The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received May 6, 2026, amending Claims 15-19 and 23. New Claim 31 was added by this amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fluid distribution system” in Claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 15, 16, 18-27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nguyen US 2023/0292975 (hereafter Nguyen) in view of Terry et al. US 2020/0154968 (hereafter Terry et al.).
Regarding Amended Claim 15, Nguyen teaches:
15. A cleaner (extraction cleaner 10) comprising:
a suction motor (motor/fan assembly 19) operable to create a suction airflow from a suction inlet (suction nozzle 16) to an exhaust outlet (exhausted from extraction cleaner 10, Paragraph [0039]);
a controller including a processor and memory (see discussion below), the controller (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12) – modified by Terry et al., as discussed below, to be a controller that further comprises a processor, a memory, and a set of computer-based instructions stored in the memory to be executed by the processor for operation and control of components of the surface cleaner) configured to control the suction motor operable at predetermined suction levels corresponding to a plurality of user selectable modes (off, high/low suction, high/low agitator speed, high/low flow or combinations thereof); and
a user interface (electronic control 116) operatively connected to the controller, the user interface having a first user-actuatable input (first electronic control 116X - power switch, Paragraph [0077]) and a second user-actuatable input (“The third electronic control 116Z can switch between “flow on” and “flow off” states for the second pump 42 (FIG. 1) as described above. In other non-limiting examples, the at least one electronic control 116 can vary agitation speeds of the agitator 26 (FIG. 2), or vary fan speed of the motor/fan assembly 19 to adjust the level of suction at the suction nozzle 16” and “It should be understood that the at least one electronic control 116 can be in a variety of forms, non-limiting examples of which include a toggle switch, rocker switch, push button, or touchscreen or touchpad” - Paragraph [0077]);
wherein the first user-actuatable input (first electronic control 116X - power switch, Paragraph [0077]) is configured to select and cause the controller to operate the cleaner according to the selected mode of the plurality of user selectable modes (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in mode previously selected by user corresponding to the third electronic control 116Z position being one of two levels of suction or agitator speed);
wherein one of the plurality of user selectable modes is a favored mode (user selects a preferred, “favored”, switch position based on a desired level of suction or agitator speed as presented in Paragraph [0077] and doesn’t need to change level between cleaning operations. For example, a user would most likely always favor the highest amount of suction or agitator speed in most cases to maximize floor scrubbing and water collection during operation. Low agitator speed or low suction would only be desirable if cleaning delicate surfaces such as delicate area rugs or non-carpet materials); and
wherein the second user-actuatable input (toggle switch, rocker switch, push button, Paragraph [0077]) is configured to select and cause the controller to operate the cleaner according to the favored mode (in other words, the switch position of the second user-actuatable input is selected by the user based on a favored level of suction or agitator speed as presented in Paragraph [0077]. Once placed in the desired position/mode, it will stay in that favored position/mode resulting in the first user-actuatable input (first electronic control 116X - power switch, Paragraph [0077]) to control the device on/off in the user’s favored mode).
PNG
media_image1.png
1006
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nguyen discloses a surface cleaning apparatus that employs a circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12) that controls flow, suction, and agitator speeds. He does not disclose that the circuit board includes a processor and a memory. The reference Terry et al. discloses, in Paragraph [0040], a surface cleaning apparatus that employs a printed circuit board controller that further comprises a processor, a memory, and a set of computer-based instructions stored in the memory to be executed by the processor for operation and control of components of the surface cleaner. In Paragraph [0043], Terry et al. discloses the controller controls flow, suction, and agitator speeds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit board of the Nguyen device, if not already present, to include a processor and memory as taught by Terry et al. with the motivation to improve the intelligence of the device operation and decision-making capability.
Regarding Amended Claim 16, Nguyen teaches:
16. The cleaner of claim 15, wherein the favored mode (user selects a preferred, “favored”, switch position based on a desired level of suction or agitator speed as presented in Paragraph [0077] and doesn’t need to change level between cleaning operations) is user selected, and wherein the controller (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12) – modified by Terry et al., as discussed, to be a controller that further comprises a processor, a memory, and a set of computer-based instructions stored in the memory to be executed by the processor for operation and control of components of the surface cleaner) and the user interface are configured to receive input from the user interface (user actuates power switch to turn on vacuum cleaner with the other switch in a predetermined desired “favored” position) the identifying a predetermined setting activity assigning the favored mode to the second user-actuatable input (“favored”, switch position based on a desired level of suction or agitator speed as presented in Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Amended Claim 18, Nguyen teaches:
18. The cleaner of claim 15, wherein the controller (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12) – modified by Terry et al., as discussed, to be a controller that further comprises a processor, a memory, and a set of computer-based instructions stored in the memory to be executed by the processor for operation and control of components of the surface cleaner) determines the favored mode (through sensing switch position during power up) by assigning the second user-actuatable input (“favored”, switch position based on a desired level of suction or agitator speed as presented in Paragraph [0077]) to activate the mode in which a user previously operated the cleaner (in a typical operation, the user would leave the switch in a favored position and use the power switch to turn on the device prompting the internal electronics to initiate the device operation in the favored mode with the predetermined suction and brush speed consistent with the selected switch position).
Regarding Amended Claim 19, Nguyen teaches:
19. The cleaner of claim 15 further comprising:
a brush roll (roll 130 of agitator 26) disposed adjacent the suction inlet (suction nozzle 16), the brush roll driven by a brush roll motor (motor labeled 140 in Figure 3),
wherein the controller (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12) – modified by Terry et al., as discussed, to be a controller that further comprises a processor, a memory, and a set of computer-based instructions stored in the memory to be executed by the processor for operation and control of components of the surface cleaner) is configured to control the brush roll motor operable at predetermined speeds corresponding to the plurality of user selectable modes (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in mode previously selected by user corresponding to one of two levels of suction or agitator speed).
Regarding Claim 20, Nguyen teaches:
20. The cleaner of claim 19, wherein the plurality of user selectable modes (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in mode previously selected by user corresponding to one of two levels of suction or agitator speed) includes a mode having a combination of a suction motor power level (off, low, and high) and a brush speed (off, low, and high)(note that even if only one of suction or agitator is adjustable, the other will operate at a predetermined constant speed).
Regarding Claim 21, Nguyen teaches:
21. The cleaner of claim 20, wherein the suction motor power level (off, low, and high) is one of high suction, medium suction, and low suction (note: only one of the suction levels is necessary as claimed).
Regarding Claim 22, Nguyen teaches:
22. The cleaner of claim 20, wherein the brush speed (off, low, and high) is one of high rotational speed, medium rotational speed, low rotational speed, and no speed (note: only one of the speeds is necessary as claimed).
Regarding Amended Claim 23, Nguyen teaches:
23. The cleaner of claim 19 further comprising:
a fluid distribution system (flow control system 36) including at least one of a valve (flow control valve 43) and a pump (pump 40), the fluid distribution system (fluid distributor 38) operable to deliver fluid to a surface to be cleaned (through spray bar 183),
wherein the controller (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12) – modified by Terry et al., as discussed, to be a controller that further comprises a processor, a memory, and a set of computer-based instructions stored in the memory to be executed by the processor for operation and control of components of the surface cleaner) is configured to control the fluid distribution system (The second electronic control 116Y can switch between “high flow” and “low flow” states for the first pump 41 as described above) operable at a plurality of predetermined fluid flow rates corresponding to the plurality of user selectable modes (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in second control mode previously selected by user with electronic switch 116Y corresponding to one of two levels of pump flow rates – Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claim 24, Nguyen teaches:
24. The cleaner of claim 23, wherein the plurality of user selectable modes includes a mode having a combination of at least two of a suction motor power level, a brush speed, and a fluid flow rate (power switch selects “on” to provide power to electronics to operate cleaner in mode previously selected by user with electronic switch 116Y corresponding to one of two levels of pump flow rates and electronic switch 116Z corresponding to one of two levels of suction or agitator speed).
Regarding Claim 25, Nguyen teaches:
25. The cleaner of claim 24, wherein the suction motor power level (off, low, and high) is one of high suction, medium suction, and low suction (note: only one of the suction levels is necessary as claimed).
Regarding Claim 26, Nguyen teaches:
26. The cleaner of claim 24, wherein the brush speed (off, low, and high) is one of high rotational speed, medium rotational speed, low rotational speed, and no speed (note: only one of the speeds is necessary as claimed).
Regarding Claim 27, Nguyen teaches:
27. The cleaner of claim 24, wherein the fluid flow rate (high flow, low flow) is one of high flow rate, medium flow rate, low flow rate, and no fluid distribution (note: only one of the speeds is necessary as claimed).
Regarding New Claim 31, Nguyen teaches:
31. (New) The cleaner of claim 15, wherein while the cleaner (extraction cleaner 10) is operating in a selected mode of the plurality of user selectable modes other than the favored mode (user selects a temporary switch position for third electronic control 116Z different than the “favored” position based on a desired level of suction or agitator speed specific for the temporary cleaning scenario. For example, a slower agitator speed or lower suction for a more delicate surface), the second user-actuatable input is configured, upon actuation, to cause the controller to switch operation of the cleaner to the favored mode (once temporary cleaning scenario is complete, user moves switch position of third electronic control 116Z to the “favored” position resulting in the cleaner operation switching to the “favored” mode).
As necessitated by amendment, Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen US 2023/0292975 (hereafter Nguyen) in view of Terry et al. US 2020/0154968 (hereafter Terry et al.) as previously presented in Claim 15 in further view of Une JP 2011-045653 A (hereafter Une).
Regarding Amended Claim 17, Nguyen teaches:
17. The cleaner of claim 15, wherein the control system (circuit board 260 in combination with first and second electronics control (Claim 11) and third electronic control (Claim 12) – modified by Terry et al., as discussed, to be a controller that further comprises a processor, a memory, and a set of co determines the favored mode by recording an amount of time the cleaner operates in each of the plurality of modes over a duration (see discussion below), and wherein the control system assigns the second user-actuatable input (“The third electronic control 116Z can switch between “flow on” and “flow off” states for the second pump 42 (FIG. 1) as described above. In other non-limiting examples, the at least one electronic control 116 can vary agitation speeds of the agitator 26 (FIG. 2), or vary fan speed of the motor/fan assembly 19 to adjust the level of suction at the suction nozzle 16” and “It should be understood that the at least one electronic control 116 can be in a variety of forms, non-limiting examples of which include a toggle switch, rocker switch, push button, or touchscreen or touchpad” - Paragraph [0077]) to activate the mode having a greatest value of accumulated time in which the cleaner operates over the duration (see discussion below).
Nguyen discloses a second user-actuatable input 116Z that allows the user to select one of two levels of suction or one of two levels of agitator speed with a toggle switch, rocker switch, or push button switch. These switch types are commonly available in latching positions allowing the switch to be set by a user into a favored mode and maintained in the latched position during future on/off operations. Nguyen discloses the replacement of the cited switches with a touchscreen or touchpad. It is common knowledge that a touchscreen or touchpad will not retain a latched position and therefore may require the user to selected a desired favored mode after every power up. Nguyen does not disclose determining a favored mode by recording an amount of time the cleaner operates in each mode as claimed. The reference Une discloses a vacuum device that uses a control means 41 to measure the operational frequency of each operational mode of an electric blower 18 and determines a desired blower most common operational mode. The Une device then automatically applies the most common operational mode upon startup without requiring a provocative independent setting step by the user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Nguyen device, in the scenario where the device employs a non-latching switch, to include the ability to determine a favored state by measuring the amount of time that the device operates in different modes as taught by Une with the motivation to automatically apply a startup setting that is most likely the setting desired by the user without requiring the user’s independent input.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed May 6, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection(s) of independent Claims 15, 16, and 18-27 under Nguyen US 2023/0292975 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. As necessitated by amendment, new grounds of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been made that include reference Terry et al. US 2020/0154968. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections are withdrawn.
A response to the Applicant’s specific arguments follow.
The Applicant argues: “IV. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. & 102
Claim(s) 15, 16, and 18-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0292975 ("Nguyen"). Applicant respectfully disagrees. As set forth below, Nguyen fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of the pending claims.
The Office asserts that the first electronic control 116X and the second electronic control 116Z of paragraph [0077] of Nguyen respectively disclose "the first user-actuatable input" and "the second user-actuatable input" recited in claim 15. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Claim 15 is patentable over the asserted references because, e.g., the asserted reference does not teach or suggest at least the following subject matter: "a user interface operatively connected to the controller, the user interface having a first user-actuatable input and a second user-actuatable input;" "wherein the first user-actuatable input is configured to select from among the plurality of user selectable modes and cause the controller to operate the cleaner according to the selected mode of the plurality of user selectable modes;" "wherein one of the plurality of user selectable modes is a favored mode;" and "wherein the second user-actuatable input is configured to select the favored mode and cause the controller to operate the cleaner according to the favored mode," as recited in claim 15 as amended.
A claim is anticipated only if a single prior art reference discloses: (1) all of the elements recited in the claim; and (2) those elements arranged as recited in the claim. See net Moneyln, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 544 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Circ. 2008).”
Paragraph [0077] of Nguyen recites:
It is further contemplated that the electronic control 116 of the handle 112 can be connected to the wiring 252 and additionally include first, second, and third electronic controls 116X, 116Y, 116Z. During operation of the upright extraction cleaner 100, a user can select the at least one electronic control 116 for selective operation of various components within the fluid delivery system 12 or recovery system 14 (FIG. 1 ). In a non-limiting example, the first electronic control 116X can be in the form of a general "power on/power off' switch for the upright extraction cleaner 100. The second electronic control 116Y can switch between "high flow" and "low flow" states for the first pump 41 as described above, and the third electronic control 116Z can switch between "flow on" and "flow off' states for the second pump 42 (FIG. 1 ) as described above. In other non- limiting examples, the at least one electronic control 116 can vary agitation speeds of the agitator 26 (FIG. 2 ), or vary fan speed of the motor/fan assembly 19 to adjust the level of suction at the suction nozzle 16. It should be understood that the at least one electronic control 116 can be in a variety of forms, non-limiting examples of which include a toggle switch, rocker switch, push button, or touchscreen or touchpad. It is further contemplated that indicator lights may also be provided with, or adjacent, the at least one electronic control 116, such as an LED, or illuminated text such as "HI" or "LO."
The Examiner Agrees with the text copied from the prior art. In addition, the Examiner added the attached figure to further clarify the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language relied upon in the rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
1006
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant argues: “As such Nguyen discloses the first electronic control 116X can be in the form of a general "power on/power off' switch and the third electronic control 116Z can switch between "flow on" and "flow off' states for the second pump 42. However, Nguyen does not disclose two distinct electronic controls 116 wherein: a first electronic control 116 is configured to select from among a plurality of user-selectable modes and cause operation according to the selected one of those modes; and a second electronic control 116 is configured to select a specific one of from the same plurality of user-selectable modes that the first electronic control can select, specifically a favored mode, and to cause operation according to that favored mode. Nguyen merely discloses an electronic control 116 that selects among operating modes based on switch position or configuration. However, Nguyen does not disclose a separate electronic control 116 that is dedicated to selecting a predefined favored mode from among the plurality of modes that the first electronic control 116 can select. Nguyen's controls instead independently modify different operating parameters, rather than providing a control dedicated to invoking a predefined favored operating mode. In contrast, amended claim 15 recites the second user-actuatable input directly selects the favored mode from among the plurality of modes selectable by the first user-actuatable input. Furthermore, the second user-actuatable input is configured to directly select the favored mode of the plurality of modes that the first user-actuatable input may select and cause operation in that favored mode. This is functionally distinct from a general mode selector or power switch and is not disclosed or suggested by Nguyen. Accordingly, Nguyen fails to disclose or suggest "wherein the second user-actuatable input is configured to select the favored mode and cause the controller to operate the cleaner according to the favored mode," as recited in claim 15 as amended.
For the reasons set forth herein, amended independent claim 15 is allowable. For at least the reasons that the dependent claims inherit all of the limitations of independent claim 15, the dependent claims are also allowable. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 be rescinded and the claims passed to allowance.”
As necessitated by amendment, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been withdrawn and reformatted as under 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections to include reference Terry et al. US 2020/0154968. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments and has added additional clarification to the rejection to address the relevant arguments. Regarding the argument, “However, Nguyen does not disclose two distinct electronic controls 116 wherein: a first electronic control 116 is configured to select from among a plurality of user-selectable modes and cause operation according to the selected one of those modes; and a second electronic control 116 is configured to select a specific one of from the same plurality of user-selectable modes that the first electronic control can select, specifically a favored mode, and to cause operation according to that favored mode”, the Examiner would like to point out the user interface is 116. The user interface has three distinct user actuatable input switches 116x, 116y, and 116z that cause the controller to operate among a plurality of modes based on the three switch positions selected by the user. Since it is disclosed that these switches are in a form that holds a selected position until the user intentionally changes it, the user will naturally identify a favored position for switch 116z based on a desired operation and leave the switch in the favored position unless a cleaning scenario requires it to be switched to a different position for temporary operation that best suits the temporary cleaning scenario. Returning the 116z switch to the favored position would be required to return the operation of the device to the user’s favored performance. It is unclear that the Applicant argument is consistent with the claim language, so the Examiner is hopeful that this response is insightful.
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 extension fee 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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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 KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights