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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/31/2023, the response to restriction filed 8/11/2025, and the amendments and remarks filed 12/04/2025.
Claims 1, 3, and 8 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 9-18 have been withdrawn by restriction.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected computer-implemented method of automatically controlling altering an operating speed of a belt drive system providing power to an agricultural header, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/11/2025. While this election of the belt drive system of claims 1-8 was made, the updated claim sheet submitted with the response does not indicate cancellation or withdrawal of the unelected claims. Please submit an appropriately corrected listing of claims, and for examination purposes the unelected claims will be treated as withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/01/2023, 9/23/2024, and 10/08/2025 have been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112b rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/24/2025.
The amendment filed 12/04/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Specification lines 7-8 as follows: “The hydraulic cylinder 202 defines a longitudinal axis 207, and the longitudinal axis 207 extends longitudinally along the piston rod 210.”
Drawings Fig.2 showing Axis 207
Claim 1 lines 13-18
The defining of longitudinal axis 207 has been amended into the claim, the specification, and the drawing within the same amendment and has not been seen to be contemplated within the original disclosure. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in light of the new matter added. A new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by the amendment in view of Serkh et al (US 6834228) and Edsinger et al (US 9447849).
Drawings
The amendment filed 12/04/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is in Fig. 2, presented as the axis 207
PNG
media_image1.png
421
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/04/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is in lines 7-8 as follows: “The hydraulic cylinder 202 defines a longitudinal axis 207, and the longitudinal axis 207 extends longitudinally along the piston rod 210.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1 and 3-8 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. The load sensor axis arrangement as described in lines 13-18 of Claim 1 is considered New Matter, as the longitudinal axis has been amended into the claim, the specification, and the drawing within the same amendment and was not contemplated within the original disclosure.
Claims 3-8 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serkh et al (US 6834228, hereinafter “Serkh”) in view of Edsinger et al (US 9447849, hereinafter “Edsinger”).
Regarding Claim 1, Serkh teaches:
A belt drive system operable to detect a belt tension, the belt drive system comprising: (Serkh col 2 lines 7-9 “Another aspect of the invention is to provide a belt tension control system having sensors for detecting a belt operating condition.,”)
a driver pulley operably coupled to a motive device to rotate the driver pulley; (Serkh col 3 lines 16-17 “The crankshaft pulley drives the belt in direction D, thereby driving the accessories,” the crankshaft pulley being the driver pulley, coupled to the motive device, the crankshaft of the engine)
a driven pulley; (Serkh col 3 lines 5-7 “The inventive system generally comprises a number of accessories being driven by an endless belt or drive member 6,” and col 3 lines 12-17 “The accessories comprise an alternator 2 (ALT) and pulley 4, […] power steering pump 10 (PS), air conditioner 12 (AC), water pump 14 (WP), […] each accessory having a pulley engaged with the belt,” describing the driven accessories attached to pulleys, shown in Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
336
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an endless belt engaged with the driver pulley and moveable in response to motion of the driver pulley (Serkh col 3 lines 16-17 “The crankshaft pulley drives the belt in direction D, thereby driving the accessories,” the crankshaft pulley being the driver pulley, coupled to the motive device, the crankshaft of the engine; and col 3 lines 12-17 “The accessories comprise […] crankshaft pulley 16 (CRK), each accessory having a pulley engaged with the belt.” describing the driver pulley driving and engaged with the belt)
and engaged with the driven pulley, the driven pulley rotated in response to movement of the endless belt; (Serkh col 3 lines 5-7 “The inventive system generally comprises a number of accessories being driven by an endless belt or drive member 6,” and col 3 lines 12-17 “The accessories comprise an alternator 2 (ALT) and pulley 4, […] power steering pump 10 (PS), air conditioner 12 (AC), water pump 14 (WP), […] each accessory having a pulley engaged with the belt,” teaching the accessories being driven by and engaged with the belt)
an idler pulley engaged with the endless belt (Serkh col 3 lines 12-17 “The accessories comprise […] idler 8 (Idr) […] each accessory having a pulley engaged with the belt,” teaching both the idler pulley and its engagement with the belt)
and positioned on a tight side of the belt drive system; and a load sensor connected to the idler pulley, (Serkh Col 3 line 67 – Col 4 line 1 “Sensor 46 detects a belt tension at idler 8. This is referred to as the "tight" side of the belt with respect to the alternator,” teaches both idler 8 being on the tight side of the belt drive system, and a sensor for detecting belt tension (the load) on idler 8)
the load sensor operable to generate a signal in response to a load exerted on the idler pulley by the endless belt, the load representative of a tension in the endless belt, […] (Serkh Col 4 lines 9-11 “Each sensor […] 46, […] transmits signals proportional to the load, tension, […] of the belt to the control module 18,” and col 5 line 66 – col 6 line 4 “At 1001, inputs to the control module include […] an idler hubload from sensor 46[…] "Hubload" refers the load imposed on a pulley by a belt tension.”)
[…] wherein, at the location of the idler pulley along the endless belt, the endless belt includes a first portion that extends in a first direction at a first side of the idler pulley and a second portion that extends in a second direction at a second side of the idler pulley, and wherein the load sensor is […] is not parallel to the first direction or the second direction. (Serkh col 5 line 66 – col 6 line 4 “At 1001, inputs to the control module include […] an idler hubload from sensor 46[…] "Hubload" refers the load imposed on a pulley by a belt tension,” teaching measurement of the hubload, which as a load imposed by belt tension is at a resultant angle not parallel to the first or second direction, and the two directions of the endless belt shown above in Fig. 1)
Serkh does not reference any particular orientation or arrangement of the load sensor, therefore not teaching:
[…] wherein the load sensor comprises a body defining a longitudinal axis, […]
[…] oriented in a direction such that the longitudinal axis […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Serkh, Edsinger teaches:
[…] wherein the load sensor comprises a body defining a longitudinal axis, wherein, at the location of the idler pulley along the endless belt, the endless belt includes a first portion that extends in a first direction at a first side of the idler pulley and a second portion that extends in a second direction at a second side of the idler pulley, and wherein the load sensor is oriented in a direction such that the longitudinal axis is not parallel to the first direction or the second direction. (Edsinger col 7 lines 37-49 “FIG. 6A is a diagram illustrating an example portion of a timing belt stage and determination of applied load, and FIG. 6B is a diagram showing an example calculation of the output torque. […] where F.sub.id is a normal force applied to the load cell 602, F.sub.B is a working tension on the belt, r is an output hub radius, and Θ is an angle of the belt to the load cell normal,” where the load sensor measures force along Normal, shown to be the line of action of FID, defining a measurement axis along the normal of the load cell, and the orientation (the normal) of load sensor 602 is at an angle Θ shown in Figs 6a and 6b to be not parallel to the belt)
PNG
media_image3.png
407
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Serkh and Edsinger are considered analogous because they both relate to belt drive control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the idler pulley hubload sensor of Serkh by adding the load cell shown to be oriented at an angle Θ to the belt of Edsinger. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the measuring accuracy by measuring the resultant normal force rather than a different resultant at some other angle which would incorporate further side-loading.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Serkh and Edsinger teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Serkh further teaches:
wherein the first portion of the endless belt and the second portion of the endless belt define an angle, […] (Serkh col 5 line 66 – col 6 line 4 “At 1001, inputs to the control module include […] an idler hubload from sensor 46[…] "Hubload" refers the load imposed on a pulley by a belt tension,” teaching measurement of the hubload, which as a load imposed by belt tension is at a resultant angle not parallel to the first or second direction, and the two directions of the endless belt shown above in Fig. 1)
Serkh does not teach […] and wherein the orientation of the load sensor is in a direction that bisects the angle. […], not referencing any particular orientation of the load sensor.
Within the same field of endeavor as Serkh, Edsinger teaches:
wherein the first portion of the endless belt and the second portion of the endless belt define an angle, and wherein the orientation of the load sensor is in a direction that bisects the angle. (Edsinger col 7 lines 37-49 “FIG. 6A is a diagram illustrating an example portion of a timing belt stage and determination of applied load, and FIG. 6B is a diagram showing an example calculation of the output torque. […] F.sub.id=2F.sub.B cos(Θ) […] where F.sub.id is a normal force applied to the load cell 602, F.sub.B is a working tension on the belt, r is an output hub radius, and Θ is an angle of the belt to the load cell normal,” where the orientation (the normal) of load sensor 602 is at an angle Θ described in the equation in line 44 and shown in Figs 6a and 6b to bisect the wrap angle of the belt)
Serkh and Edsinger are considered analogous because they both relate to belt drive control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the idler pulley hubload sensor of Serkh by adding the load cell shown to be oriented at an angle Θ bisecting the belt wrap angle of Edsinger. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the measuring accuracy by measuring the resultant normal force rather than a different resultant at some other angle which would incorporate further side-loading.
Claim(s) 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serkh in view of Lindner et al (EP 4001695, hereinafter “Lindner”).
Regarding Claim 4, Serkh teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Serkh does not teach:
wherein the load sensor comprises a hydraulic pressure sensor.
Within the same field of endeavor as Serkh, Lindner teaches:
wherein the load sensor comprises a hydraulic pressure sensor. (Lindner Pg 3 ¶ 9 lines 1-4 “Another development is that the measuring device for measuring the belt tension or the measured variable corresponding to the belt tension has a force transducer, in particular […] a hydraulic force transducer, a pressure transducer, a pressure sensor,” teaching the use of hydraulic pressure sensing to measure belt tension)
Serkh and Lindner are considered analogous because they both relate to belt drive tension measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonspecific idler pulley hubload sensor of Serkh by simple substitution of the hydraulic pressure sensor of Lindner. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the simple substitution of one known element (Serkh’s hubload sensor) for another (Lindner’s hydraulic pressure sensor) to obtain predictable results (measuring a load on a pulley) (MPEP 2143(I)(B)), as both sensors provide the same function in the same way.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Serkh and Lindner teaches the elements of claim 4 as described above. Serkh does not teach:
wherein the hydraulic pressure sensor is a hydraulic pressure transducer.
Within the same field of endeavor as Serkh, Lindner teaches:
wherein the hydraulic pressure sensor is a hydraulic pressure transducer. (Lindner Pg 3 ¶ 9 lines 1-4 “Another development is that the measuring device for measuring the belt tension or the measured variable corresponding to the belt tension has a force transducer, in particular […] a hydraulic force transducer, a pressure transducer,” teaching the use of hydraulic pressure transducer to measure belt tension)
Serkh and Lindner are considered analogous because they both relate to belt drive tension measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonspecific idler pulley hubload sensor of Serkh by simple substitution of the hydraulic pressure transducer of Lindner. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the simple substitution of one known element (Serkh’s hubload sensor) for another (Lindner’s hydraulic pressure transducer) to obtain predictable results (measuring a load on a pulley) (MPEP 2143(I)(B)), as both sensors provide the same function in the same way.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Serkh and Lindner teaches the elements of claim 4 as described above. Serkh does not teach:
wherein idler pulley is sideably mounted
and moveable in response to a tension level in the endless belt,
and wherein the movement of the idler pulley in response to the tension level in the endless belt alters a pressure in the hydraulic pressure sensor that is indicative of the tension level.
Within the same field of endeavor as Serkh, Lindner teaches:
wherein idler pulley is sideably mounted (Lindner Pg 7 ¶ 7 line 3 “The disk 5 is connected to the rotor of the electric motor 2,” shown in Fig. 3 to be sideably mounted as the pulley 5 connected through hydraulic cylinder 1.1 through which the tension is measured. Pulley 6 is similarly sideably mounted.)
PNG
media_image4.png
408
379
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and moveable in response to a tension level in the endless belt, and wherein the movement of the idler pulley in response to the tension level in the endless belt alters a pressure in the hydraulic pressure sensor that is indicative of the tension level. (Lindner Pg 7 ¶ 2 line 4 – Pg 7 ¶ 4 line 5 “The hydraulic cylinder extends until the belt is tensioned. There is thus a balance of forces between the hydraulic cylinder, the mechanics and the belt. If the target value 10.1 and the actual value 10.3 match, the belt is tensioned with the correct force according to the belt drive design. The position of the piston rod of the hydraulic cylinder 1 is recorded by the integrated path measuring system 1.3. This position represents the starting value for the wear indication of the belt. The pressure on the piston side 1.1 is monitored by a pressure sensor 10.3. The system monitors the actual value from the pressure sensor 10.3 cyclically (e.g. when the machine is operating without load, so that its influences are excluded) or constantly. If this value exceeds or falls below a defined threshold, it is adjusted as described above. One reason for falling below the actual value (reduction in belt tension) is the elongation of the belt due to wear during operation. This shortfall is recognized and corrected by the system. The elongation of the belt also means that the piston rods of the hydraulic cylinder continue to extend. This distance, which the piston rod travels from the previously set starting value, is the elongation and thus also the indicator of the degree of wear of the belt,” emphasis added, teaching the hydraulic cylinder extending as a result of the reduction in belt tension, and the pressure sensor measuring a change in pressure as a result)
Serkh and Lindner are both considered analogous because they both relate to belt drive tension measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonspecific pulley hubload sensor of Serkh idler pulley by simple substitution of the hydraulic pressure cylinder which elongates as belt tension is reduced and the associated pressure sensor which monitors the pressure in the hydraulic cylinder as an indication of belt tension of Lindner. While Lindner arranges this device on a drive pulley, nothing precludes the use of this device on Serkh’s idler pulley. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the simple substitution of one known element (Serkh’s hubload sensor) for another (Lindner’s hydraulic cylinder and pressure transducer) to obtain predictable results (measuring the belt tension load on Serkh’s idler pulley) (MPEP 2143(I)(B)), as both sensors provide the same function in a similar way, and furthermore as motivated by eliminating the need to manually check and adjust belt tension and to ensure a correctly tensioned belt (Lindner Pg 3 ¶ 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Serkh teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Serkh does not teach:
wherein the load sensor comprises a load cell.
Within the same field of endeavor as Serkh, Lindner teaches:
wherein the load sensor comprises a load cell. (Lindner Pg 3 ¶ 9 lines 1-4 “Another development is that the measuring device for measuring the belt tension or the measured variable corresponding to the belt tension has a force transducer, in particular […] a load cell,” teaching the use of a load cell to measure belt tension)
Serkh and Lindner are considered analogous because they both relate to belt drive tension measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonspecific idler pulley hubload sensor of Serkh by simple substitution of the load cell of Lindner. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the simple substitution of one known element (Serkh’s hubload sensor) for another (Lindner’s load cell) to obtain predictable results (measuring a load on a pulley) (MPEP 2143(I)(B)), as both sensors provide the same function in the same way.
Regarding Claim 8, Serkh teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Serkh further teaches:
wherein the signal generated by the load sensor in response to the load exerted on the idler pulley by the endless belt is generated […] in response to the load exerted by the endless belt. (Serkh Col 4 lines 9-24 “Each sensor […] 46, […] transmits signals proportional to the load, tension, […] of the belt to the control module 18, […] The change in a belt or engine operating condition, or increase or decrease in belt tension, is sensed by each sensor […] 46,”)
Serkh does not teach:
[…] in response to a displacement of the idler pulley […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Serkh, Lindner teaches:
wherein the signal generated by the load sensor in response to the load exerted on the idler pulley by the endless belt is generated in response to a displacement of the idler pulley in response to the load exerted by the endless belt. (Lindner Pg 7 ¶ 2 line 4 – Pg 7 ¶ 4 line 5 “The hydraulic cylinder extends until the belt is tensioned. There is thus a balance of forces between the hydraulic cylinder, the mechanics and the belt. If the target value 10.1 and the actual value 10.3 match, the belt is tensioned with the correct force according to the belt drive design. The position of the piston rod of the hydraulic cylinder 1 is recorded by the integrated path measuring system 1.3. This position represents the starting value for the wear indication of the belt. The pressure on the piston side 1.1 is monitored by a pressure sensor 10.3. The system monitors the actual value from the pressure sensor 10.3 cyclically (e.g. when the machine is operating without load, so that its influences are excluded) or constantly. If this value exceeds or falls below a defined threshold, it is adjusted as described above. One reason for falling below the actual value (reduction in belt tension) is the elongation of the belt due to wear during operation. This shortfall is recognized and corrected by the system. The elongation of the belt also means that the piston rods of the hydraulic cylinder continue to extend. This distance, which the piston rod travels from the previously set starting value, is the elongation and thus also the indicator of the degree of wear of the belt,” emphasis added, teaching the hydraulic cylinder extending as a result of the reduction in belt tension, and the pressure sensor measuring a change in pressure as a result)
Serkh and Lindner are both considered analogous because they both relate to belt drive tension measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonspecific pulley hubload sensor which transmits a signal proportional to the tension load, sensing a change in load and belt operating condition of Serkh by the addition of the intermediate step of Lindner’s hydraulic pressure cylinder and associated pressure sensor which monitors the pressure in the hydraulic cylinder as an indication of belt tension as the cylinder elongates. While Lindner arranges this device on a drive pulley and specifies measurement based on elongation, nothing precludes the use of this device on Serkh’s idler pulley to monitor both elongation and retraction of the cylinder. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the simple substitution of one known element (Serkh’s hubload sensor sensing a change in belt operating condition and load) for another (Lindner’s hydraulic cylinder and pressure transducer sensing change in pressure due to change in cylinder length) to obtain predictable results (measuring the belt tension load on Serkh’s idler pulley) (MPEP 2143(I)(B)), as both sensors provide the same function in a similar way, and furthermore as motivated by eliminating the need to manually check and adjust belt tension and to ensure a correctly tensioned belt (Lindner Pg 3 ¶ 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP 4001695 (Lindner), regarding the amended claim 1, also teaches a hydraulic cylinder with a longitudinal axis and a hydraulic force transducer which measures the belt tension at an angle not parallel to either side of the belt.
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 ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights