Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejections to claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. The double patenting rejections to claims 1-19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “extending through; the concentric cylinder of the backplate” should read “extending through the concentric cylinder of the backplate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-17 of copending Application No. 18/533,850 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the subject matter is not presented in the same order throughout the claim, each limitation is presented in the copending claims in a different order.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 14 and 15 claim a “pawl tooth” and “ratchet teeth” structure not found in the 12/08/2023 specification. While figures 16 and 30 of the 12/08/2023 drawings appears to teach a toothed structure to couple the faceplate and back plate, this toothed structure is not consistent with that of a pawl and ratchet system. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 14 and 15 is regarded as new matter. For the purpose of examination, any toothed coupling system consistent with the structure of the figures 16 and 30 of the 12/08/2023 drawings is regarded as reading on the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected for being dependent upon rejected claims 14 and 15.
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, 7-12, 17-19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waltz (US5662522A) in view of Niedermair (US20080185055A1).
Regarding claim 1, Waltz teaches
a vent assembly (ventilator 40), comprising:
a backplate (base member 62, fig. 2) having a mounting flange configured to attach to a first side of a support surface (periphery 67, attached to roof deck 41 on fig. 2), a perimeter wall projecting axially from the mounting flange (ring band portion 64), an inner wall projecting inward from the perimeter wall and axially offset from the mounting flange (outward face portion 60, fig. 2); and
a face plate configured to attach to the backplate and at least partially cover a central vent hole extending through the concentric cylinders (hood portion 70, fig. 2)
Waltz does not teach
a plurality of concentric cylinders arranged in an order of decreasing diameter, wherein the concentric cylinders are separated by score lines and project axially from the inner wall such that at least one of the concentric cylinders is recessed from the mounting flange and circumscribed by the perimeter wall of the backplate on the first side of the support surface
Niedermair teaches
a plurality of concentric cylinders arranged in an order of decreasing diameter (first sleeve section 30 comprising smaller diameter cylindrical stub 52 and larger diameter stub 54), wherein the concentric cylinders are separated by score lines (“the smaller diameter cylindrical stub 52 could be removed and the duct clamped to the larger diameter stub 54. The step runner 53 may be provided with a line of weakness 55 to facilitate removal of stub 52”) [0021]
Waltz teaches tubular member 42 attached to a duct member 56 on fig. 2. However, Waltz does not teach how the tubular member 42 accommodates the size of the duct member 56. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the configuration of the first sleeve section 30 of soffit vent 20 of Niedermair to the tubular member 42 of Waltz in order to allow for an exhaust vent structure that can effectively accommodate different exhaust duct sizes.
The combination teaches
wherein the concentric cylinders project axially from the inner wall such that at least one of the concentric cylinders is recessed from the mounting flange and circumscribed by the perimeter wall of the backplate on the first side of the support surface (as shown on fig. 2 of Waltz, tubular member 42 projects axially from the outward face portion 60 such that tubular member 42 is recessed from the periphery 67 and circumscribed by the ring band portion 64 of the base member 62 on the first side of the roof deck 41; therefore, the same of tubular member 42 would be true when modified to comprise the configuration of the first sleeve section 30 of soffit vent 20 of Niedermair)
Regarding claim 7, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 1,
wherein the backplate is a first single-piece structure and the face plate is a second single-piece structure distinct from and removably mountable directly to the backplate (as shown on fig. 2);
Regarding claim 8, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 1,
wherein a first of the concentric cylinders is recessed into and circumscribed by the mounting flange and a second of the concentric cylinders projects axially from the first of the concentric cylinders past the mounting flange (as shown on fig. 2 of Waltz, an upper section of tubular member 42 is recessed into and circumscribed by base member 62 on the first side of the roof deck 41, and a lower section of tubular member 42 projects past the mounting flange on the second side of the roof deck 41; therefore, when modified to comprise the configuration of the first sleeve section 30 of soffit vent 20 of Niedermair, a cylinder towards the upper side of fig. 2 of Waltz would be recessed into and circumscribed by base member 62 on the first side of the roof deck 41 and a cylinder towards the lower side of fig. 2 of Waltz would project past the mounting flange on the second side of the roof deck 41)
Regarding claim 9, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 8, further comprising
one or more ventilation tube stoppers configured to prevent a ventilation tube from being over inserted with respect to the vent assembly (clamp means 57)
Regarding claim 10, Waltz, as modified, does not teach the vent assembly of claim 9,
wherein the score lines are dual- sided score lines
While Waltz, as modified by Niedermair, does not explicitly teach the score lines as dual-sided score lines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the score lines of Niedermair as applied to Waltz as such, as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (see [0004] and [0076] of applicant’s specification dated 12/08/2023). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Regarding claim 11, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 10, further comprising:
one of: a flapper pivotably mounted to the backplate, wherein the flapper is either solid or has holes for intake/exhaust (flapper type cover means 82, connected to backplate via hinge supports 92 as shown on fig. 3, shown as solid on fig. 3); or an inner mesh securely mounted to the backplate (not required due to “or” terminology)
Regarding claim 12, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 1, further comprising:
a vent flapper pivotably mounted to the backplate (flapper valve 82) and including one or more air intake openings formed within the vent flapper (opening formed by upper end 46, fig. 2-3), wherein the one or more air intake openings allow air to flow both in and out of the central vent hole extending through the concentric cylinders of the backplate (through tubular member 42 as modified by Niedermair; in opened state of 82’, air is free to flow in or out of tubular member 42)
Regarding claim 17, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 12, further comprising:
a removable cover configured to block the air intake openings formed within the vent flapper (flapper valve 82, removable via hinge means 84 connected to hinge supports 92, fig. 3)
Regarding claim 18, Waltz, as modified, does not teach the vent assembly of claim 12,
wherein the score lines are dual-sided
While Waltz, as modified by Niedermair, does not explicitly teach the score lines as dual-sided score lines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the score lines of Niedermair as applied to Waltz as such, as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (see [0004] and [0076] of applicant’s specification dated 12/08/2023). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Regarding claim 19, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 18, further comprising:
one or more ventilation tube stoppers to prevent the ventilation tube from being over inserted (clamp means 57)
Regarding claim 20, Waltz teaches
a vent assembly (ventilator 40) for an air duct in a support wall (roof deck 41), the vent assembly comprising:
a backplate (base member 62, fig. 2) integrally formed as a single-piece structure with an annular mounting flange (periphery 67, fig. 2), a planar inner wall (outward face portion 60, fig. 2), an annular perimeter wall (ring band portion 64), the annular mounting flange configured to receive therethrough one or more fasteners to thereby attach the vent assembly to an exterior surface of the support wall (nails 68), the annular perimeter wall projecting substantially orthogonally from an inner perimeter of the annular mounting flange (fig. 2), the planar inner wall projecting inward from the annular perimeter wall (fig. 2), and substantially parallel to and axially offset from the annular mounting flange (fig. 2); and
a faceplate (hood portion 70) integrally formed as a single-piece structure with an annular frame (outwardly extending shoulder 130), a vent hood projecting forward from the annular frame (roof portion 110), and an annular mounting wall projecting rearward from the annular frame (downwardly extending shoulder 132)
Waltz does not teach
a plurality of concentric cylinders
the concentric cylinders projecting substantially orthogonally from the inner wall such that at least one of the concentric cylinders is recessed from the mounting flange and surrounded by annular perimeter wall
the annular mounting wall configured to slide against and attach to the annular perimeter wall of the backplate such that the vent hood at least partially covers a central vent hole extending through the concentric cylinders
Niedermair teaches
a plurality of concentric cylinders (first sleeve section 30 comprising smaller diameter cylindrical stub 52 and larger diameter stub 54)
Waltz teaches tubular member 42 attached to a duct member 56 on fig. 2. However, Waltz does not teach how the tubular member 42 accommodates the size of the duct member 56. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the configuration of the first sleeve section 30 of soffit vent 20 of Niedermair to the tubular member 42 of Waltz in order to allow for an exhaust vent structure that can effectively accommodate different exhaust duct sizes.
The combination teaches
the concentric cylinders projecting substantially orthogonally from the inner wall such that at least one of the concentric cylinders is recessed from the mounting flange and surrounded by annular perimeter wall (as shown on fig. 2 of Waltz, tubular member 42 projects axially from the outward face portion 60 such that tubular member 42 is recessed from the periphery 67 and circumscribed by the ring band portion 64 of the base member 62 on the first side of the roof deck 41; therefore, the same of tubular member 42 would be true when modified to comprise the configuration of the first sleeve section 30 of soffit vent 20 of Niedermair)
the annular mounting wall configured to slide against and attach to the annular perimeter wall of the backplate such that the vent hood at least partially covers a central vent hole extending through the concentric cylinders (“Fasteners 136 are provided to affix shoulder 132 of hood 70 to ring band portion 64 of base 62” [col. 7 lines 10-11 of Waltz]; covers tubular member 42, modified to comprise the concentric cylinders of Niedermair)
Claim(s) 2-3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waltz (US5662522A) in view of Niedermair (US20080185055A1), in further view of Fiser (US20180066858A1).
Regarding claim 2, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 1, further comprising:
a ventilation tube configured to attach to one of the concentric cylinders (duct member 56)
Waltz does not teach
wherein the backplate further includes one or more ventilation tube stoppers projecting inward from the concentric cylinders and configured to press against and thereby prevent the ventilation tube from being over inserted with respect to the backplate
Fiser teaches
wherein the backplate further includes one or more ventilation tube stoppers projecting inward from the concentric cylinders and configured to press against and thereby prevent the ventilation tube from being over inserted with respect to the backplate (“inner guard 206 is positioned atop base 208 , with skirt 207 of inner guard 206 positioned about and surrounding vent wall 214 and with indexing tabs 209 positioned in indexing cutouts 211 of inner guard 206 to properly set the rotational position of inner guard 206 with respect to base 208”) [0077]
While Waltz teaches a clamp means 57 to attach duct member 56 and tubular member 42, it does not teach a tab system to ensure that the duct member 56 and tubular member 42 are at the proper rotation position relative to one another. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube connection system of Fiser to Waltz, as modified, in order to ensure that the duct and tube are properly fitted relative to one another in both the axial and rotational directions.
Regarding claim 3, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 2, further comprising:
a tooth formed on one of the backplate and the face plate; and a tooth receiver formed on the other of the backplate and the face plate, the tooth receiver configured to receive the tooth and thereby attach the face plate to the backplate (configuration of locator pins 134, fig. 2)
Regarding claim 13, Waltz, as modified, does not teach the vent assembly of claim 12, further comprising
one or more ventilation tube stoppers projecting inward from the concentric cylinders and configured to prevent a ventilation tube from being over inserted with respect to the vent assembly
Fiser teaches
one or more ventilation tube stoppers projecting inward from the concentric cylinders and configured to prevent a ventilation tube from being over inserted with respect to the vent assembly (“inner guard 206 is positioned atop base 208 , with skirt 207 of inner guard 206 positioned about and surrounding vent wall 214 and with indexing tabs 209 positioned in indexing cutouts 211 of inner guard 206 to properly set the rotational position of inner guard 206 with respect to base 208”) [0077]
While Waltz teaches a clamp means 57 to attach duct member 56 and tubular member 42, it does not teach a tab system to ensure that the duct member 56 and tubular member 42 are at the proper rotation position relative to one another. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube connection system of Fiser to Waltz, as modified, in order to ensure that the duct and tube are properly fitted relative to one another in both the axial and rotational directions.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waltz (US5662522A) in view of Niedermair (US20080185055A1), and Fiser (US20180066858A1), in further view of Van Deijk (EP3686494A1), referring to the English translation dated 02/06/2026.
Regarding claim 4, Waltz, as modified, does not teach the vent assembly of claim 3,
wherein: the tooth is formed on the backplate, and the tooth receiver is formed on the face plate
Van Deijk teaches
wherein: the tooth is formed on the backplate, and the tooth receiver is formed on the face plate
Van Deijk teaches
wherein: the tooth is formed on the backplate (adjusting elements 404 formed on cover plate 400), and the tooth receiver is formed on the face plate (strip openings 240 formed on carrier 200)
While Waltz teaches the tooth is formed on the face plate, and the tooth receiver is formed on the backplate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tooth is formed on the backplate and the tooth receiver formed on the face plate as taught in Van Deijk (adjusting elements 404 and strip openings 240 arrangement), in order to allow a user to see the tooth while mounting hood portion 70 of Waltz, instead of being visually blocked by the hood portion 70.
Regarding claim 5, Waltz, as modified, does not teach the vent assembly of claim 4,
wherein the score lines are dual-sided score lines
While Waltz, as modified by Niedermair, does not explicitly teach the score lines as dual-sided score lines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the score lines of Niedermair as applied to Waltz as such, as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (see [0004] and [0076] of applicant’s specification dated 12/08/2023). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Regarding claim 6, Waltz, as modified, does not teach the vent assembly of claim 4,
wherein the score lines include a pair of concentric score lines formed on opposite faces of a tube base separating the concentric cylinders
While Waltz, as modified by Niedermair, does not explicitly teach the score lines as dual-sided score lines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the line of weakness 55 located on step runner 53 of Niedermair as applied to Waltz as such, as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (see [0004] and [0076] of applicant’s specification dated 12/08/2023). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waltz (US5662522A) in view of Niedermair (US20080185055A1), and Fiser (US20180066858A1), in further view of Soreke (EP3064844A1).
Regarding claim 14, Waltz, as modified, does not teach the vent assembly of claim 13, further comprising:
a pawl tooth formed on and projecting transversely from one of the backplate and the face plate; and
a tooth receiver with multiple ratchet teeth formed on and projecting transversely from the other of the backplate and the face plate
Soreke teaches
a pawl tooth formed on and projecting transversely from one of the backplate and the face plate (“engagement elements 35 of the support member 17 each comprise a lug 41”) [0033]; and
a tooth receiver with multiple ratchet teeth formed on and projecting transversely from the other of the backplate and the face plate (“engagement elements 37 of the cover panel 19 each comprise a toothed section 43 having a plurality of teeth 45 which selectively engage the lug 41 of the counterpart engagement element 35 of the support member 17”) [0033]
Waltz teaches locator pins 134 to affixing the hood 70 to the base 62. Soreke teaches a similar pin/receiver arrangement on fig. 4 to affix cover panel 19 to support member 17, however the pins (engagement elements 37) further comprises a toothed configuration to secure the cover panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the locator pins 134 of Waltz with the configuration of engagement elements 37 and counterpart engagement element 35 of Soreke, in order to further ensure that the hood 70 and the base 62 of Waltz remain affixed to one another during use.
Regarding claim 15, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 14, wherein:
the pawl tooth is integrally formed on and projects transversely inward from the backplate, and the ratchet teeth of the tooth receiver are integrally formed on and project transversely outward from the face plate (as shown on fig. 4 of Soreke)
Regarding claim 16, Waltz, as modified, teaches the vent assembly of claim 15,
wherein at least only one of the concentric cylinders is recessed from the mounting flange of the backplate (as shown on fig. 2 of Waltz, tubular member 42 projects axially from the outward face portion 60 such that tubular member 42 is recessed from the periphery 67 and circumscribed by the ring band portion 64 of the base member 62 on the first side of the roof deck 41; therefore, the same of tubular member 42 would be true when modified to comprise the configuration of the first sleeve section 30 of soffit vent 20 of Niedermair)
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Degraan (US20190119920A1), which teaches a vent assembly to accommodate different sized ventilation tubes (fig. 7) via score lines, similarly to that claimed
Ramsay (US20120264363A1), which teaches a vent assembly applied in the previous office action
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 BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights