DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 07/27/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. Claims 2 & 5 have been cancelled. New claims 17-19 have been added into consideration. The Examiner is issuing a new form of rejection of claim 1, necessitated by amendment, as while similar subject matter of now cancelled claim 2, that of “wherein the elastic element is formed in a curvilinear fashion” has been integrated into claim 1 as the amended limitation of “wherein the elastic element is curvilinear in shape”.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on page 6 regarding Munoz not showing “wherein first and second side end faces are arranged between the front face and the rear face, and wherein one of the first and second side end faces comprises a contact region which is continuously in contact with the elastic element”,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are spurious as they are directed to an annotated figure the Applicant reproduced themselves that misplaces the identified elements the Examiner detailed in Annotated Figure 3, of which the claimed limitation was used to reject; such an argument is moot as it is a speculative representation that does not represent the Examiners Annotated Figure 3, and is therefore overcome.
In response to Applicants remaining arguments regarding newly added claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new claims and amendments to the claim language, which have been addressed in the rejection below.
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
housing defining a curvilinear forwardly facing surface (no such detail could be ascertained from the Applicants figures, however, it appears the Applicant conflates the housing 102 in Fig. 4 with that of element 108 of which its own Specifications, of which do conform the MPEP 608.01(i)/(o), refers to as a “snap-on frame” which is factually not the housing 102)
the side plate defines a curvilinear rearwardly facing surface that is spaced forwardly of the curvilinearly forwardly facing surface (given the lack of showing the curvilinear forward facing surface of the housing 102, the limitation of the side plate being spaced forwardly of the curvilinear forward facing surface is not shown)
the elastic element is clamped between the curvilinear forwardly facing surface and the curvilinear rearwardly facing surface (given the lack of showing the curvilinear forward facing surface of the housing 102, the curvilinear forward facing surface is not shown)
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Biasing element” in claims 7-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a peg or pin (Biasing element) identified as element number 122 as at least illustrated in Figure 2, and at least described in paragraph 0048 of the 01/25/2024 specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Airflow conducting / airflow restricting element” in claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, & 12-14.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a blade (Airflow-conducting / airflow-restricting element) identified as element number 110 as at least illustrated in Figure 2, and at least described in paragraph 0041 of the 01/25/2024 specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 & 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Munoz et al (US 2021/0206238), hereinafter referred to as Munoz.
Regarding claim 1, Munoz (US 2021/0206238) shows an air vent for a motor vehicle, wherein the air vent comprises
a housing (100, Fig. 1) having an air inlet region (see Annotated Figure 1) and an opposite air outlet region (see Annotated Figure 1);
an airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (210, Fig. 14, see Annotated Figure 1) arranged movably in the housing (Fig. 2);
a braking apparatus (204, Fig. 2) for braking movement of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element in relation to the housing (Fig. 2 – element 204 is for braking movement of the airflow-conducting/restricting member),
wherein the braking apparatus comprises an elastic element (216, Fig. 2 - every material has its own relative Modulus of Elasticity, of which element 204 is comprised of a material with its own relative Modulus of Elasticity representing its flexibility; the elastic element is represented by the structure of the slot 216 of the structure of element 204) arranged opposite the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (Fig. 2) such that the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element is continuously in contact with the elastic element (Fig. 2) and, in any position, compresses an equally large subregion of the elastic element (Fig. 14, ¶0036, Lines 12-16 – the airflow-conducting/restricting element 210, of which comprises of elements 202 and 214, compresses an equally large subregion of the elastic element 216 with the size of element 214),
wherein the elastic element is curvilinear in shape (Fig. 2);
wherein the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element comprises a front face (see Annotated Figure 1) facing the air outlet region (see Annotated Figure 1) and a rear face (see Annotated Figure 1) facing the air inlet region (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein first and second side end faces are arranged between the front face and the rear face (Fig. 2/7/14 / see Annotated Figure 3 - the airflow -conducting/restricting element 210 comprises of element 212, of which comprises of two side faces, which themselves comprise of their own contact region, that is continuously in contact with the elastic element 216), and wherein one of the first and second side end faces comprises a contact region which is continuously in contact with the elastic element (Fig. 2/7/ see Annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
310
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 3, Munoz shows wherein the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element radially covers the elastic element in any position (Fig. 2 – as the Applicant stated the airflow-conducting/restricting element is to radially cover the elastic element in any position by showing the blade 510 radially covering the elastic element 512 in any position in Fig. 8C, as does Munoz show with the side face of the airflow-conducting/restricting element 210 radially covering the elastic element in any position possible within the elastic element 216).
