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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 07/22/2026. Claims 12 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase (US Patent No. 6,530,846 B1) in view of Roach et al. (US PGPub. No. 2014/0228143 A1).
In Reference to Claim 1, 2, 4, and 11
Mase teaches (Claim 1) A correlated set of golf clubs comprising: [] a [] golf club comprising a loft L3 that differs from a loft Lc of a closest-lofted golf club of the correlated set by no more than 3°, the third golf club having a non-loft variant (fig’s 1, 7-10, 11-13, and 14-17; column 1 lines 43-46 and 57-59; column 2 lines 1-5, 14-16, 20, 28-30, 36-37, 44-45, and 50-51; same loft angle and one of a variety of other variables is different);
(Claim 2) wherein L3 is substantially equal to Lc (column 3 lines 15-18);
(Claim 4) wherein the non-loft variant is selected from the group consisting of: a club length, a club head moment of inertia about a center of gravity, a sole camber, a leading edge height, a club head volume, a club head center of gravity height, a leading edge radius, a striking face surface area, a striking face average roughness Ra, and a head mass (column 1 lines 43-46 and 57-59; column 2 lines 1-5, 14-16, 20, 28-30, 36-37, 44-45, and 50-51);
(Claim 11) wherein the [] golf club is configured for hitting off a tee, and the closest-lofted golf club is configured for hitting off a fairway (all clubs can be hit off a tee or a fairway, this is merely recitation of intended use that does not add structure to the claims).
Mase fails to teach other clubs in the set that differ in loft of claim 1.
Roach teaches (Claim 1) a first golf club and a second golf club that are successively-lofted and differ in loft by no less than 6° (paragraphs 0075 and 0076, and paragraph 0094; e.g. one disclosed set 1001 includes a mid-iron and a pitching wedge, which are disclosed to be over 6 degrees different from each other, additionally disclosed is a pitching wedge at 50 degrees and a lob wedge at 60 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the non-loft variant golf club set of Mase with the feature of providing additional clubs with degrees of loft differing by more than 6 degrees as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive set of golf clubs and golf club choices, allowing a user to select a more comprehensive and specifically tailored set of clubs as taught by Roach (paragraph 0005), allowing for an optimized set of golf clubs tailored to a specific user, making the set more attractive to golfers. The examiner further notes that Mase also contemplates using the disclosed non-loft variant club set along with other clubs to form additional sets (column 7 lines 15-18), making it further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add additional clubs of additional lofts to the set for the purpose of creating a more comprehensive set of golf clubs.
In Reference to Claim 3
The modified club set of Mase teaches all of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above.
Mase fails to specifically disclose the markings on the clubs.
Roach teaches (Claim 3) wherein: [a] golf club comprises a first external surface with first indicia including a first numerical club designation; and [a] closest-lofted golf club comprises a second external surface with second indicia including a second numerical club designation that is the same as the first numerical club designation (paragraph 0004, 0014; two clubs manufactured with the same number; also see paragraph 0057 for discussion of additional correlative indicia).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the golf club set of Mase with the feature of numerical designations as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of allowing a user to easily identify a club when desired as taught by Roach (paragraph 0004), making the set easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
The examiner further notes that it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate in an unobvious manner, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of golf club does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g. numerical club designation indicia and the substrate e.g. golf club, which is required for patentability.
In Reference to Claim 9
The modified club set of Mase teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mase further teaches (Claim 9) wherein: the [] golf club further comprises a [] striking face and a [] head center of gravity having a depth from the [] striking face, D3; and the closest-lofted golf club comprises a [] striking face and a [] head center of gravity having a depth from the [] striking face, D4, that is less than D3 by at least [x]mm (fig’s 14-17 show CG’s with varying depths from the striking face; also see column 5 lines 3-4).
Mase does not specifically disclose the specific degree of difference between the CG’s claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the difference between center of gravity depths at least 10mm simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of providing multiple clubs with the same loft angle but with CG’s that have varying depths from the strike face, merely claiming a specific difference between depths would not produce any new and unexpected results, would simply be producing workable ranges by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claim 12, 13, and 20
Mase teaches (Claim 12) A correlated set of golf clubs comprising: [];a non-loft variant (NLV) golf club comprising a loft Lv that differs from a loft Lc of a closest-lofted golf club of the correlated set by no more than 3° (fig’s 1, 7-10, 11-13, and 14-17; column 1 lines 43-46 and 57-59; column 2 lines 1-5, 14-16, 20, 28-30, 36-37, 44-45, and 50-51; same loft angle and one of a variety of other variables is different);
(Claim 13) wherein Lv is substantially equal to Lc (column 3 lines 15-18);
(Claim 20) wherein the NLV golf club is configured for hitting off a tee, and the closest-lofted golf club is configured for hitting off a fairway (all clubs can be hit off a tee or a fairway, this is merely recitation of intended use that does not add structure to the claims).
Mase fails to teach other clubs in the set that differ in loft of claim 12.
Roach teaches (Claim 12) at least three pairs of successively-lofted golf clubs, each of the pairs defining a loft difference that is greater than 4° (paragraphs 0075 and 0076, and paragraph 0094; e.g. disclosed irons include a long iron, mid-iron, a pitching wedge, and a lob wedge which are disclosed to be over 4 degrees different from each other and make up at least three pairs, note a selection of the listed clubs above can be considered a “set”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the non-loft variant golf club set of Mase with the feature of providing additional clubs with degrees of loft differing by more than 4 degrees as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive set of golf clubs and golf club choices, allowing a user to select a more comprehensive and specifically tailored set of clubs as taught by Roach (paragraph 0005), allowing for an optimized set of golf clubs tailored to a specific user, making the set more attractive to golfers. The examiner further notes that Mase also contemplates using the disclosed non-loft variant club set along with other clubs to form additional sets (column 7 lines 15-18), making it further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add additional clubs of additional lofts to the set for the purpose of creating a more comprehensive set of golf clubs.
In Reference to Claim 14
The modified club set of Mase teaches all of claims 12 and 13 as discussed above.
Mase fails to specifically disclose markings on the clubs.
Roach teaches (Claim 14) wherein: [a] golf club comprises a first external surface with first indicia including a first numerical club designation; and [a] closest-lofted golf club comprises a second external surface with second indicia including a second numerical club designation that is the same as the first numerical club designation (paragraph 0004, 0014; two clubs manufactured with the same number; also see paragraph 0057 for discussion of additional correlative indicia).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the golf club set of Mase with the feature of numerical designations as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of allowing a user to easily identify a club when desired as taught by Roach (paragraph 0004), making the set easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
The examiner further notes that it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate in an unobvious manner, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of golf club does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g. numerical club designation indicia and the substrate e.g. golf club, which is required for patentability.
In Reference to Claim 18
The modified golf club set of Mase teaches all of claim 12 as discussed above.
Mase further teaches (Claim 18) wherein: the NLV golf club further comprises a first striking face and a first head center of gravity having a depth from the first striking face, D1; and the closest-lofted golf club comprises a second striking face and a second head center of gravity having a depth from the second striking face, D2, that is less than D1 by at least [x]mm (fig’s 14-17 show CG’s with varying depths from the striking face; also see column 5 lines 3-4).
Mase does not specifically disclose the specific degree of difference between the CG’s claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the difference between center of gravity depths at least 10mm simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of providing multiple clubs with the same loft angle but with CG’s that have varying depths from the strike face, merely claiming a specific difference between depths would not produce any new and unexpected results, would simply be producing workable ranges by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase in view of Roach et al., and further in view of Best et al. (US PGPub. No. 2007/0042836 A1).
In Reference to Claims 5 and 6
The modified club set of Mase teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mase fails to teach a variant is a moment of inertia of claims 5 and 6.
Roach teaches (Claim 5) wherein [a] golf club further comprises a club head moment of inertia, Izz3, and [a] closest-lofted golf club comprises a club head moment of inertia, Izzc, that is less than Izz3 by at least [x]gcm² (paragraph 0012).
(Claim 6) wherein Izzc is less than Izz3 by at least [x]gcm² (paragraph 0012).
While Roach teaches the feature of intentionally providing differing moments of inertia between clubs, there is no specific teaching of a moment of inertia value.
Best teaches that a moment of inertia range between clubs in a club set is around 600gcm² (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the non-loft variant golf club set of Mase with the feature of providing additional clubs with differing moments of inertia as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive set of golf clubs and golf club choices, allowing a user to select a more comprehensive and specifically tailored set of clubs as taught by Roach (paragraph 0005), allowing for an optimized set of golf clubs tailored to a specific user, making the set more attractive to golfers.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the difference between moments of inertia at least 500gcm² or 1000gcm² simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of providing multiple clubs with differing moments of inertia is taught, and, since a normal range between club moments of inertia is in the hundreds of gcm², merely claiming a difference value of over 500gcm² or 1000gcm² specifically, would not produce any new and unexpected results, would simply be producing workable ranges by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claims 15 and 16
The modified golf club set of Mase teaches all of claim 12 as discussed above.
Mase fails to teach the variant is a moment of inertia of claims 15 and 16.
Roach teaches (Claim 15) wherein [a] golf club further comprises a club head moment of inertia, IzzV, and [a] closest-lofted golf club comprises a club head moment of inertia, IzzC, that is less than IzzV by at least []g cm² (paragraph 0012);
(Claim 16) wherein IzzC is less than IzzV by at least []g cm² (paragraph 0012).
While Roach teaches the feature of intentionally providing differing moments of inertia between clubs, there is no specific teaching of a moment of inertia value.
Best teaches that a moment of inertia range between clubs in a club set is around 600gcm² (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the non-loft variant golf club set of Mase with the feature of providing additional clubs with differing moments of inertia as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive set of golf clubs and golf club choices, allowing a user to select a more comprehensive and specifically tailored set of clubs as taught by Roach (paragraph 0005), allowing for an optimized set of golf clubs tailored to a specific user, making the set more attractive to golfers.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the difference between moments of inertia at least 500gcm² or 1000gcm² simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of providing multiple clubs with differing moments of inertia is taught, and, since a normal range between club moments of inertia is in the hundreds of gcm², merely claiming a difference value of over 500gcm² or 1000gcm² specifically, would not produce any new and unexpected results, would simply be producing workable ranges by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
Claims 7, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase in view of Roach et al., and further in view of Ezaki et al. (US Patent No. 4,874,171).
In Reference to Claims 7 and 8
The modified club set of Mase teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mase fails to specifically disclose changing volume, however, it is noted that fig’s 14-17 appear to show differently sized club heads that would inherently have different volumes.
Regardless, Roach teaches (Claim 7) wherein [a] golf club further comprises a head volume V3 and [a] closest-lofted golf club comprises a head volume Vc that is less than V3 by at least [x]cc (paragraph 0007 lines 14-19 and paragraph 0043, changing cavity volume changes head volume, changing edge dimensions and face size also changes volume).
(Claim 8) wherein Vc is less than V3 by at least [x]cc (paragraph 0007 lines 14-19 and paragraph 0043, changing cavity volume changes head volume, changing edge dimensions and face size also changes volume).
While Roach teaches differing volumes between clubs, no specific teaching of volume values.
Ezaki teaches a range of volume values in a club set is between 54 and 198cc (table in columns 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the non-loft variant golf club set of Mase with the feature of providing additional clubs with differing volumes as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive set of golf clubs and golf club choices, allowing a user to select a more comprehensive and specifically tailored set of clubs as taught by Roach (paragraph 0005), allowing for an optimized set of golf clubs tailored to a specific user, making the set more attractive to golfers.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the difference between volumes at least 75cc or 100cc simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of providing multiple clubs with differing volumes is taught, and, since a normal range between club volumes in a club set around 150cc, merely claiming a difference value of over 75cc or 100cc, specifically, would not produce any new and unexpected results, would simply be producing workable ranges by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claim 17
The modified golf club set of Mase teaches all of claim 12 as discussed above.
Mase fails to specifically disclose changing volume, however, it is noted that fig’s 14-17 appear to show differently sized club heads that would inherently have different volumes.
Regardless, Roach teaches (Claim 17) wherein [a] golf club further comprises a head volume Vv and the closest-lofted golf club comprises a head volume Vc that is less than Vv by at least [x]cc (paragraph 0007 lines 14-19 and paragraph 0043, changing cavity volume changes head volume, changing edge dimensions and face size also changes volume).
While Roach teaches differing volumes between clubs, no specific teaching of volume values.
Ezaki teaches a range of volume values in a club set is between 54 and 198cc (table in columns 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the non-loft variant golf club set of Mase with the feature of providing additional clubs with differing volumes as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive set of golf clubs and golf club choices, allowing a user to select a more comprehensive and specifically tailored set of clubs as taught by Roach (paragraph 0005), allowing for an optimized set of golf clubs tailored to a specific user, making the set more attractive to golfers.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the difference between volumes at least 75cc simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of providing multiple clubs with differing volumes is taught, and, since a normal range between club volumes in a club set around 150cc, merely claiming a difference value of over 75cc, specifically, would not produce any new and unexpected results, would simply be producing workable ranges by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase in view of Roach et al., and further in view of Seagram (US PGPub. No. 2019/0168084 A1).
In Reference to Claim 10
The modified club set of Mase teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mase fails to teach differences in strike face area.
Roach teaches (Claim 10) wherein: [a] golf club further comprises a [] striking face having a face area, A3; and [a] closest-lofted golf club comprises a [] striking face having a face area, Ac, that is less than A3 by at least [x]% (paragraph 0043).
While Roach teaches differing strike face areas, there is no specific teaching of area values.
Seagram teaches golf club strike face areas can be in a range of 22cm² to 28cm², which is approximately a 20% differential in range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the non-loft variant golf club set of Mase with the feature of providing additional clubs with differing face areas as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive set of golf clubs and golf club choices, allowing a user to select a more comprehensive and specifically tailored set of clubs as taught by Roach (paragraph 0005), allowing for an optimized set of golf clubs tailored to a specific user, making the set more attractive to golfers.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the difference between strike face areas of at least 20% simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of providing multiple clubs with differing face areas is taught, and, since a normal range between club face areas in a club set around 20%, merely claiming a difference value of over 20%, specifically, would not produce any new and unexpected results, would simply be producing workable ranges by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claim 19
The modified club set of Mase teaches all of claim 12 as discussed above.
Mase fails to teach a difference in strike face area.
Roach teaches (Claim 19) wherein: [a] golf club further comprises a first striking face having a first face area, A1; and [a] closest-lofted golf club comprises a second striking face having a second face area, A2, that is less than A1 by at least [x]% (paragraph 0043).
While Roach teaches differing strike face areas, there is no specific teaching of area values.
Seagram teaches golf club strike face areas can be in a range of 22cm² to 28cm², which is approximately a 20% differential in range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the non-loft variant golf club set of Mase with the feature of providing additional clubs with differing face areas as taught by the golf club set of Roach for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive set of golf clubs and golf club choices, allowing a user to select a more comprehensive and specifically tailored set of clubs as taught by Roach (paragraph 0005), allowing for an optimized set of golf clubs tailored to a specific user, making the set more attractive to golfers.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the difference between strike face areas of at least 20% simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of providing multiple clubs with differing face areas is taught, and, since a normal range between club face areas in a club set around 20%, merely claiming a difference value of over 20%, specifically, would not produce any new and unexpected results, would simply be producing workable ranges by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the clubs in Roach are not “successively-lofted and differ in loft by no less than 6º (for claim 1) or 4º (for claim 12). This is not persuasive.
First, the rejection set forth is a 103 rejection, not a 102 rejection. The limitation of a “set” of golf clubs was taught in Mase, therefore, the entire “set” of disclosed clubs in Roach is not used in the rejection and is, therefore, not germane to it. Using Roach to show two golf clubs that meet the claimed limitations is all that is required by the rejection, not an entirely distinct set with successive golf clubs having the lofts claimed, as is argued.
Second, any selected clubs can make up a “set.” This is extremely broad. For example, selecting a 4 iron, a 7 iron, a pitching wedge, and a lob wedge as a “set” would inherently make each of these clubs next in a “succession” of clubs in this set, which also meets the claimed limitations. Applicant appears to believe there are more limitations regarding a golf club “set” than currently exist. Applicant points to a definition in applicant’s specification in paragraph 0024 that “a ‘successively lofted’ golf club, relative to a correlated set of golf clubs, refers to the club having an immediately next greater loft than a previous club.” This definition explicitly does not define what the next club is. In other words, this need not be a 6 and a 7 iron, if a set omits a 6 iron. In a selected set including only a 4 iron, a 7 iron, a pitching wedge, and a loft wedge, for instance, the 4 and 7 irons are successively lofted in this set, as are the 7 iron and pitching wedge, as are the pitching wedge and lob wedge, all of which, as disclosed in Roach, meet the claimed loft differences.
Third, Roach, at minimum, explicitly discloses two closest clubs, even in applicant’s overly narrow interpretation of what “successive” clubs are in a set, making this argument largely moot. Paragraph 0076 discloses a pitching wedge at 50º and a lob wedge at 60º. These are successive clubs and have a difference of greater than 6º (and 4º), explicitly meeting the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights