DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11-17, 19-26, 30-32 are pending.
Claims 2-3, 8, 10, 18, 27-29 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/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.
Re claim 6, claim 6 recites, “wherein the…surface is an uncoated surface and/or a coated surface.” The language requires that the surface is “uncoated and/or coated.” This language uses an “and/or clause” which requires either “and,” or “or.” If interpreted as “and,” it is unclear how a surface can be both uncoated and coated. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as an uncoated surface or a coated surface.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11-17, 20-26, 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (“Mathew”) (US 2019/0294016) in view of Weng et al (“Weng”) (US 2019/0084874).
Re claim 1, Mathew discloses a window ([0096]) comprising:
a first transparent panel (402a; [0102] disclosing glass) comprising an exterior-facing first surface (Fig. 4A, S1) and an opposing second surface (Fig. 4A, S2),
a second transparent panel (402b; Claim 1) comprising an interior-facing fourth surface (S4) and an opposing third surface (S3),
wherein the first transparent panel (402a) and the second transparent panel (402b) are spaced apart from one another (Fig. 4A) by a gap (between S2 and S3),
wherein the first surface (S1) comprises a pattern (405; [0092]) comprising a plurality of markings ([0111] disclosing laser etching; Fig. 3B-3H) spaced at (Fig. 3B-3H) the first surface (S1), wherein each of the plurality of markings (Fig. 3B-3H) comprise an abrasion ([0111] disclosing laser etching), thereby leaving a visible marking (Fig. 3B-3H) at the first surface (S1),
wherein the abrasions ([0111] disclosing laser etching) are laser-induced markings ([0111] disclosing laser etching) formed after the gap is sealed by applying a laser beam ([0111] disclosing laser etching) to the first surface (S1) to remove at least a portion of material ([0111] disclosing laser etching) of the first surface (S1) or produce microcracks beneath ([0111] disclosing laser etching) the first surface (S1) without damaging the other sections of the window (Fig. 3B-3H),
but fails to disclose the gap sealed closed by an edge connecting the first panel and the second panel, wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam.
However, Weng discloses the gap (17) sealed closed by an edge (15) connecting the first panel (1) and the second panel (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew with the gap sealed closed by an edge connecting the first panel and the second panel as disclosed by Weng in order to maintain spacing between the first and second panels ([0026] disclosing 15 as a sealing spacer).
In addition, Weng discloses wherein the laser beam ([0033]) has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 (Claim 32; [0033]) at a location of a marking (150) formed by the laser beam ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam as disclosed by Weng in order to allow ablation to occur with partial removal but without significant damage to the substrate and without significant haze in the patterned areas ([0033]). In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
The language “wherein the abrasions are laser-induced markings formed after the gap is sealed by applying a laser beam to the first surface to remove at least a portion of material of the first surface or produce microcracks beneath the first surface without damaging the other sections of the window, wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 4, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the abrasions ([0111]) are formed by removing ([0011]) at least a portion of material ([0011]) of the first surface (S1).
The language “formed by removing at least a portion of material of the first surface” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 5, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the abrasions ([0111]) are formed by producing microcracks ([0173]) beneath the first surface (S1).
The language “formed by producing microcracks beneath the First surface.” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 6, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the first surface (S1) is an uncoated surface and/or a coated surface (Fig. 4D adding 425).
Re claim 7, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 2, wherein the laser-induced markings (Fig. 3AB-3H; [0111]) are formed by at least one of the following: a carbon dioxide laser ([0171]), a yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser ([0171]), a frequency doubled YAG laser, a fiber laser, a diode laser, an excimer laser, and/or any combination thereof.
Re claim 9, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of markings (Fig. 3B-3H) scatter incident electromagnetic radiation (]0068] disclosing scattering of UV light, UV being a known type of electromagnetic radiation).
Re claim 11, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the gap (between S2 and S3) comprises a gas denser than air ([0088] disclosing argon, a gas with denser than air).
Re claim 12, Mathew discloses the window of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the gap is evacuated to produce a vacuum.
However, Weng discloses wherein the gap (17) is evacuated to produce a vacuum ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein the gap is evacuated to produce a vacuum as disclosed by Weng in order to allow increase thermal properties of the window, as evacuated glazings are extreme well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 13, Mathew discloses the window of claim 12, but fails to disclose further comprising a plurality of supports arranged in the gap to connect the first panel and the second panel.
However, Weng discloses further comprising a plurality of supports (15, [0027] disclosing plural 15) arranged in the gap (17) to connect the first panel (1) and the second panel (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew further comprising a plurality of supports arranged in the gap to connect the first panel and the second panel as disclosed by Weng in order to seal the gap to allow for evacuation of the gap or filling with a gas ([0027]).
Re claim 14, Mathew discloses the window of claim 13, Weng discloses wherein at least a portion of the plurality of markings (150) are formed between locations (Fig. 2) in which the plurality of supports (15) contact the first panel (1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein at least a portion of the plurality of markings are formed between locations in which the plurality of supports contact the first panel as disclosed by Weng in order to distribute marking about an entirety of the panel instead of just edges thereof.
Re claim 15, Mathew discloses the window of claim 13, Weng discloses wherein at least a portion of the plurality of markings (150) are formed at locations (Fig. 3) in which the plurality of supports (15) contact (Fig. 3) the first panel (1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein at least a portion of the plurality of markings are formed at locations in which the plurality of supports contact the first panel as disclosed by Weng in order to distribute marking about an entirety of the panel including edges thereof.
Re claim 16, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the first panel (402a) is a component of a building ([0087] disclosing a building) integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) component ([0154]).
Re claim 17, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the window (Fig. 4A) is arranged in a frame ([0092]) of an architectural structure ([0087] disclosing a building) with the exterior-facing first surface (S1) arranged as an exterior surface ([0087]) of the architectural structure ([0087] disclosing a building).
Re claim 19, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the plurality of markings (Fig. 3B-3H) are not formed by chemical etching unassisted by any photon enhanced reaction ([0111] disclosing laser etching).
Re claim 20, Mathew discloses the window of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of markings exhibit a 20 gloss value of less than 1.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein the plurality of markings exhibit a 20 gloss value of less than 1 in order to reduce glare, provide visual clarity, and enhanced aesthetics. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 21, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the pattern (Fig. 3B-3H) is spaced over (Fig. 4A) the entire area of the first surface (S1) such that there is no four square inch area ([0068]-[0069]) of the first surface (S1) without a marking of the plurality of markings (Fig. 3B-3H).
Re claim 22, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the first panel (402a) comprises glass and/or plastic (402a; [0102] disclosing glass).
Re claim 23, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, further comprising at least one side light ([0151]) positioned to emit light at a side (of S1) of the first transparent panel (402a) between ([0151]) the first surface (S1) and the second surface (S2).
Re claim 24, Mathew as modified discloses an architectural structure ([0087] disclosing a building) comprising the window (Fig. 4A) of claim 1 (per the above).
Re claim 25, Mathew as modified discloses the architectural structure of claim 24, comprising a building ([0087] disclosing a building) comprising an opening ([0087] discloses exposing to the outside and inside environments which necessarily requires an opening), wherein the window (Fig. 4A) is mounted in the opening ([0087]) with the exterior-facing first surface (S1) arranged as an exterior surface ([0087]) of the building ([0087]).
Re claim 26, Mathew discloses a method (Fig. 1-4A) of manufacturing a window ([0096]) comprising:
providing (Fig. 4A showing the unit provided) an insulated transparency unit (Fig. 4A) comprising a first transparent panel (402a; [0102] disclosing glass) comprising an exterior-facing first surface (Fig. 4A, S1) and an opposing second surface (Fig. 4A, S2) and a second transparent panel (402b; Claim 1) comprising an interior-facing fourth surface (S4) and an opposing third surface (S3), wherein the first transparent panel (402a) and the second transparent panel (402b) are spaced apart from one another (Fig. 4A) by a gap (between S2 and S3),
forming (Fig. 4A showing 405 formed, [0111] disclosing forming) a pattern (405; [0092]) at the first surface (S1), wherein the pattern (405) comprises a plurality of markings ([0111] disclosing laser etching; Fig. 3B-3H) spaced at (Fig. 3B-3H) the first surface (S1), wherein each of the plurality of markings (Fig. 3B-3H) comprises an abrasion ([0111] disclosing laser etching), thereby leaving a visible marking (Fig. 3B-3H) at the first surface (S1), wherein forming the pattern (405; [0092]) comprises removing at least a portion of material ([0111] disclosing laser etching) or producing microcracks beneath ([0111] disclosing laser etching) the first surface (S1) without damaging the other sections of the window (Fig. 3B-3H) using a laser beam ([0011]),
but fails to disclose sealing the gap closed by forming an edge connecting the first panel and the second panel, and forming the pattern after the gap is sealed, wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam.
However, Weng discloses the gap (17) sealed closed by an edge (15) connecting the first panel (1) and the second panel (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mathew with the gap sealed closed by an edge connecting the first panel and the second panel as disclosed by Weng in order to maintain spacing between the first and second panels ([0026] disclosing 15 as a sealing spacer).
In addition, Weng discloses wherein the laser beam ([0033]) has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 (Claim 32; [0033]) at a location of a marking (150) formed by the laser beam ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mathew wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam as disclosed by Weng in order to allow ablation to occur with partial removal but without significant damage to the substrate and without significant haze in the patterned areas ([0033]). In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mathew with forming the pattern after the gap is sealed in order to allow for creation of markings on an assembled window instead of just glass that may not end up requiring such markings. In addition, selection of the order of performing process steps has been held as within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975.
Re claim 29, Mathew as modified discloses the method of claim 26, wherein the gap (between S2 and S3) is filled with a gas denser than air ([0088] disclosing argon, a gas with denser than air).
Re claim 30, Mathew as modified discloses the method of claim 26, but fails to disclose wherein the gap is comprises a vacuum.
However, Weng discloses wherein the gap (17) comprises a vacuum ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mathew wherein the gap is evacuated to produce a vacuum as disclosed by Weng in order to allow increase thermal properties of the window, as evacuated glazings are extreme well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 31, Mathew as modified discloses a method (Fig. 1-4A) of preventing bird collisions (Abstract) with an architectural substrate ([0087] disclosing a building), comprising: installing ([0087] disclosing use with the building) the window (Fig. 4A) of claim 1 (see above) in an opening ([0087] discloses exposing to the outside and inside environments which necessarily requires an opening) of an architectural substrate ([0087] disclosing a building) with the exterior-facing first surface (S1) arranged as an exterior surface ([0087]) of the architectural substrate ([0087] disclosing a building).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (“Mathew”) (US 2019/0294016) in view of Weng et al (“Weng”) (US 2019/0084874) and Collins et al (“Collins”) (US 5,664,395).
Re claim 32, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a pump out tube and a pump out cavity cut out from the second surface and/or the third surface, wherein the pump out tube and the pump out cavity are configured to evacuate the gap after the edge has been formed to seal the gap.
However, Collins discloses further comprising a pump out tube (8) and a pump out cavity (11) cut out from (as this language is product by process) the second surface and/or the third surface (left surface of 2), wherein the pump out tube (8) and the pump out cavity (11) are configured to evacuate (Col 1 lines 26-35) the gap (between 2 and 3) after (Col 1 lines 26-35) the edge (4) has been formed to seal the gap (between 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Collins with further comprising a pump out tube and a pump out cavity cut out from the second surface and/or the third surface, wherein the pump out tube and the pump out cavity are configured to evacuate the gap after the edge has been formed to seal the gap as disclosed by Collins in order to provide a low pressure space, providing a thermally insulting glass panel (Abstract).
The language “cut out from the second surface and/or the third surface” and “after the edge has been formed to seal the gap” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby partially withdrawn. However, with respect to claim 6, Applicant argues that a surface being uncoated “and/or” coated is definite because a surface could be partially coated and partially uncoated. This is generally true. However, the present specification as originally filed does not support a partially coated/uncoated surface. [0036] states that surface 104 may be uncoated, or may be coated. It does not state that the surface may be partially coated or uncoated. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 26, Applicant argues that features of claims 8 and 28 are incorporated into claim 26, with the additional limitation that the markings are formed after the gap is sealed. Applicant argues that neither Mathew nor Weng discloses this feature. It is noted alleged that Mathew or Weng discloses this feature. Rather, it is noted that it has been held that the order of process of steps is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975.
Applicant next argues the claimed range and recites benefits thereof. While the claimed range may provide benefits, providing benefits does not preclude obviousness. As cited above, “Weng discloses wherein the laser beam ([0033]) has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 (Claim 32; [0033]) at a location of a marking (150) formed by the laser beam ([0033])…It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mathew wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam as disclosed by Weng in order to allow ablation to occur with partial removal but without significant damage to the substrate and without significant haze in the patterned areas ([0033]). In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.” Applicant further states that Weng does not take into account formation of the markings after sealing of the gap. This argument is addressed above. Moreover, it is noted that laser etching of the window does not lead to damaging other sections as shown in the figures of Mathew.
Next, Applicant argues the benefits of producing the markings after sealing the gap. While this may provide benefits to Applicant’s invention, it does not preclude obviousness. As noted above, “It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mathew with the gap sealed closed by an edge connecting the first panel and the second panel as disclosed by Weng in order to maintain spacing between the first and second panels ([0026] disclosing 15 as a sealing spacer).” Providing markings after sealing the gap (for example, on a finished product) eliminates wasted marked glass that may not otherwise be required to be used for birds. A person of ordinary skill would provide markings only on assembled windows that he/she knows are going to be used as such, eliminating wasteful process of marking glass that will not.
Next, Applicant argues that Mathew is directed to a electrochromic bird friendly device. However, Mathew explicitly recognizes that such markings may be laser etched (see above rejection; see also Applicant’s remarks). Although Applicant contends that Mathew would not be modified per the above for fear of damaging the electrochromic device, this is conclusory. The question isn’t what may or may not be damaged in Mathew, it is what would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As noted above, the Mathew discloses laser etching. Weng discloses the claimed range. The combination would have been obvious for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that features similar to claim 26 are incorporated into claim 1, with the additional limitation that the markings are formed after the gap is sealed. Applicant argues that neither Mathew nor Weng discloses this feature. With respect to claim 1, claim 1 is drawn to a “window.” Claim 1 is not drawn to a method of manufacturing a window. As cited above, the language “wherein the abrasions are laser-induced markings formed after the gap is sealed by applying a laser beam to the first surface to remove at least a portion of material of the first surface or produce microcracks beneath the first surface without damaging the other sections of the window, wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” In other words, the abrasions are the physical structure of the window. The manner by which the abrasions are formed are directed to the process by which the window is made. These features do not govern patentability of the claim, though it is noted that Mathew does disclose laser etching, and Weng does disclose the claimed range. The fact that the claims recite that the markings are made after sealing relates to the process by which the final product is made, and thus, does not govern.
Applicant argues that the recitation requiring marking after sealing should be given patentable weight because it defines the product thereby. The order of process does not define the final product. The final product includes a window with a sealed gap and markings regardless of whether those markings are formed before or after sealing of the gap. In other words, the final product (an assembled, sealed, marked window) is the same no matter when the markings / sealings are actually made.
Applicant next argues the claim range and recites benefits thereof. While the claimed range may provide benefits, providing benefits does not preclude obviousness. As cited above, “Weng discloses wherein the laser beam ([0033]) has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 (Claim 32; [0033]) at a location of a marking (150) formed by the laser beam ([0033])…It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam as disclosed by Weng in order to allow ablation to occur with partial removal but without significant damage to the substrate and without significant haze in the patterned areas ([0033]). In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.” Applicant further states that Weng does not take into account formation of the markings after sealing of the gap. This argument is addressed above, inasmuch as it is directed to product by process limitations. Moreover, it is noted that laser etching of the window does not lead to damaging other sections as shown in the figures of Mathew.
Applicant’s arguments concerning new claim 32 and/or any remaining dependent claims are addressed by the above rejection and the remarks above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635