Regarding claim 4, Munoz shows wherein the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element is pivotally connected to the housing by an axis of rotation (see Annotated Figure 2 – the airflow-conducting/restricting element 210 is pivotally connected to the housing by an axis of rotation, about a peg on either side of the airflow-conducting/restricting element 210), and
wherein the contact region of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (Fig. 2, see Annotated Figure 3) with the elastic element upstream, i.e., in the direction of the air inlet region, is spaced apart from the axis of rotation (Fig. 2 – see Annotated Figure 1/2/3), and
wherein a radius of the curvilinear, elastic element corresponds to the distance between the axis of rotation and the contact region of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (Fig. 2/ see Annotated Figure 1/2/3 - as the Applicant states in ¶0050 of the Specifications filed 01/25/2024 of “Also, this will result in the contact region 124 of the blade 110 intersecting the elastic element 112 radially at each position” in relation to the correspondence of the radius of the elastic element to the distance between the axis of rotation and the contact region of the airflow-conducting/restricting element, as does Munoz show the radius of the curvilinear, elastic element 216 corresponds to a distance between the axis of rotation and the contact region of the airflow-conducting/restricting element 210, in at least that the result is the contact region of the airflow-conducting/restricting element 210 intersecting the elastic element 216 radially at each position).
PNG
media_image3.png
416
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 6, Munoz shows wherein the contact region of the first side end face comprises a depression and/or a protrusion (214, Fig. 2/7) which is adapted to a shape of the elastic element (Fig. 2/7 – the contact region of the side face comprises of a protrusion 214 which is adapted to a shape of the elastic element).
Regarding claim 7, Munoz shows wherein the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (210, Fig. 14) comprises a biasing element (214, see Annotated Figure 2 – as the Applicant claims a biasing element 122, of which as seen in Fig. 2/3 of the instant application, appears to be a peg or pin about which something rotates, as does Munoz show such a biasing element of the airflow-conducting/restricting element 210) which is connected to the braking apparatus such that the biasing element biases the side face of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow- restricting element against the elastic element (Fig. 2/7 – the airflow-conducting/restricting element 210 comprises of a protruding pin of the biasing element 214, of which is connected to the braking apparatus 204 such that that the biasing element 214 biases the side face of the airflow-conducting/restricting element via element 202).
Regarding claim 8, Munoz shows wherein the biasing element is adjustable such that a biasing force generated by the biasing element is variable (Fig. 8-10, ¶0036, Lines 12-16 – the biasing element 214 is adjustable such that a biasing force generated by the biasing element is variable, by virtue of it being movable through a range of positions by hand at variable forces).
Regarding claim 13, Munoz shows wherein the braking apparatus (204, Fig. 2) comprises at least one end stop (see Annotated Figure 1), which is configured so as to restrict the movement of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Munoz shows wherein the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element is movable between a first end position and a second end position (see Annotated Figure 1), and wherein the braking apparatus comprises two end stops (see Annotated Figure 1) and is configured such that the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element is in contact with the first end stop in the first end position (see Annotated Figure 1) and in contact with the second end stop in the second end position (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Munoz shows wherein the at least one end stop is elastic (Fig. 2/ see Annotated Figure 1 – the end stop is comprised of the same, elastic structure as the elastic element, which itself has its own relative Modulus of Elasticity).
Regarding claim 16, Munoz shows wherein the at least one end stop is formed integrally with the elastic element (Fig. 2/ see Annotated Figure 1).
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz et al (US 2021/0206238), hereinafter referred to as Munoz, in view of Ogura et al (US 2007/0060040), hereinafter referred to as Ogura.
Regarding claim 9, Munoz shows wherein the braking apparatus (204, Fig. 2) comprises a side plate (Fig. 7 – the structure of element 204 comprises of a face that is a plate), and
wherein the side plate is configured so as to bear an axis of rotation of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (Fig. 7 – the side plate of the braking apparatus 204 is configured so as to bear an axis of rotation of the airflow-conducting/restricting element, which rotates about the axis of element 214).
However, Munoz lacks showing the braking apparatus comprises a side plate, which is laterally connected to the housing.
Ogura (US 2007/0060040), an air conditioning register, is in the same field of endeavor as Munoz which is an air conditioning register.
Ogura teaches the braking apparatus comprises a side plate (4, Fig. 1), which is laterally connected to the housing (Fig. 1).
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 braking apparatus of Munoz to incorporate the teachings of the side plate of Ogura, which would provide an arrangement that would improve the downward air directivity of the blown out air (¶0002).
Regarding claim 10, Munoz shows wherein the elastic element of the braking apparatus is arranged between the side plate and the housing (Fig, 1/2 - the elastic element 216 is arranged between the side plate of its own structure of 204 and the housing of the air vent 100).
Regarding claim 11, Munoz shows wherein the elastic element is accommodated in an opening of the side plate (Fig. 2 - the elastic element 216 is accommodated in an opening, or slot 216, of the side plate of the braking apparatus 204).
Regarding claim 12, Munoz shows wherein the elastic element (216, Fig. 2) is made on the side of the side plate facing the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element.
Regarding claim 12, and the limitation “the elastic element is injected on the side of the side plate facing the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element” , MPEP 2113.I. states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”. In light of the structure of Munoz, the limitation of claim 12 of “the elastic element is injected on the side of the side plate facing the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element”, has been given no patentable weight.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz et al (US 2021/0206238), hereinafter referred to as Munoz, in view of Ogura et al (US 2007/0060040), hereinafter referred to as Ogura.
Regarding claim 17, Munoz (US 2021/0206238) shows an air vent for a motor vehicle, wherein the air vent comprises
a housing (200, Fig. 2) having an air inlet region (see Annotated Figure 1) and an opposite air outlet region (see Annotated Figure 1);
an airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (210, Fig. 14, see Annotated Figure 1) arranged movably in the housing (Fig. 2);
a braking apparatus (204, Fig. 2) for braking movement of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element in relation to the housing (Fig. 2 – element 204 is for braking movement of the airflow-conducting/restricting member),
wherein the braking apparatus comprises an elastic element (216, Fig. 2 - every material has its own relative Modulus of Elasticity, of which element 204 is comprised of a material with its own relative Modulus of Elasticity representing its flexibility; the elastic element is represented by the structure of the slot 216 of the structure of element 204) arranged opposite the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (Fig. 2) such that the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element is continuously in contact with the elastic element (Fig. 2) and, in any position, compresses an equally large subregion of the elastic element (Fig. 14, ¶0036, Lines 12-16 – the airflow-conducting/restricting element 210, of which comprises of elements 202 and 214, compresses an equally large subregion of the elastic element 216 with the size of element 214),
wherein the elastic element is curvilinear in shape (Fig. 2 – the elastic element defines a curvilinear rearwardly facing surface that faces the rear of the device and the housing, as shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the braking apparatus (204, Fig. 2) comprises a side plate (Fig. 7 - the structure of element 204 comprises of a face that is a plate), and
wherein the side plate is configured so as to bear an axis of rotation of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (Fig. 7 – the side plate of the braking apparatus 204 is configured so as to bear an axis of rotation of the airflow-conducting/restricting element, which rotates about the axis of element 214).
However, Munoz lacks showing wherein the braking apparatus comprises a side plate located laterally outward of one lateral end face of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element
wherein the side plate is laterally connected to the housing.
Ogura (US 2007/0060040), an air conditioning register, is in the same field of endeavor as Munoz which is an air conditioning register.
Ogura teaches wherein the braking apparatus comprises a side plate (4, Fig. 1) located laterally outward of one lateral end face of the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element (2, Fig. 1 – the airflow-conducting and/or airflow-restricting element 2 comprises of two lateral end faces that both face outwardly towards each side element 4),
wherein the side plate is laterally connected to the housing (Fig. 1).
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 braking apparatus of Munoz to incorporate the teachings of the side plate of Ogura, which would provide an arrangement that would improve the downward air directivity of the blown out air (¶0002).
Regarding claim 18, Munoz shows wherein the housing defines a curvilinear forwardly facing surface (Fig. 2/8 – as the Applicant claims the housing 102 is to define a curvilinear forwardly facing surface by showing in Fig. 4 the housing 102 to be a square-rectangular forward facing surface with no apparent curve, as does Munoz show the housing 200 defines a curvilinear forwardly facing surface; see Drawing Objection above),
the side plate defines a curvilinear rearwardly facing surface that is spaced forwardly of the curvilinearly forwardly facing surface (Fig. 2 - as the Applicant shows any forwardly facing surface of the housing at all to show themselves the side plate 114 defining a curvilinear rearwardly facing surface that is spaced forwardly thereof, as does Munoz show the side plate of element 204 defines a curvilinear rearwardly facing surface that faces the rear of the device and the housing, as shown in Fig. 2, that is spaced forwardly of the curvilinear forward facing surface of the housing 200; see Drawing Objection above), and
the elastic element is clamped between the curvilinear forwardly facing surface and the curvilinear rearwardly facing surface (Fig. 2 – as the Applicant shows any curvilinear forward facing surface of the housing 102 at all, as does Munoz show the elastic element being clamped between the curvilinear forward facing surface of the housing 200 and the curvilinear rearward facing surface, as the curvilinear rearwardly facing surface comprises of the elastic element; see Drawing Objection above).
Regarding claim 19, Munoz shows wherein the side plate (Fig. 2 - the structure of element 204 comprises of a face that is a plate) defines a curvilinear opening (Fig. 2 – the curvilinear opening can be seen in Fig. 2 as the curvilinear opening in which element 214 is located within) in which the elastic element is positioned (Fig. 2 – the side plate defines a curvilinear opening, in which the elastic element is positioned and coincides, as the curvilinear opening is positioned within the elastic element).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related air registers:
US 5,470,276 - Burnell discloses two side plates located on the sides of the housing for pivoting the blades
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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights