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 May 5, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed November 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1,3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13-19 are pending. Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 16-19 is/are newly presented.
The objections to the drawings presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
It is noted that the limitation “article picking apparatus configured to selectively remove one or more articles” in claim 1 is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the claim recites sufficient structure (“arm”, “transfer platform”) for performing the function.
It is noted that the limitation “article picking apparatus configured to selectively pick sequentially a plurality of articles…and to position them in an ordered manner” in claim 1 is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the claim recites sufficient structure (“arm”, “transfer platform”) for performing the function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Bastian fails to teach the gripping member acts on the front side of container and is configured to remove the article horizontally sidewardly because the end of arm tool removes a container from the transport structure from above. However, in Figures 23-25, and described at Paragraphs 107-108, Bastian shows the end of arm tool engaging a side of the container and moving the container sidewardly. Also, at Paragraph 8, Bastian discloses “the robot arm pulls on the EoAT such that the carton is slightly pulled from the pallet stack”.
Bastian discloses [Para. 7, 92,94] a vision system is used to identify a good side of the container that is able to be gripped by the vacuum cups, the good side being “a surface that lacks openings that are able to facilitate vacuum cups being firmly secured to the individual side”. Bastian discloses the vacuum cups engage a “good side” of the container, but does not specify the location of the side in relation to the portion of the stack facing the vehicle. Therefore, if the “good side” were to be the side of the container facing the vehicle, then the vacuum cups would be configured to act on the front side of the article facing the vehicle.
In view of the above, the gripping member of Bastian is considered to be “disposed and configured to act on the front side of the article facing toward the commissioning vehicle so as to remove the article horizontally sidewardly from the respective compartment”.
Applicant further argues the fingers of Bastian are not a “transfer platform”. However, the fingers support the container during transfer of the container and the fingers rotate relative to the vacuum cups in order to support the container during transfer. Further, Bastian discloses [Para. 109] that the fingers are pivoted relative to the vacuum cups to release the container on the vehicle. Therefore, the fingers of Bastian are considered to be a transfer platform.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1 and 7 under 35 USC 102 are maintained.
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.
In claim 1, see the limitation “gripping member…configured to act on the front side of the article” with “member” being the generic placeholder and modified by the functional language “gripping” and “configured to act on the front side of the article”.
In claim 7, see the limitation “gripping member…configured act on a front side of the article” with “member” being the generic placeholder and modified by the functional language “gripping” and “configured to act on a front side of the article”.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 16 and 19 recite “the gripping member is disposed and configured to act solely on the front side of the article facing towards the commissioning vehicle”. While the specification discloses the gripping member of the instant application acting on a side of the article (from Paragraph 22), and the figures show the gripping member acting on the front side of the article, the specification fails to exclude other sides from being acted on. The claimed subject matter of claims 16 and 19 is not supported by the specification and lacks written description support. This is a new matter rejection.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 16, 17 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) 1, the language “storage supports of the pallet type” at line 2 is unclear because the meaning of “pallet type” is vague. Is the language setting forth the supports are pallets? Is there a specific structural detail that renders the supports as being “of the pallet type”?
Claims 3, 4, 16, 17 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bastian et al. (USPN 20190322451 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Bastian et al. (USPN 20190322451 A1) teaches a commissioning system for picking articles from storage supports of the pallet type (pallets 127) and organizing them on a commissioning support (pallet supported by vehicle 105), comprising a plurality of compartments (Figure 1 shows two stacks of containers within storage unit 145, the two stacks being considered compartments) distributed beside at least one lane (the space in front of the storage unit 145 is considered a lane), each compartment comprising a show portion on the lane (the portions of the stack facing the vehicle are considered show portions), each compartment being configured to receive a respective storage support (transport structure 125) for stored articles; at least one commissioning vehicle (vehicle 105) for transporting at least one commissioning support (a pallet is shown being supported on the vehicle in Figure 1) and having a receiving zone (surface of pallet 127), the commissioning vehicle comprising an article picking apparatus (robot arm 110) configured to selectively remove one or more articles stored on the storage supports from the show portion of one or more of the compartments of the plurality of compartments, the show portions of each of the compartments facing horizontally sidewardly toward the commissioning vehicle (the stack has portions facing horizontally sidewardly towards the vehicle as seen in Figure 1); wherein the commissioning vehicle is configured to move along the at least one lane and to stop in a region of compartments selected in order to pick from the storage supports [Par. 108, “Vehicle 105 approaches the stack of beverages”], via the article picking apparatus, a selection of articles in accordance with an order and to position on the commissioning support the articles picked in this manner in order to form an ordered and stacked grouping [Para. 108, “robot arm 110 is able to remove the containers 130 from the stack and place the containers 130 on the transport structure 125”]; wherein the article picking apparatus of the commissioning vehicle comprises: at least one articulated arm [Para. 127, “articulated robot”] having an end; a gripping member (vacuum cups 320,920) disposed at the end of the articulated arm, the gripping member being disposed and configured to act on the front side of the article facing towards the commissioning vehicle so as to remove the article horizontally sidewardly from the respective compartment; and a transfer platform (support fingers 325,925) for supporting each article gripped at the front side by the gripping member, the transfer platform being movable to transfer the article supported thereon from the storage support of the respective compartment located outside the commissioning vehicle to a predetermined position in the receiving zone of the commissioning vehicle, the gripping member and the transfer platform being movable with respect to one another to transfer the article from the transfer platform to the predetermined position in the receiving zone on-board the commissioning vehicle [Para. 93, “support fingers 325 is able to rotate or pivot”]. Bastian discloses [Para. 7, 92,94] a vision system is used to identify a good side of the container that is able to be gripped by the vacuum cups, the good side being “a surface that lacks openings that are able to facilitate vacuum cups being firmly secured to the individual side”. Bastian discloses the vacuum cups engage a “good side” of the container, but does not specify the location of the side in relation to the portion of the stack facing the vehicle. Therefore, if the “good side” were to be the side of the container facing the vehicle, then the vacuum cups would be configured to act on the front side of the article facing the vehicle. Figures 23-25 show and Paragraphs 107-108 describe the vacuum cups engaging a side of the container and pulling the container sideways from the stack. The fingers support the underside of the container and move with the arm to transfer the container. The fingers also pivot relative to the vacuum cups to support the container while the container is transferred. At Paragraph 109, Bastian discloses the fingers are stowed by pivoting the fingers during release of the container on the vehicle.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Bastian et al. teaches a commissioning vehicle (105), comprising: a receiving zone with a support base for at least one commissioning support of the pallet type (the lift mechanism 120 supports a pallet 127), an article picking apparatus (robot arm 110) configured to selectively pick sequentially a plurality of articles from storage supports arranged externally with respect to the commissioning vehicle and to position them in an ordered manner in the receiving zone, the picking apparatus comprising: at least one articulated arm [Para. 127, “articulated robot”] having an end; a gripping member (vacuum cups 320,920) disposed at the end of the articulated arm, the gripping member being disposed and configured to act on the front side of the article facing towards the commissioning vehicle so as to remove the article horizontally sidewardly from the storage support external of the commissioning vehicle; and a transfer platform (support fingers 325,925) for supporting each article gripped at the front side by the gripping member, the transfer platform being movable to transfer the article supported thereon from one of the storage supports located outside the commissioning vehicle to a predetermined position in the receiving zone of the commissioning vehicle, the gripping member and the transfer platform being movable with respect to one another to transfer the article from the transfer platform to the predetermined position in the receiving zone on-board the commissioning vehicle [Para. 93, “support fingers 325 is able to rotate or pivot”]. Bastian discloses [Para. 7, 92,94] a vision system is used to identify a good side of the container that is able to be gripped by the vacuum cups, the good side being “a surface that lacks openings that are able to facilitate vacuum cups being firmly secured to the individual side”. Bastian discloses the vacuum cups engage a “good side” of the container, but does not specify the location of the side in relation to the portion of the stack facing the vehicle. Therefore, if the “good side” were to be the side of the container facing the vehicle, then the vacuum cups would be configured to act on the front side of the article facing the vehicle. Figures 23-25 show and Paragraphs 107-108 describe the vacuum cups engaging a side of the container and pulling the container sideways from the stack. The fingers support the underside of the container and move with the arm to transfer the container. The fingers also pivot relative to the vacuum cups to support the container while the container is transferred. At Paragraph 109, Bastian discloses the fingers are stowed by pivoting the fingers during release of the container on the vehicle.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the gripping member comprises an assembly of suction cups (vacuum cups 320).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, the article picking apparatus is mounted on a structure, the structure being selectively movable in a lateral direction with respect to a movement direction of the commissioning vehicle along a lane, and the structure is configured to move into selective support against a show zone of a compartment facing the lane. In figure 1, the storage unit (145) is located laterally of the direction of movement of the vehicle; therefore, the robot arm would move laterally in order to engage an article.
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) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gooding (USPN 3297175).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the storage supports all have at least one standard uniform dimension, the show portion of the respective compartments on the lane having a predetermined and uniform show width slightly greater than the standard uniform dimension of the storage supports or a multiple thereof. Gooding (USPN 3297175) teaches a compartment (bulkhead 68, Figure 6) having a floor plate (70), angle braces (74), and an upright (72). A pallet is received in the bulkhead and the bulkhead “maintains the pallet loads properly and exactly positioned on the pallets” [Col. 1:49-52]. Also, see [Col. 2:37-59, “bulkhead type of structure especially adapted for use in restraining the movement of the bags”; “upright members and braces restrain the material which is resting on the floor members so that it cannot shift”] The dimensions of the bulkhead are such that the articles on the pallet are supported and the pallet is supported on the floor plate [Col. 3:47-61]. Gooding is considered to teach the show portion of the compartment having a predetermined and uniform show width slightly greater than the dimension of the storage support. Gooding further discloses “a standard pallet” [Col. 3:48}, which implies the pallet has a standard uniform dimension. 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 Bastian et al. such that the storage supports all have at least one standard uniform dimension, the show portion of the respective compartments on the lane having a predetermined and uniform show width slightly greater than the standard uniform dimension of the storage supports or a multiple thereof as taught by Gooding. The storage supports would be the same size and the articles on the storage supports would be maintained in their position on the storage support.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach each compartment comprises, along a portion of a perimeter thereof, which portion does not define the show portion on the lane, with barriers, the barriers preventing stored articles from falling from the respective storage support. Gooding teaches (as described above) the bulkheads and further teaches the bulkheads are provided, along a perimeter of three sides, with barriers (72, 74) which prevent the stored articles from falling from the pallet. 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 Bastian et al. such that each compartment comprises, along a portion of a perimeter thereof, which portion does not define the show portion on the lane, with barriers, the barriers preventing stored articles from falling from the respective storage support as taught by Gooding.
Claim(s) 10, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Garabini et al. (USPN 11,926,061, having an effectively filed date of April 30, 2019).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, 17 and 18, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the gripping member and the transfer platform are carried by two separate and movable arms which are coordinated with each other. Garabini et al. (USPN 11,926,061) teaches a gripping member (21) and a transfer platform (31) carried by two separate and movable arms (2, 3) which are coordinated with each other (by system 5 and the disclosed control unit [Col. 6:4-57]) . The advantage of the arrangement is that it is possible to move packages of any shape, size, weight and material [Col. 8:29-45]. 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 Bastian et al. such that the gripping member and the transfer platform are carried by two separate and movable arms which are coordinated with each other in order to increase the range of articles that can be manipulated.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Massey (US Pub 20170183157 A9).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach barriers, the receiving zone being surrounded at three sides by the barriers, the barriers preventing the articles stored on the commissioning support from falling. Massey teaches a commissioning vehicle (robot 30 having base 31) having barriers (wall sections 38) on three sides to hold products on the surface of the vehicle [Para. 45, 46; Figure 3]. 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 Bastian et al. to include barriers, the receiving zone being surrounded at three sides by the barriers, the barriers preventing the articles stored on the commissioning support from falling as taught by Massey. Massey teaches using barriers to keep products on the vehicle, which is preventing the products from falling.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Weiss (USPN 8892241).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Bastian et al. teaches an autonomous guiding system [Para. 114, “automatically navigate by following markers, such as wires or magnets”]. Bastian et al. fails to teach the system is controlled by guiding instructions stored on the commissioning vehicle and/or transmitted from a remote control system. Weiss (USPN 8892241) teaches a commissioning vehicle and teaches guiding instructions stored on the vehicle [Col. 4:18-33, “vehicle iteratively navigates itself along the route”] or transmitted from a remote control system [Col. 4:50-55, “electronically communicating the route to the robotic vehicle”]. 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 Bastian et al. such that the system is controlled by guiding instructions stored on the commissioning vehicle and/or transmitted from a remote control system as providing guiding instructions would direct the vehicle to the desired articles for an order.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Critchlow et al. (USPN 3820667).
Regarding Claim(s) 16 and 19, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the gripping member is disposed and configured to act solely on the front side of the article facing towards the commissioning vehicle. Critchlow et al. (USPN 3820667) teaches a vehicle (10) having an article handling arm assembly (20), the assembly having a gripping member (vacuum assembly 40) which engages solely a front side of an article (case 26, see Figure 1). The side facing the commissioning vehicle would also the closest side to the commissioning vehicle. 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 gripping member to act solely on the front side of the article as taught by Critchlow et al. in order to engage the side closest to the commissioning vehicle to reduce travel distance of the gripping member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 5232332 discloses a gripping member and transfer platform. USPN 4878798 discloses a vehicle having a gripping member and transfer platform. USPN 6652014 discloses a vehicle having a gripping member and transfer platform. US Pub 20110268548 A1 discloses a gripping member and transfer platform.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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