DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “transport system,” “conveying channel,” and “conveyor belt” (claims 1 and 5), “picking and laying apparatus” and “rope” (claim 3) 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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “one or more lifting track.” This should be rephrased as -- one or more lifting tracks--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 5 (and all claims that depend therefrom) 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 1, line 23 recites “when a mining operation is carried out,” and line 25 recites “when a mining area needs to be changed.” It is unclear how these conditional limitations further define the apparatus.
Further regarding claim 1, line 24 recites “where the mining vehicle carries out the mining operations” and line 25 recites “the main hull is driven forwards…” These appear to be method steps or intended use. It is unclear how these further limit the recited apparatus.
Claim 5 recites a transport system, ore storage rooms, a conveying channel and a conveyor belt. It is unclear if these are the same transport system, ore storage rooms, conveying channel and conveyor belt recited in parent claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, the anchor cable, anchor heads, transport system, ore storage rooms, conveying channel and conveyor belt are all recited in parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaffers US 2015/0367917 in view of Beato US 6,601,649 and Wijning US 8,992,276, and alternatively also in view of Kjersem US 8,453,588.
Regarding claim 1, Jaffers teaches a deep-sea mining system based on a clean energy platform, comprising:
a main hull 110, a mining system 120, a mooring system and a propulsion apparatus 114, 116, 118;
wherein a middle of the main hull is provided with a workshop;
the mining system comprises a plurality of mining vehicles 126, 128, 130, wherein the plurality of mining vehicles are placed in the workshop (note that the workshop is wherever the mining vehicles are stored);
the main hull further comprises a transport system [0017] and an ore storage rooms 400, 420, 440, 460;
the ore storage rooms are arranged on a left side and a right side of the workshop;
the transport system comprises a conveying channel (whatever area the conveyor operates in);
the conveying channels are respectively connected to the front end and the rear end of the main hull and pass through the ore storage room; and
a conveyor belt is arranged in the conveying channel; and
the propulsion apparatuses are arranged at a front end and a rear end of a bottom of the main hull.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Jaffers Figure 1
If applicant does not agree that the workshop and/or vehicle storage is in the middle of the main hull, or the location of the storage rooms and/or conveying channels, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the vehicles near the center in order to balance weight and/or free up deck space where desired, and place storage rooms and conveyors along the hull in order to optimize workflow, through put or platform balancing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In applicant does not agree that the conveyor comprises a belt, then it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute a conveyor belt for the conveyor scraper or chain in order to enable the conveyor system to handle larger objects, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Jaffers does not teach details of the mooring system. Beato teaches a floating mining system 10 in which the mooring system comprises winches (column 11, lines 53-58), anchor cable cabins (wherever the anchor rests), anchor cables 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 and anchor heads 44, 46, wherein the winches are arranged at four corners of a top of the main hull, the anchor cable cabin is arranged below each of the winches, and the anchor cable has a first end connected to the winch and a second end connected to the anchor head, wherein each anchor head is a gravity anchor head shaped like a claw (see figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mining system of Jaffers with anchors, cables and winches at the top of each corner of the hull as taught by Beato in order to ensure that the system can maintain a fixed location at sea. If applicant does not agree that the anchor is below the winch, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the winches above the anchor cabins in order to balance weight and/or increase accessibility for maintenance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Jaffers does not teach that the propulsion system is electric. Wijning teaches a floating mining system in which electric propulsion apparatuses are arranged at a front end and a rear end of a bottom of the main hull (column 4, lines 52-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mining system of Jaffers with electric propulsors as taught by Wijning in order to utilize a thruster with increased reliability and decreased maintenance needs.
Jaffers does not teach that each anchor cable is a synthetic fiber cable selected from the group consisting of a polyester anchor cable and a high-strength polyethylene anchor cable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the anchor cable from polyester or polyethylene in order utilize a strong, lightweight and corrosion-proof material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Alternatively, Kjersem teaches an anchored floating platform 1 in which the anchor lines 20 comprise “artificial fibres of, for example, polyester or polyethylene” (column 12, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the anchor cables of Jaffers with polyester or polyethylene as taught by Kjersem in order to utilize a strong, lightweight and corrosion-proof material.
As taught, when a mining operation is carried out, the plurality of anchor heads are configured to sink into seabed to form a quadrilateral area where the mining vehicle carries out the mining operation; and when a mining area needs to be changed, the main hull is configured to be driven forward or backward by controlling the plurality of winches to pick up and lay down the corresponding anchor heads with help of the electric propulsion apparatus. Please note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Jaffers, Beato and Wijning, together or in view of Kjersem teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As detailed above, Beato also teaches that the anchor head is a gravity anchor head shaped like a claw (see figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mining system of Jaffers with anchors, cables and winches at the top of each corner of the hull as taught by Beato in order to ensure that the system can maintain a fixed location at sea.
Jaffers does not teach that each anchor cable is a synthetic fiber cable selected from the group consisting of a polyester anchor cable and a high-strength polyethylene anchor cable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the anchor cable from polyester or polyethylene in order utilize a strong, lightweight and corrosion-proof material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Alternatively, Kjersem teaches an anchored floating platform 1 in which the anchor lines 20 comprise “artificial fibres of, for example, polyester or polyethylene” (column 12, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the anchor cables of Jaffers with polyester or polyethylene as taught by Kjersem in order to utilize a strong, lightweight and corrosion-proof material.
Regarding claim 5, Jaffers, Beato and Wijning teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As detailed above, Jaffers also teaches that:
the main hull further comprises a transport system [0017] and an ore storage rooms 400, 420, 440, 460;
the ore storage rooms are arranged on a left side and a right side of the workshop;
the transport system comprises a conveying channel (whatever area the conveyor operates in);
the conveying channels are respectively connected to the front end and the rear end of the main hull and pass through the ore storage room; and
a conveyor belt is arranged in the conveying channel.
In applicant does not agree that the conveyor comprises a belt, then it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute a conveyor belt for the conveyor scraper or chain in order to enable the conveyor system to handle larger objects, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
If applicant does not agree about the location of the storage rooms and/or conveying channels, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the storage rooms and conveyors along the hull in order to optimize workflow or through put, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaffers US 2015/0367917 in view of Beato US 6,601,649, Wijning US 8,992,276 and Schmidt US 4,878,450, and alternatively also in view of Kjersem US 8,453,588.
Regarding claim 3, Jaffers, Beato and Wijning, together or also in view of Kjersem, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jaffers also teaches:
a moon pool 146 and a working tower 122, 124, 144, wherein the moon pool comprises a lifting platform and one or more lifting tracks;
a picking and laying apparatus is arranged inside the working tower [0024];
the picking and laying apparatus is connected to the mining vehicle by means of a rope (the winch that unloads the mining vehicle must be connected by some form of rope);
the moon pool runs through the bottom of the main hull and is arranged below and communicated with the workshop; and
the working tower is arranged above the workshop.
As detailed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the vehicles near the center in order to balance weight and/or free up deck space where desired, and locate the winch in the working tower and place it above the moon pool in order to lower the vehicles in a protected area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Jaffers does not teach details of the lift system. Schmidt teaches a boat lift system comprising lifting tracks 111 arranged on two sides of a deployment area; the lifting track is vertically arranged along a wall 10a towards the bottom of the main hull 10; and a lifting platform 121 is connected to the lifting track. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the deployment system of Jaffers with a lifting platform in lifting tracks as taught by Schmidt in order to easily lower and lift the vehicles out of the water.
As modified, the lifting tracks are arranged on two sides of the moon pool; and the lifting track is vertically arranged along a workshop towards the bottom of the main hull. As stated above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the lifting tracks/platform in the moon pool in order to lower the vehicles in a protected area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaffers US 2015/0367917 in view of Beato US 6,601,649, Wijning US 8,992,276, Schmidt US 4,878,450 and Cao CN 111852479, and alternatively also in view of Kjersem US 8,453,588.
Regarding claim 4, Jaffers, Beato, Wijning and Schmidt, together or also in view of Kjersem, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Jaffers does not teach an intermediate station between the picking and laying apparatus and the mining vehicle. Cao teaches an underwater mining system which comprises an intermediate station 61-64, the picking and laying apparatus is connected to a first end 61 of the intermediate station, and a second end 64 of the intermediate station is connected to the mining vehicle 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the deployment system of Jaffers with an intermediate station as taught by Cao in order to provide a closer support system and midway material storage. As taught, the intermediate station is connected to the plurality of mining vehicles.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaffers US 2015/0367917 in view of Beato US 6,601,649, Wijning US 8,992,276 and Sheng CN 106035143, and alternatively also in view of Kjersem US 8,453,588.
Regarding claim 6, Jaffers, Beato and Wijning, together or also in view of Kjersem, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jaffers does not teach a renewable energy power generation system. Sheng teaches a marine platform comprising a renewable energy power generation system, wherein the renewable energy power generation system supplies power for the main hull; the renewable energy power generation system comprises a solar power generation system (page 2), a wave power generation system 9, 19, 901 and a wind power generation system (page 4); the solar power generation system is arranged at the top of the main hull (page 2); the wave power generation systems are arranged at the front end and the rear end of the main hull (see figure 1); and the wind power generation system is arranged at the top of the main hull (page4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mining system of Jaffers with wind, wave and solar power generation as taught by Sheng in order to increase the operation time at sea and reduce the environmental impact.
If applicant does not agree about the locations of the systems, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the wind and solar generating systems on top of the platform and the wave generating apparatus at the front and rear of the hull in order to provide each system with the optimum energy-gathering environment, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 7, Jaffers, Beato, Wijning and Sheng, together or also in view of Kjersem, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Jaffers also teaches that the main hull is provided with a plurality of cabins 180. Sheng also teaches that the solar power generation system is arranged at the top of the main hull (page 2), but does not specifically teach that it is above the cabins. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the solar generating system on top of the cabins in order to provide the panels clear sky access and/or keep them out of the way of damage, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Sheng does not explicitly teach that the solar power system comprises a photovoltaic panel, however it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute photovoltaic panel for the solar power system in order to utilize a proven system that directly produces electricity, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Jaffers, Beato, Wijning and Sheng, together or also in view of Kjersem, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Sheng also teaches that the wave power generation system comprises a wave power generation panel 9, a trussed support arm 901, a hinge 10 and a hydraulic cylinder 19; equipment rooms (wherever the hydraulic cylinder is located); the wave power generation panel is connected to the trussed support arm and arranged outside the equipment room by means of the hinge; the hydraulic cylinder is arranged in the equipment room; and an output shaft of the hydraulic cylinder is connected to one end of the wave power generation panel. As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mining system of Jaffers with wave power generation as taught by Sheng in order to increase the operation time at sea and reduce the environmental impact.
Neither Jaffers nor Sheng explicitly that the equipment rooms are arranged at the front end and the rear end of the main hull, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the wave generating apparatus at the front and rear of the hull in order to provide the apparatus with the maximum amount of wave energy, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Jaffers, Beato, Wijning and Sheng, together or also in view of Kjersem, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Sheng also teaches that the wind power generation system comprises a wind turbine, and the wind turbine is arranged at the top of the main hull (page 4). If applicant does not agree that Sheng’s “wind powered generator” is a wind turbine, then it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute wind turbines for the wind powered generator in order to utilize a proven system that directly produces electricity, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
If applicant does not agree that the wind turbines are on top of the main hull, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the wind generating systems on top of the main hull in order to provide the system with the optimum wind energy-gathering environment, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Sheng does not teach a plurality of wind turbines, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add more wind turbines in order to increase energy production, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to previously issued drawing objections (due to claimed subject matter not shown), the applicant argues that MPEP § 608.02 states that “drawings must show claimed features only ‘where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.’” (page 8). First, it is an important distinction to note that while MPEP § 608.02 does state “The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented,” but the crucial “only” is the applicant’s interpretation. This portion of the MPEP means that drawings must be provided where necessary to understand the invention.
However, if we read further to MPEP § 608.02(d), an explanation of 37 CFR 1.83(a) is given, which further clarifies that “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” So while § 608.02 states that drawings are needed where necessary to understand the invention, § 608.02(d)/37 CFR 1.83(a) expands to state that all claimed subject matter must be shown. That is, while common items casually mentioned may not need a drawing, all claimed features do.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the anchoring system of Beato would not function with the recited cables and/or anchor shape, the examiner disagrees. Gravity/claw anchors are not complex machines, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how such an anchor configuration would function across a wide variety of floating platforms. The applicant proceeds to argue that “The rejection does not establish that Beato's system would continue to perform its relied-upon station-keeping and storm-survival functions after such a modification” (page 15) and that “the proposed modification is not supported by a reasonable expectation of success” (page 16). Again, the examiner disagrees. As stated above, the function of any anchor is to lodge into a fixed point in the seabed. Any anchor that can do this has a reasonable expectation of success in any anchoring operation. No person of ordinary skill in the art would believe that “If Beato's disclosure were incorporated into Jaffers, Jaffers would be inoperable for its intended purpose” (page 16). Put simply, Jaffers teaches a floating mining platform. Beato teaches a mooring system for a floating platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that Beato’s mooring system would provide benefits to Jaffers’ platform.
The applicant argues that the recited locations of components differentiates over the prior art of record. The examiner has detailed that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Specifically:
The applicant argues that “Modifying Jaffers…would not be a routine rearrangement; it would require a substantial reconfiguration of the vessel's internal architecture and material flow path” (page 17). The examiner responds that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). That is, the rejection is not based upon physically modifying Jaffers’ platform, it is that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how Jaffers’ platform could function with the rooms in different locations.
The applicant continues that “The proposed modification of Jaffers therefore risks defeating the very ore-storage and handling functionality for which Jaffers is relied upon” (page 17). The examiner does not agree- how could merely altering the location of ore storage and handling equipment “defeat the very ore-storage and handling functionality‽” The platform is still capable of storing and handling ore.
Where the applicant argues “Nor has the Office Action provided a reason why a person of ordinary skill would have abandoned Jaffers' disclosed storage arrangement in favor of the particular integrated layout now claimed” (page 17), please see above. The examiner has stated that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the vehicles near the center in order to balance weight and/or free up deck space where desired, and place storage rooms and conveyors along the hull in order to optimize workflow, through put or platform balancing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights