DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 5, 10 and 11 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
The first argument is towards the amendment requiring “each backplate having no fastener holes preformed therein”. While Shaw shows in the Figures, apertures for fasteners, he also discloses that the flange is adapted to be rapidly mounted by suitable fasteners such as staples (Column 3, Lines 9-11) without mentioning the need for the apertures in this part of the disclosure. Furthermore, a baseplate made of polymer would be able to withstand the force required to drive a staple through and the pneumatic or electrical technology of today would be able to force a staple through a polymer baseplate. Thus, having a baseplate for staples without having predrilled holes would have been anticipated and/or obvious.
The next argument is towards the amendment requiring the tubular projection and baseplate to be unitary. The Examiner’s interpretation of Shaw is that the tubular projection and baseplate are unitary because he discloses them as being integral (Column 5, Line 58).
The next argument is towards the amendment requiring each tubular projection to have an exterior continuous helical rib. However, in another Patent to Shaw, he teaches such an arrangement [see rejection below].
The Applicant also argues that Shaw’s corrugated grout tube does not create a slip joint. However, the Examiner relies on the embodiment of Figures 1, 3 and 5 which is for a slip dowel, not the corrugated grout tube of Figure 7 [see rejection below].
The next argument is towards amended claim 11 and the claimed space between the slip dowel and the closed distal end of the tubular projection. The Examiner has found this amendment to be obvious [see rejection below]. Shaw shows a space at the end of the slip dowel and is also concerned about thermal expansion of the system.
The final argument is towards amended claim 5. This claim has similar amendments made to those of claims 10 and 11 and is rejected in a similar manner [see rejection below].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
These claims depend from claim 11 that depends from claim 10. Thus many of the recitations about the structural elements of the baseplate are unnecessary and superfluous as they are already covered in claims 10 and 11. For example: the tubular projection and baseplate being unitary; an exterior continuous helical rib; and the tubular projection having a hollow interior that is smooth.
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 5-7, 9-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 5,216,862 to Shaw et al in view of US Patent # 5,678,952 to Shaw.
Regarding claim 10, Shaw teaches in Figures 1, 3 and 5, a method (Column 2, Lines 65-66) of forming a cold joint (Column 6, Line 26) between adjoining sequentially formed first (36) (Column 6, Lines 6-7) and second (48) (Column 6, Line 26) slabs of concrete (Column 6, Line 27), comprising: arranging at least one stud (30) [wooden concrete form (Column 5, Line 65)] to form at least a portion of a periphery of the first slab of concrete (36); fastening a plurality of baseplates (18) [flange (Column 5, Line 50)] to the at least one stud (30) using at least two separate fasteners (Column 5, Line 56) forced through each respective baseplate (18) and into the stud (30) to which the baseplate (18) is fastened, each baseplate (18) having opposing front and back sides with a thickness, each baseplate (18) made of a polymer [plastic (Column 5, Lines 51-59)] which does not split or crack [an inherent property of plastic] when each fastener is forced through the baseplate (18) and into the stud (30) (Column 6, Lines 1-4), each baseplate (18) having an outer periphery which is located between a top and bottom edge wall of the stud (30) and spaced from a top edge wall of the at least one stud (30), each fastener having a fastener length (Column 6, Lines 8-10) which extends into the stud (30), each baseplate (18) having a tubular projection (12) [sheath (Column 5, Line 47)] extending along a longitudinal axis that is substantially perpendicular to the front face of the baseplate (18) from which the projection (12) extends, each baseplate (18) having no fastener holes preformed therein [the flange is adapted to mounted by suitable fasteners (Column 3, Lines 9-10)] radially outward of the tubular projection (12) before the fasteners are forced through the baseplate (18) and into the stud (30) such that forcing the fasteners (Column 3, Line 10) through the baseplate (18) forms fastener openings radially outward of the tubular projection (12), the tubular projection (12) and the baseplate (18) being unitary [integral (Column 5, Line 58)], each tubular projection (12) having a closed distal end (14) (Column 5, Lines 47-48) and a hollow interior (Column 5, Lines 48-49) that is smooth with a uniform cross-section [see Figure 5] along at least 90% of an axial length of the tubular projection (12) and configured to receive a straight cylindrical shaft [dowel rod (Column 5, Lin 53)] through an opening (Column 5, Lines 52-54) in the baseplate (18), each tubular projection (12) having a length from the baseplate (18) and having a sidewall thickness; pouring (Column 6, Line 4) a first concrete (36) into an area [slab (Column 6, Line 7)] bounded in part by the at least one stud (30) to entrain the plurality of baseplates (14) [see Figure 4] and tubular projections (10A-D); leveling [an inherent step when floating concrete] and finishing (Column 8, Line 38) the first concrete to form the first concrete slab (36) upon hardening [curing (Column 6, Line 31)] of the first concrete, with the tubular projections (10A-D) extending into the first concrete slab (36); and removing [stripped away (Column 6, Line 7)] the at least one stud (30), leaving the baseplates (14) embedded in the first concrete slab (36) (Column 6, Lines 12-14) along a first edge of the first concrete slab (36) with distal ends of the fasteners extending from the respective baseplates (14) (Column 6, Lines 8-10) along that first edge of the first concrete slab (36). Shaw does not teach the thickness of the baseplate is between 0.015 and 0.25 inches. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed thickness for the baseplates since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to have the baseplates thick enough to withstand the stripping away of the stud but not overly strong to waste material. Shaw also does not teach the other periphery of the base plate is 0.5 inches or more from a top edge wall of the stud. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed spacing of the baseplate from the top edge wall of the stud since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a spacing solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the spacing in Shaw would perform equally well. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to have the baseplate far enough below the edge of the slab so it would not be seen in the finished slab and interfere with the joint. Shaw does not teach that the fasteners extend into the stud at least ¼ inch and less than 1 inch. However, such fastener penetration is old and well known to provide optimal strength, by providing enough holding power and maintaining integrity of the base material. Shaw also does not specify the tubular projection length and sidewall thickness. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed length and thickness for the tubular projection since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the tubular projection the claimed length and thickness since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a length or thickness solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the dimensions of the tubular projection in Shaw would perform equally well. Shaw does not teach each tubular projection having an exterior continuous helical rib extending along and encircling it to interlock with poured concrete. However, Shaw teaches in Figure 1 of another Patent, a tubular projection (14) having an exterior continuous helical rib (38) [spiral rib (Column 6, Line 58)] extending along and encircling it to interlock with poured concrete (Column 7, Lines 60-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Shaw Patents with a reasonable expectation of success because Shaw teaches the helical rib enhances the adhesion in poured concrete (Column 7, Lines 60-61).
Regarding claim 11, Shaw teaches in his Patents, a method of forming a cold joint. Furthermore, Shaw teaches in Figure 4 of the ‘862 Patent, inserting a slip dowel (Column 6, Line 15) (40) into each tubular projection (10A-D) through the hole in the baseplate (18), each slip dowel (40) having a diameter and each tubular projection (10A-D) configured to slidingly (Column 6, Line 20) but tightly [diameter slightly less (Column 3, Lines 20-22)] receive the slip dowel (40); wherein inserting the slip dowel (40) comprises inserting the slip dowel (40) until an end of the slip dowel (40) reaches the closed distal end (14) of the tubular projection (10A-D) and moving the slip dowel (40) outward from the closed distal end (14) to leave a space [see Figure 12] between the closed distal end (14) and the end of the slip dowel (40), the space being sufficient so that thermal expansion does not cause the slip dowel (40) to contact the closed distal end [necessary for the free sliding of the slip dowels (Column 1, Lines 23-33)]; pouring a second concrete (Column 3, Line 24) to entrain the slip dowels (40) and the distal ends of the plurality of fasteners (Column 6, Lines 7-14); and leveling [an inherent step when floating concrete] and finishing (Column 8, Line 38) the second concrete to form the second concrete slab (48) upon hardening [curing (Column 6, Line 31)] of the second concrete. Shaw does not teach the space is 0.2 to 0.5 inches. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed space at the closed end of the dowel since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify such a space since the Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed space solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the space provided by Shaw would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 12, Shaw teaches a method of forming a cold joint with a slip dowel but does not teach the slip dowels are made from stainless steel or have a diameter of 0.2-0.3 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slip dowels from stainless steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case, stainless steel is known to resist corrosion and it would have been obvious to try and obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed diameter of the slip dowels since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the dowels thick enough for strength but not overly thick to waste material.
Regarding claim 13, Shaw teaches a method of forming a cold joint with a slip dowel but does not teach the slip dowels are made from fiberglass or have a diameter of 0.2-0.3 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slip dowels from fiberglass since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case, fiberglass does not rust like steel does and it would have been obvious to try and obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed diameter of the slip dowels since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the dowels thick enough for strength but not overly thick to waste material.
Regarding claim 15, as per Claim 10, such fastener penetration is old and well known to provide optimal strength, by providing enough holding power and maintaining integrity of the base material.
Regarding claim 16, Shaw teaches a method of forming a cold joint with a slip dowel but does not teach the slip dowels are made from stainless steel or have a diameter of 0.2-0.3 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slip dowels from stainless steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case, stainless steel is known to resist corrosion and it would have been obvious to try and obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed diameter of the slip dowels since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the dowels thick enough for strength but not overly thick to waste material.
Regarding claim 17, Shaw teaches a method of forming a cold joint with a slip dowel but does not teach the slip dowels are made from fiberglass or have a diameter of 0.2-0.3 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slip dowels from fiberglass since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case, fiberglass does not rust like steel does and it would have been obvious to try and obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed diameter of the slip dowels since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the dowels thick enough for strength but not overly thick to waste material.
Regarding claim 19, as per Claim 10, the fasteners have a length of at least ¼ inch to less than 1 inch extending into the stud, thus it would have been obvious that the distal ends of the fasteners have a length of 0.2 to 0.5 inches extending into the second concrete slab.
Regarding claim 20, Shaw teaches in the ‘862 Patent, that the fasteners are nails or staples (Column 5, Line 56).
Regarding claim 5, Shaw teaches in Figures 4 and 5 of the ‘862 Patent, a concrete surface having first (36) and second slabs (48) joined by a cold joint (50) formed in accordance with the method of Claim 11, the resultant concrete surface comprising: a plurality of polymer [plastic (Column 5, Lines 51-59)] baseplates (18A-D) embedded in the first concrete surface (36) at intervals [series (Column 5, Line 62)] along the cold joint (50), each baseplate (18A-D) having an outer periphery located from a top surface of the first slab of concrete (36) at the cold joint (50), each baseplate (18A-D) having a tubular projection (10A-D) extending perpendicular from the baseplate (18A-D) and into the first concrete slab (36), each tubular projection (10A-D) being unitary [integral (Column 5, Line 58)] with its respective baseplate (18) having a closed distal end (14), a length and each tubular projection (10A-D) having a hollow interior (Column 5, Lines 48-49) that is smooth with a uniform cross-section [see Figure 5] at least 90% of an axial length thereof to slidingly receive (Column 6, Line 20) a slip dowel [dowel rod (Column 5, Lin 53)], each baseplate (18A-D) having at least two fasteners (Column 5, Line 56) extending through respective fastener-formed openings in the baseplate located radially outward of the tubular projection, and into the second concrete surface (48) a distance with a head of each fastener embedded in the first concrete slab (Column 6, Lines 1-14) and a distal end of each fastener embedded in the second concrete slab (Column 6, Lines 1-14); a plurality of straight, slip dowels (40) having first and second opposing ends and a length, the second end of each slip dowel (40) being embedded in the second concrete slab (48) and the first end extending into a different one of the tubular projections (10A-D), each slip dowel having a diameter; wherein the first end of each slip dowel (40) is spaced [see Figure 12] from the closed distal end (14) of the tubular projection (12) into which the first end extends, the space between the closed distal end (14) and the end of the slip dowel (40), the space being sufficient so that thermal expansion does not cause the slip dowel (40) to contact the closed distal end [necessary for the free sliding of the slip dowels (Column 1, Lines 23-33)]. Shaw does not teach the other periphery of the base plate is 0.5 inches or more from a top edge wall of the stud. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed spacing of the baseplate from the top edge wall of the stud since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a spacing solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the spacing in Shaw would perform equally well. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to have the baseplate far enough below the edge of the slab so it would not be seen in the finished slab and interfere with the joint. Shaw also does not specify the tubular projection length. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed length for the tubular projection since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the tubular projection the claimed length since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a length solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the dimensions of the tubular projection in Shaw would perform equally well. Shaw does not teach that the fasteners extend into the second concrete surface at least ¼ inch and less than 1 inch. However, such fastener penetration is old and well known to provide optimal strength, by providing enough holding power and maintaining integrity of the base material. Shaw does not teach the slip dowels are made from stainless steel or fiberglass. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slip dowels from stainless steel or fiberglass since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case, stainless steel is known to resist corrosion and it would have been obvious to try and obtain predictable results. Shaw does not teach the claimed length of the slip dowels. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed length for the slip dowels since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the slip dowels the claimed length since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a length or thickness solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the dimensions of the slip dowels in Shaw would perform equally well. Shaw does not teach each slip dowel having a diameter of 0.2-0.3 inches. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed diameter of the slip dowels since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the dowels thick enough for strength but not overly thick to waste material. Shaw does not teach the space is 0.2 to 0.5 inches. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed space at the closed end of the dowel since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify such a space since the Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed space solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the space provided by Shaw would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 6, Shaw teaches a concrete surface with a slip dowel but does not teach the slip dowels are made from stainless steel or have a diameter of 0.2-0.3 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slip dowels from stainless steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case, stainless steel is known to resist corrosion and it would have been obvious to try and obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed diameter of the slip dowels since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the dowels thick enough for strength but not overly thick to waste material.
Regarding claim 7, Shaw teaches a concrete surface with a slip dowel but does not teach the slip dowels are made from fiberglass or have a diameter of 0.2-0.3 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slip dowels from fiberglass since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case, fiberglass does not rust like steel does and it would have been obvious to try and obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed diameter of the slip dowels since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the dowels thick enough for strength but not overly thick to waste material.
Regarding claim 9, Shaw teaches a concrete surface with a slip dowel but does not teach the slip dowels are made from stainless steel or have a diameter of 0.2-0.3 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slip dowels from stainless steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case, stainless steel is known to resist corrosion and it would have been obvious to try and obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed diameter of the slip dowels since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the dowels thick enough for strength but not overly thick to waste material. As per Claim 10, the fasteners have a length of at least ¼ inch to less than 1 inch extending into the stud, thus it would have been obvious that the distal ends of the fasteners have a length of 0.2 to 0.6 inches extending into the second concrete slab.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 5,216,862 to Shaw et al in view of US Patent # 6,123,485 to Mirmiran et al.
Regarding claim 8, Shaw teaches a concrete surface with a plurality of slip dowels but does not teach the slip dowels have a shear strength of 6,000 psi. However, Mirmiran teaches concrete has a strength of 6,000 psi (Column 5, Lines 25-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the slip dowels and concrete to have the same shear strength such that there is efficient load transfer while preventing damage to the concrete or the dowel.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 5,216,862 to Shaw et al in view of US Patent # 5,678,952 to Shaw in further view of US Patent # 6,430,888 to Dombchik et al.
Regarding claim 14, Shaw teaches a method but does not teach only three fasteners holding the baseplate to the stud. However, Dombchik teaches in Figures 2 and 3, that only three fasteners can be used instead of using four (Column 2, Lines 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shaw with the teachings of Dombchik with a reasonable expectation of success because Dombchik teaches using three fasteners reduces the cost of labor and material during installation (Column 2, Lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 18, Shaw teaches a method but does not teach only three fasteners holding the baseplate to the stud. However, Dombchik teaches in Figures 2 and 3, that only three fasteners can be used instead of using four (Column 2, Lines 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shaw with the teachings of Dombchik with a reasonable expectation of success because Dombchik teaches using three fasteners reduces the cost of labor and material during installation (Column 2, Lines 7-10).
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 ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights