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 submission entered February 27, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed October 1, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-14, 16-20 are pending. Claim(s) 3, 7, 8, 15 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 16, 17, 19 , 20 is/are currently amended.
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 15, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112, the rejections of claims 12 and 13 have not been adequately addressed. The rejections were based on an unclear interpretations of limitations under 35 USC 112(f). Applicant’s arguments pointed to structure disclosed in the specification, but did not address how the limitations should be interpreted.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The subject matter added by the amendment is considered to be taught by Vicktorius et al. and Nemati et al.
Claim Objections
At claim 1, line 3, please replace “tube affixed” with –tube is affixed –.
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: “reject transport mechanism” in claim 18, with “mechanism” being the generic placeholder and “reject transport” being the modifying functional language.
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.
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.
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 12, 13, 20 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(s) 12, Claim limitation “linear organizer apparatus” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while “apparatus” is a generic placeholder, the claim fails to recite modifying functional language. Further, the language “linear organizer” is not structure as it is unclear what constitutes a “linear organizer”. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Claim limitation “centrifugal organizer apparatus” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while “apparatus” is a generic placeholder, the claim fails to recite modifying functional language. Further, the language “centrifugal organizer” is not structure as it is unclear what constitutes a “centrifugal organizer”. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 20 is considered indefinite because the language “at least one four scanners” is confusing.
The claims will be treated as best understood.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill (USPN 4557638) in view of Vicktorius et al. (USPN 6365858) and Nemati et al. (USPN 10593162).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, O’Neill (USPN 4557638) teaches a pneumatic container travel system, comprising: a tube (12) configured to receive at least one container (18) and allow the at least one container to pass through the tube; and at least one scanner (optical reader 36) configured to read a bar code on the at least one container [Col. 3:8-15]. O’Neill fails to teach a frame including an aperture in which a portion of the tube is affixed, the frame including four sections that extend outward from the aperture and are located approximately 90 degrees from each other; and four scanners located respectively at ends of the four sections of the frame, the scanners collectively configured to read a bar code on the at least one container. Vicktorius et al. (USPN 6365858)teaches a frame (frame 17 of detector portion 10) including an aperture in which a portion of a tube (29) is affixed, the frame including four sections that extend outward from the aperture and are located approximately 90 degrees from each other. Figure 1 shows structure (such as plates 18, 19) extending outward from the aperture. The structure could be divided into four sections that are located 90 degrees from each other. Further, a detector (28) surrounds the tube. Nemati et al. (USPN 10593162) teaches a scanning tunnel (1500, Figure 5) [Col. 10:4-22] comprising four scanners (124,1508, 1512, 1516) located at sections that are approximately 90 degrees from each other, the scanners collectively configured to read a bar code on at least one container [Col. 5:15-25, “scanner device 124 can be implemented as…a barcode reader”] The tunnel can have a conveyor belt (rolling transparent scan platform 410) within to move on object through the tunnel while the object is scanned. Nemati et al. discloses using a plurality of scanners within a box-like configuration can capture barcode data regardless of the orientation of the object [Col. 12:28-34]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify O’Neill to include a frame including an aperture in which a portion of the tube is affixed, the frame including four sections that extend outward from the aperture and are located approximately 90 degrees from each other; and four scanners located respectively at ends of the four sections of the frame, the scanners collectively configured to read a bar code on the at least one container in order to scan the container regardless of the orientation of the scanner.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, O’Neill teaches the at least one scanner is affixed to the tube (Figure 6 shows the scanner affixed to the tube), but fails to teach four scanners are collectively positioned to be affixed to the tube. However, using four scanners to scan a container would allow all sides of the container to be scanned; therefore affixing four scanners to the tube would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to align the scanners with the tube.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Vicktorius et al. and Nemati et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terzini (USPN 8973338).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the tube is a transparent tube. Terzini (USPN 8973338) teaches transparent tubes (103) for visual monitoring of bottles as they move through the tubes [Col. 6:33-35]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the tube transparent to permit visual monitoring of the containers.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Vicktorius et al. and Nemati et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newbolt et al. (USPN 5813801).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a controller configured to receive signals from a sensor measuring the flow of pressurized air in the tube, the controller configured to transmit control instructions to open or close one or more valves. Newbolt et al. teaches a valve (34) and a controller (44) configured to receive signals from a sensor (36) measuring the flow of pressurized air in a tube (26), the controller configured to transmit control instructions to open or close one or more valves (through line 52). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller configured to receive signals from a sensor measuring a flow of pressurized air in the tube, the controller configured to transmit control instructions to open or close one or more valves as taught by Newbolt et al. The controller would control the amount of air provided to tube which would control the movement of containers.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a controller configured to receive signals from a sensor measuring a flow of pressurized air, the controller configured to transmit control instructions to flow control as to whether the flow of pressurized air should be increased or decreased. Newbolt et al. teaches a controller (44) configured to receive signals from a sensor (46) measuring the flow of pressurized air, the controller configured to transmit control instructions to open or close the valve (through line 52) to increase or decrease the flow. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller configured to receive signals from a sensor measuring the flow of pressurized air, the controller configured to transmit control instructions to flow control as to whether the flow of pressurized air should be increased or decreased as taught by Newbolt et al. The controller would control the amount of air provided to the nozzle which would control the movement of containers.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Vicktorius et al., Nemati et al. and Newbolt et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Huh et al. (US Pub 20240157584 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the sensor is an optical sensor. Huh et al. (US Pub 20240157584 A1) teaches a pressure sensor (40) to measure flow and discloses alternative means such as an optical sensor [Para. 32]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an optical sensor to measure flow as taught by Huh et al. Using an optical sensor would be a simple substitution as the operation of the sensor would be predictable.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Vicktorius et al., Nemati et al. and Newbolt et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Couture (USPN 4320559).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the sensor is a micro switch. Couture (USPN 4320559) teaches a microswitch sensor (60). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a micro switch since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Vicktorius et al., Nemati et al. and Newbolt et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Huh et al.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the sensor is an optical sensor. Huh et al. (US Pub 20240157584 A1) teaches a pressure sensor (40) to measure flow and discloses alternative means such as an optical sensor [Para. 32]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an optical sensor to measure flow as taught by Huh et al. Using an optical sensor would be a simple substitution as the operation of the sensor would be predictable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Vicktorius et al., Nemati et al. and Newbolt et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Couture (USPN 4320559).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the sensor is a micro switch. Couture (USPN 4320559) teaches a microswitch sensor (60). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a micro switch since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Vicktorius et al. and Nemati et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross et al. (USPN 9694992).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the tube receives the at least one container from a linear organizer apparatus. Gross et al. (USPN 9694992) teaches a pneumatic tube system moving containers (carriers 100), the system having a station (16) with a housing (104). The housing has carrier storage bins (108) for storing carriers, as well as a carousel (110) for holding carriers. The storage bins are considered a linear organizer apparatus, as the bins are arranged linearly. The carousel is considered a centrifugal organizer apparatus as the carousel is a rotating element. The carousel is also considered as an infeed loop apparatus as the docks (112) of the carousel are arranged in a loop. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a linear organizer apparatus to store extra containers for use.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the tube receives the at least one container from a centrifugal organizer apparatus. Gross et al. (USPN 9694992) teaches a pneumatic tube system moving containers (carriers 100), the system having a station (16) with a housing (104). The housing has carrier storage bins (108) for storing carriers, as well as a carousel (110) for holding carriers. The storage bins are considered a linear organizer apparatus, as the bins are arranged linearly. The carousel is considered a centrifugal organizer apparatus as the carousel is a rotating element. The carousel is also considered as an infeed loop apparatus as the docks (112) of the carousel are arranged in a loop. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a centrifugal organizer apparatus to store extra containers for use.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the tube receives the at least one container from an infeed loop apparatus. Gross et al. (USPN 9694992) teaches a pneumatic tube system moving containers (carriers 100), the system having a station (16) with a housing (104). The housing has carrier storage bins (108) for storing carriers, as well as a carousel (110) for holding carriers. The storage bins are considered a linear organizer apparatus, as the bins are arranged linearly. The carousel is considered a centrifugal organizer apparatus as the carousel is a rotating element. The carousel is also considered as an infeed loop apparatus as the docks (112) of the carousel are arranged in a loop. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an infeed loop apparatus to store extra containers for use.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Vicktorius et al. and Nemati et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Powder et al. (USPN 9611105).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, O’Neill teaches the scanner is further configured to: detect when the at least one container passes through the tube (the reading of the bar code would be an indication of the container passage) and read container information (bar code) located on an outer surface of the at least one container (as described above). O’Neill fails to teach the four scanners are further configured to communicate with a controller for determining whether the container information matches container information located in a fulfillment database. Nemati et al. teaches the four scanners (as described above). Powder et al. (USPN 9611105) teaches a container (payload item 108) having information (identifying element 106) and teaches a controller (control module 110) for determining whether the container information matches container information located in a fulfillment database [Col. 6:1-5, “reading the identification element 106 on the item 108 and checking the database 118”]. Powder et al. further teaches a scanner (reader 104) that communicates with the controller (as seen in the diagram of Figure 1). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the four scanners to communicate with a controller for determining whether the container information matches container information located in a fulfillment database in order to properly route the container.
Regarding Claim(s) 19, O’Neill teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the controller transmits the container information to a processor to determine whether the container information matches container information located in a fulfillment database. Powder et al. teaches a controller (system 100 having processor 102, memory 116) that transmits the container information to a processor (102) to determine whether the container information matches container information located in a fulfillment database [Col. 6:1-5, “reading the identification element 106 on the item 108 and checking the database 118”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify O’Neill such that the controller transmits the container information to a processor to determine whether the container information matches container information located in a fulfillment database in order to correctly route containers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in claim 17, the limitation “determine when the container information does not match the container information located in the fulfillment database; and cause an actuator to move the at least one tube to a reject area” is not anticipated or fairly suggested by the prior art. Valerino (USPN 5805454) discloses sending a rejected carrier to a predetermined location [Col. 13:7-14], but does not determine when the container information does not match the container information located in the fulfillment database.
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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights