (Fig 8), the support surface connecting two laterally spaced portions of the sidewall (Figs 5-6/8).
(o) Regarding claim 20:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the blade of claim 14.
(ii) Brandl further teaches wherein the cover includes a spacer protruding from an inner surface of the cover (pins 42, Fig 19, Par 0055).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9828915 to Miranda in view of US 10933481 to Dyson in further view of DE 19944923 to Brandl in even further view of US 20160146019 to Pizano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8601691 to Rebak in even further view of US 9151179 to Lacy.
(a) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the method of claim 1.
(ii) Miranda does not disclose:
introducing a spacing structure into the groove,
wherein positioning the cover on the blade body includes positioning the cover on the spacing structure so that the spacing structure holds the cover in a position in which the outer surface of the cover forms a continuous surface with the outer surface of the airfoil; and
thermally or chemically removing the spacing structure after joining the cover to the blade body.
(iii) Rebak is also in the field of gas turbine engines (see background) and teaches a method of forming a cooling channel (see abstract) comprising:
forming a groove (grooves 132, Fig 3),
introducing a spacing structure into the groove (sacrificial filler 32, Figs 5-6),
positioning a cover (permanent filler 33, Figs 6) on the blade body including the step of positioning the cover on the spacing structure so that the spacing structure holds the cover in a position in which the outer surface of the cover forms a continuous surface with the outer surface of the airfoil (Fig 6); and
removing the spacing structure after joining the cover to the blade body (Col 5 Lns 15-37; Col 8 Lns 28-33).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Miranda with the above aforementioned spacing structure as taught by Rebak for the purpose of locating the cover to define a cooling channel having a well defined depth, providing support to a coating during it deposition, and avoiding a difficult and time consuming leaching process (Col 1 Lns 52-53; Col 2 Lns 2-8; and Col 12 Lns 9-15)
(v) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano as even further modified by Rebak does not teach introducing a liquid solvent into the cooling channel, wherein the liquid solvent dissolves the spacing structure.
(vi) Lacy is also in the field of turbine engines (see abstract) and teaches a cooling channel (recesses 274, Fig 20) comprising a spacing structure (filler material 276, Fig 20), introducing a liquid solvent (Col 13 Lns 52-54) into the cooling channel, wherein the liquid solvent dissolves the spacing structure (Col 13 Lns 52-54, Figs 20-21).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by the combined teachings of Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano as even further modified by Rebak with the above aforementioned step of introducing a liquid solvent into the cooling channel as taught by Lacy for the purpose of removing the spacing structure and allowing for the use of metal-based spacing structures (Col 13 Lns 32-34/52-54).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9828915 to Miranda in view of US 10933481 to Dyson in further view of DE 19944923 to Brandl in even further view of US 20160146019 to Pizano as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US 9540934 to Kuwabara.
(a) Regarding claim 19:
(i) Miranda as modified by Dyson as further modified by Brandl as even further modified by Pizano teaches the blade of claim 17.
(ii) Miranda further discloses wherein the support is formed by respective end portions of opposing sidewalls of the groove (sidewalls comprising bottom surface 76, Figs 6/8),
wherein the support surface is formed by a surface of each sidewall (bottom surface 76, Figs 6/8),
(iii) Miranda does not disclose wherein the surfaces of the sidewalls, at least in the end portions, define a cross-section of the groove that tapers towards a bottom of the groove.
(iv) Kuwabara is also in the field of gas turbines (see title) and teaches a blade (36, Fig 6) comprising:
a groove (47/47a, Figs 4-5) and a cover (cover 48/48a and weld beads 49, Figs 4-5),
the groove comprising a support (first channel portion 471, Figs 4-5),
the support is formed by respective end portions of opposing sidewalls of the groove (sidewalls of first channel portion 471, Figs 4-5),
wherein a support surface is formed by a surface of each sidewall (outer angled surfaces of sidewalls of first channel portion 471, Figs 4-5),
wherein the surfaces of the sidewalls, at least in the end portions, define a cross-section of the groove that tapers towards a bottom of the groove (surfaces shown as tapering inward from surface 452, Figs 4-5).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surfaces of the sidewalls as disclosed by Miranda with the above aforementioned surfaces of the sidewalls as taught by Kuwabara for the purpose of fitting the cover to the groove (Col 7 Lns 56-57).
(iii) Kuwabara further teaches:
wherein a groove (channel portion 47 including first channel portion 471 and second channel portion 472, Fig 4) and a cover (cover portion 48, Fig 4),
wherein the cover includes a spacer (outer peripheral surface side turbulator 482, Fig 4; or both of outer peripheral surface side turbulator 482 and side turbulator 482, Fig 5) protruding from an inner surface of the cover (Figs 4-5), and
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover as disclosed by Miranda with the above aforementioned spacer as taught by Kuwabara for the purpose of disturbing a flow of the cooling air so as to destroy a boundary layer of the cooling air thereby increasing flow rate near a surface and improving heat conductivity which reduces the amount of cooling air needed and improves the efficiency of the gas turbine engine (Col 2 Lns 56-64; Col 3 Lns 59-60 and Col 4 Lns 1-13).
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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights