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 Amendment
The amendment filed 04/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-23 are pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It is not clear what the stopper “compliant material” is limited to since the specification indicates that the compliant material comprises rubber only in the example sections (examples 5 and 16-17, [0033, 0044-0045]) and all other indications/recitations that the stopper is not limited to a particular material and is simply “compliant material”. Examiner is interpreting as the “stopper comprises a compliant material” as any material. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 16-17, 19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao (US 20210353384 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gao (US 20210353384 A1) in view of Morgenstern (US 20140257296 A1) and further in view of DiPoto et al. (US 20040097907 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Gao discloses a depth setter tool (38), comprising: a spacer (46/86, figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, fig. 9) having an inner diameter (interior region of 52 or 46/86) sized to fit around a shank (4) of a driver bit (4) such that the spacer can rotate about an axis passing through a center of the driver bit and independently of the driver bit (figs. 5-11), the spacer further having an opening (46/86 is C-shaped and 52 is shown C-shaped also) extending along an entire length of the spacer from a first end of the spacer (46/86/52) to a second end of the spacer (distal end/bottom of figs. 5-11), the opening providing access to the inner diameter thereby allowing the spacer to be engaged onto the shank of the driver bit ([0055-00093], figs. 5-11); wherein the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer (46/86 is C-shaped and 52 is shown C-shaped also with same inner diameter); and
a stopper (40 and/or 54/56) comprising a compliant material (material is “compliant” at least to some degree) and configured to engage the first end of the spacer ([0031, 0059-0088], figs. 5-11). Gao also teaches having guiding/spacer sleeves with an inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer guiding sleeves from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer ([0055-00093], figs. 5-11) and
the spacer (46/86/52) comprises a body region (proximal end/86, proximal end of 52) and a neck region (distal end 88) extending from the body region wherein the neck region and the body region of the spacer both have the same inner diameter (46/86 have same diameter and 52 has constant diameter) and the body and neck region are part of a monolithic and continuous piece, ([0055-00093 figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, fig. 9);
wherein the neck region (88) has a first outer diameter and the body region (86) has a second outer diameter larger than the first outer diameter ([0073], fig. 11).
In the alternative, if it can be argued that Gao fails to disclose having the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer-
Morgenstern teaches similar surgical a rasp tool (800) having a spacer/open sleeve (808) for an elongated shaft (810) to guide the shaft having an inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer (808) from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer ([0202-0208], fig. 39).
DiPoto et al. teaches a similar surgical cannula/spacer (10/210/310/410/510) for an elongated shaft (surgical instrument 140 [0041-0042], figs. 1-7) having an inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer with a stopper (40/240/340/440/540) at the end ([0021-0090], figs. 1-13).
Given the teachings of Gao to have a spacer with continuous diameter or differing diameters to fit around a shank and or sleeve of drill bit and teachings of having step drill bits, it 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 to modify the spacer with having the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer to have precise adjustment of a drill bit with close tolerance/tight fit of a guide tube spacer around the drill bit (avoid slanting/wobbling), easier installation/fitting on the drill bit and/or for reducing friction purposes as taught by Morgenstern and DiPoto et al.
Regarding claims 8 and 12-13, Gao discloses a driver bit (4) having a bit tip (figs. 5-8) and a shank (tip is pointed with shank extending therefrom) extending from the bit tip (figs. 5-8); wherein the shank includes a neck portion along its axial length having a smaller diameter compared to adjacent regions of the driver bit (step drill bit shown in figs. 1-4);
an elongated spacer (46/86, figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, fig. 9) having an inner diameter (interior region) and an opening (46/86 is C-shaped and 52 is shown C-shaped also) that provides access to the inner diameter, the opening extending along an entire length of the spacer from a first end of the spacer (figs. 5-11) to a second end of the spacer (figs. 5-11), thereby allowing the spacer to be press-fit or snap-fit onto the shank of the driver bit such that the inner diameter of the spacer receives the shank of the driver bit (snap/press fits with 46/86 since C-shaped and 52 is shown C-shaped also will be “press fit”) and the spacer can rotate independently of the driver bit, wherein the entire length of the spacer is press-fit or snap-fit onto the neck portion of the shank, and
a stopper (40 and/or 54/56) having a hole (40 and/or 54/56 are hollow), the stopper removably affixable to the first end of the spacer (40 and/or 54/56 are removable), such that the bit tip of the driver bit extends through the hole of the stopper ([0055-00093 figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, figs. 5-11); and
a neck region (distal end 88) extending from the body region wherein the neck region and the body region of the spacer both have the same inner diameter (46/86 have same diameter and 52 has constant diameter) and the body and neck region are part of a monolithic and continuous piece, ([0055-00093 figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, fig. 9);
wherein the neck region (88) has a first outer diameter and the body region (86) has a second outer diameter larger than the first outer diameter ([0073], fig. 11).
In the alternative, if it can be argued that Gao fails to disclose having the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer-
Morgenstern teaches similar surgical a rasp tool (800) having a spacer/open sleeve (808) for an elongated shaft (810) to guide the shaft having an inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer (808) from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer ([0202-0208], fig. 39).
DiPoto et al. teaches a similar surgical cannula/spacer (10/210/310/410/510) for an elongated shaft (surgical instrument 140 [0041-0042], figs. 1-7) having an inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer with a stopper (40/240/340/440/540) at the end ([0021-0090], figs. 1-13).
Given the teachings of Gao to have a spacer with continuous diameter or differing diameters to fit around a shank and or sleeve of drill bit and teachings of having step drill bits, it 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 to modify the spacer with having the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer to have precise adjustment of a drill bit with close tolerance/tight fit of a guide tube spacer around the drill bit (avoid slanting/wobbling), easier installation/fitting on the drill bit and/or for reducing friction purposes as taught by Morgenstern and DiPoto et al.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Gao discloses a spacer assembly (46/86, figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, fig. 9) configured for use around a shank (4) of a driver bit (4), the spacer assembly comprising:
a body region (proximal end/86, proximal end of 52) having a first outer diameter (figs. 9 and 11) and an inner diameter (interior region); and a first axial length (fig. 11); and a neck region (distal end 88) extending from one end of the body region and having a second outer diameter less than the first outer diameter (86 less than 88), wherein an opening (C shaped opening) extends through a portion of both the body region and the neck region, and along an entire length of both the body region and the neck region, the opening providing access to the inner diameter wherein the first axial length is at least twice as large as the second axial length (fig. 11 shows body region (86) with axial length more than twice neck region (88 [0055-00093 figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, figs. 5-11) and neck region are part of a monolithic and continuous piece, ([0055-00093 figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, fig. 9).
Gao fails to disclose the neck region having a second outer diameter less than the first outer diameter and having the inner diameter and In the alternative, if it can be argued that Gao fails to disclose having the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer-
Morgenstern teaches similar surgical a rasp tool (800) having a spacer/open sleeve (808) for an elongated shaft (810) to guide the shaft having an inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer (808) from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer ([0202-0208], fig. 39) and teaches having a neck region (810) with a second outer diameter less than a first outer diameter (collar shown has larger outer diameter) and having the inner diameter (both having same inner diameter, fig. 39).
DiPoto et al. teaches a similar surgical cannula/spacer (10/210/310/410/510) for an elongated shaft (surgical instrument 140 [0041-0042], figs. 1-7) having an inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer with a stopper (40/240/340/440/540) at the end ([0021-0090], figs. 1-13).
Given the teachings of Gao to have a spacer with continuous diameter or differing diameters to fit around a shank and or sleeve of drill bit and teachings of having step drill bits, it 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 to modify the spacer with having the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer and the neck region having a second outer diameter less than the first outer diameter and having the inner diameter to have a stronger body region with more compact design, precise adjustment of a drill bit with close tolerance/tight fit of a guide tube spacer around the drill bit (avoid slanting/wobbling with same diameter with longer body region), easier installation/fitting on the drill bit and/or for reducing friction purposes as taught by Morgenstern and DiPoto et al.
Regarding claims 21-23, Gao discloses a driver bit (4) having a bit tip (figs. 5-8) and a shank (tip is pointed with shank extending therefrom) extending from the bit tip (figs. 5-8); wherein the shank includes a neck portion along its axial length having a smaller diameter compared to adjacent regions of the driver bit (step drill bit shown in figs. 1-4);
a spacer (46/86, figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, fig. 9) having an inner diameter (interior region) and an opening (46/86 is C-shaped and 52 is shown C-shaped also) that provides access to the inner diameter, the opening extending along an entire length of the spacer from a first end of the spacer (figs. 5-11) to a second end of the spacer (figs. 5-11), thereby allowing the spacer to be press-fit or snap-fit onto the shank of the driver bit such that the inner diameter of the spacer receives the shank of the driver bit (snap/press fits with 46/86 since C-shaped and 52 is shown C-shaped also will be “press fit”) and the spacer can rotate independently of the driver bit, wherein the entire length of the spacer is press-fit or snap-fit onto the neck portion of the shank, and
a stopper (40 and/or 54/56) having a hole (40 and/or 54/56 are hollow), the stopper removably affixable to the first end of the spacer (40 and/or 54/56 are removable), such that the bit tip of the driver bit extends through the hole of the stopper ([0055-00093 figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, figs. 5-11) and
wherein the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer (46/86 is C-shaped and 52 is shown C-shaped also with same inner diameter), wherein the neck region (88) has a first outer diameter and the body region (86) has a second outer diameter larger than the first outer diameter ([0073], fig. 11).
Gao fails to disclose the neck region having a second outer diameter less than the first outer diameter and having the inner diameter and In the alternative, if it can be argued that Gao fails to disclose having the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer-
Morgenstern teaches similar surgical a rasp tool (800) having a spacer/open sleeve (808) for an elongated shaft (810) to guide the shaft having an inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer (808) from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer ([0202-0208], fig. 39) and teaches having a neck region (810) with a second outer diameter less than a first outer diameter (collar shown has larger outer diameter) and having the inner diameter (both having same inner diameter, fig. 39).
DiPoto et al. teaches a similar surgical cannula/spacer (10/210/310/410/510) for an elongated shaft (surgical instrument 140 [0041-0042], figs. 1-7) having an inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer with a stopper (40/240/340/440/540) at the end ([0021-0090], figs. 1-13).
Given the teachings of Gao to have a spacer with continuous diameter or differing diameters to fit around a shank and or sleeve of drill bit and teachings of having step drill bits, it 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 to modify the spacer with having the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer and the neck region having a second outer diameter less than the first outer diameter and having the inner diameter to have a stronger body region with more compact design, precise adjustment of a drill bit with close tolerance/tight fit of a guide tube spacer around the drill bit (avoid slanting/wobbling with same diameter with longer body region), easier installation/fitting on the drill bit and/or for reducing friction purposes as taught by Morgenstern and DiPoto et al.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 11 and 17, Gao discloses the stopper (40 and/or 54/56) engages and is removably affixed to the neck region of the spacer (40 and/or 54/56 are removable), wherein the spacer is engageable onto the shank of the driver bit by snap-fit or press-fit (snap/press fits and matches outer diameter of sleeve) and a washer (40 and/or 54/56, [0050-0093], figs. 5-11).
Regarding claim 14, Gao discloses the shank (4) further comprises a body portion (portion up to pointed end) and a neck portion (point/tip) having a smaller larger diameter compared to the neck portion (figs. 1-9) (step drill bit shown in figs. 1-4), and wherein the spacer (46/86, figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, fig. 9) is configured to rest adjacent to the body portion when it is snap-fit or press-fit around the neck portion of the shank ([0055-00093 figs. 6 and 11 and/or 52, figs. 5-11).
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gao (US 20210353384 A1) in view of Morgenstern (US 20140257296 A1) in view of DiPoto et al. (US 20040097907 A1) and further in view of Marshall (US 20220313278 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 18, Gao fails to disclose the shank comprises a body portion and a neck portion having a smaller diameter compared to the body portion, and wherein the spacer can be snap-fit or press-fit around the neck portion of the shank, the opening has a width that is smaller than the inner diameter and alternatively if argued the spacer is not configured to rest adjacent to the body portion when it is snap-fit or press-fit around the neck portion of the shank-
Marshall teaches a depth setter tool (46), comprising: a spacer (46) having an inner diameter (interior region 48) sized to fit around a shank (28) of a driver bit (24) such that the spacer can rotate about an axis passing through a center of the driver bit and independently of the driver bit (figs. 1-3), the spacer comprises a body region (54) and a neck region (56) extending from the body region, wherein the stopper (any of keys 60) engages and is removably affixed to the neck region of the spacer (engages relief 58 –“ facilitates connection and disconnection by establishing an annular rim of contact along the bottom edge of the relief 58” [0050]), wherein the neck region (56) has a first outer diameter and the body region has a second outer diameter larger than the first outer diameter (54 is largest diameter, figs. 1-15), wherein the neck region and the body region of the spacer both have the inner diameter (interior region 48), wherein the spacer is engageable onto the shank of the driver bit by snap-fit or press-fit (snap fits with spur 52 engaging groove 34 in the shank 2), wherein the shank comprises a body portion (24) and a neck portion (34) having a smaller diameter compared to the body portion, and wherein the spacer can be snap-fit or press-fit around the neck portion (34) of the shank [0045-0050, figs. 1-9).
Marshall states: “pocket 50 is slightly smaller than the shank diameter S and slightly smaller than the diameter of the interior region 48 to facilitate a snap-fit connection” [0047].
Given the teachings of Gao to have a spacer with continuous diameter or differing diameters to fit around a shank and or sleeve of drill bit and teachings of having step drill bits, it 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 to modify the drill bit shank or substitute a stander drill bit having differing diameter portions to have a body portion and a neck portion having a smaller diameter compared to the body portion, and wherein the spacer can be snap-fit or press-fit around the neck portion of the shank and the spacer opening has a width that is smaller than the inner diameter and if argued the spacer is not configured to rest adjacent to the body portion when it is snap-fit or press-fit around the neck portion of the shank to have a stronger body region with more compact design, precise adjustment of a drill bit with close tolerance/tight fit of a guide tube spacer around the drill bit (avoid slanting/wobbling with same diameter with longer body region), easier installation/fitting on the drill bit with snap fitting and/or for reducing friction purposes as taught by Marshall.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gao (US 20210353384 A1) in view of Morgenstern (US 20140257296 A1) and further in view of DiPoto et al. (US 20040097907 A1) in view of Marshall (US 20220313278 A1) in view of Frey et al. (US 20220039808 A1) and further in view of Gertner (US 7258513 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Gao fails to disclose the monolithic and continuous piece is made of nylon
Marshall teaches the body region and neck region are part of a monolithic and continuous piece ([0045-0047], figs. 1-2 and 6-9) but fails to disclose the monolithic and continuous piece is made of nylon.
Gertner teaches having spacer (14) made of nylon, (col. 6, lines 10-32, col. 7, lines 57-67, figs. 1-6).
Frey et al. also teaches having collars (10/20) made of nylon ([0044], figs. 1-4).
Given the teachings of Marshall to have different sized keys, alignment jig and a guide bushing, it 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 to modify the stopper with comprising a compliant material and/or include a stopper comprising a compliant material and configured to engage the first end of the spacer to provide protection to the work area from marring, reduce friction, and/or for dampening purposes as taught by Gertner and Frey et al.
Given the teachings of Gao to have a spacer with continuous diameter or differing diameters to fit around a shank and or sleeve of drill bit and teachings of having step drill bits, it 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 to modify the spacer to be a monolithic and continuous piece is made of nylon to have a stronger body region with more compact design, precise adjustment of a drill bit with close tolerance/tight fit of a guide tube spacer around the drill bit (avoid slanting/wobbling with same diameter with longer body region), reduce friction, and/or for dampening purposes as taught by Gertner and Frey et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a depth setter tool, comprising a spacer with all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features the depth spacer having an inner diameter sized to fit around a shank of a driver bit such that the spacer can rotate about an axis passing through a center of the driver bit and independently of the driver bit, the spacer further having an opening extending along an entire length of the spacer from a first end of the spacer to a second end of the spacer, the opening providing access to the inner diameter thereby allowing the spacer to be engaged onto the shank of the driver bit, wherein the inner diameter does not change along the entire length of the spacer from the first end of the spacer to the second end of the spacer; and a stopper comprising a compliant material and configured to engage the first end of the spacer; wherein the spacer comprises a body region and a washer between one end of the spacer and the body portion of the shank. Though Gao (US 20210353384 A1) teaches a spacer having an inner diameter sized to fit around a shank with a C shaped opening along the entire length and stopper for setting the depth, it would not be obvious to modify the spacer to have a body region and a neck region extending from the body region with a washer between one end of the spacer and the body portion of the shank and one of ordinary skill would recognize that the washer between one end of the spacer and the body portion of the shank would stabilize the spacer and drill bit and prevent further driving of the fastener when the drill bit continues to spin independently of the spacer and the stopper. Having the efficiency and support of the added washer between one end of the spacer and the body portion of the shank provides a stable depth setter tool to drill the correct depth.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 11-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all new references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent:
Santamarina et al. (US 20090311061 A1) - stopper (damping mechanism 236, fig. 20) comprising a compliant material (rubber) and configured to engage a first end (232) of a spacer (234) and teaches having rubber washers 46 and 48, [0062-0063], figs. 20-21)
US 20120109140 A1- washer (43) between one end of a spacer (ring guide body 6) and the body portion of a shank (5, [0088], figs. 17-19)
US 9421619 B2 – spacer with C shape opening and see form 892.
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 ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (EST).
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights