DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “interlocking attachment points” (claim 14) must be shown and labelled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: The following punctuation changes need to be made:
Claim 7, line 3 – rod;[[:]] --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7, line 6 – shaft;[[.]] --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: for better claim construction and consistency throughout the claims the examiner suggests the following amendment:
Claim 7, lines 8-11: -- wherein the swivel ball is configured to enable , -- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: for better claim construction and consistency throughout the claims the examiner suggests the following amendment:
Claim 16, line 2: -- [[its]] the attachment portion of the fixture-- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: for better claim construction and consistency throughout the claims the examiner suggests the following amendment:
Claim 20, lines 2-4: -- a mop, a duster, a shovel, a rake or other similar object, or an article of attire such as a backpack, an umbrella, a purse, a scarf, a coat, or a hat or any other object suitable for attachment.—Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 is 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. The interlocking attachment points in claim 14 are not disclosed in the applicant’s original specification and/or drawings. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-20 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the exterior" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the interior surface" in lines 7-8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the exterior space" in lines 12-13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what “the exterior space” is referring to. The applicant’s original specification only mentions using the slide rod swivel rack in a closet. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the distributed transfer" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the mounting surface" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the mounting surface" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the absent section" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear from the applicant’s specification and drawings what the interlocking attachment points are. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, the term “oversized hook” is indefinite and a relative term. How can a person having ordinary skill in the art determine what is an oversized hook compared to a regular sized hook? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the combined motion" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein the combined motion of the fixture” appears to be positively claiming motion which is a method step being claimed within an apparatus claim. The motion in claim 16 is not properly claimed or referred to only in a functional manner. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the attachment mechanism" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, the preambles of claims 7 and 16 only recite the holding rack positively and not “A combination of a holding rack and an object”. Further claim 7 only refers to “an object” in a functional limitation (i.e. configured to support an object). However, the body of claim 16 recites, “…will align its attachment portion with the attachment mechanism of the object” which appears to be positively claiming the object and an attachment mechanism of the object”. So the claims create confusion as to what is intended to be claimed, either the combination or subcombination. For purposes of examination on the merits, the examiner is treating the claims to be construed as the subcombination.
If the applicant intends to claim the combination, then it is suggested to do so clearly.
If applicant intends to claim the subcombination, a recommended amendment could be:
Claim 16: -- The holding rack of claim 7, wherein, when in use, the rotation of the fixture [[will]] is configured to align [[its]] the attachment portion of the fixture with [[the]] an attachment mechanism of the object.—Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, the preambles of claims 7 and 20 only recite the holding rack positively and not “A combination of a holding rack and an object”. Further claim 7 only refers to “an object” in a functional limitation (i.e. configured to support an object). However, the body of claim 20 recites, “… wherein the object is a handled tool such as a broom, mop, duster, shovel, rake or other similar object, along with articles of attire such as a backpack, umbrella, purse, scarf, coat, or a hat or any other object suitable for attachment”. So the claims create confusion as to what is intended to be claimed, either the combination or subcombination. For purposes of examination on the merits, the examiner is treating the claims to be construed as the subcombination.
If the applicant intends to claim the combination, then it is suggested to do so clearly.
If applicant intends to claim the subcombination, a recommended amendment could be:
Claim 20: -- The holding rack of claim 7, wherein, when in use, the object is a handled tool such as a broom, a mop, a duster, a shovel, a rake or other similar object, or an article of attire such as a backpack, an umbrella, a purse, a scarf, a coat, or a hat or any other object suitable for attachment. —Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10, 12-13, and 17-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ellberg 1,613,447.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Ellberg discloses a holding rack (Fig 1) comprising:
a single mounting flange (Fig 1, #3) attached to a slide rod (Figs 1-4, #7) having an internal slide channel (annotated Fig 4 below) (interior of the rod #7) wherein a slot (Fig 4, #8) provides access to the exterior of the rod (Figs 1 & 4, #7); and a fixture (Figs 1 & 3, #10) including: a shaft (Fig 3, #10) or (annotated Fig 3 below) (For clarification, the examiner maintains that the shaft #10 or (annotated Fig 3 below) of Ellberg is very similar to the curved shaft of the applicant’s hooks in Figs 1-4 of the applicant’s drawings) having a first end (top end) and a second end (lower end or bottom end), the second end (lower end or bottom end) opposite the first end (top end) relative to a long axis of the shaft (Fig 3, #10) or (annotated Fig 3 below); a swivel ball (Fig 3, #11) (For clarification, the claim does not required the ball to be circular or shaped as a sphere, for example a football is not circular but it is still considered to be a ball) coupled to the first end (top end) of the shaft (Fig 3, #10) or (annotated Fig 3 below) and configured to rest against the interior surface (as shown in Figs 1 & 3), wherein the swivel ball (Fig 3, #11) is configured to enable rotation of the fixture (Fig 1, #10) around the long axis while allowing the fixture (Fig 3, #10) to angle upward in the direction of the slide rod (Figs 1-4, #7), and allow the fixture (Fig 3, #10) to slide along the slot (Figs 3 & 4, #8) (col 2, lines 73-79 and lines 85-90), and an attachment portion (annotated Fig 3 below) coupled to the second end (lower end or bottom end) of the shaft (annotated Fig 3 below) and configured to support an object in an exterior space.
PNG
media_image1.png
241
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Ellberg discloses the holding rack wherein the mounting flange (Figs 1 & 3, #3) is elongated to provide for the distributed transfer of load to the mounting surface.
Regarding claim 10, Ellberg discloses the holding rack wherein the slide rod (Figs 1-4, #7) has a substantially round cross-section (as shown in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Ellberg discloses the holding rack wherein a portion (Fig 4, #8) of the round cross- section is absent, the absent section (Fig 4, #8) defining the slot (Fig 4, #8).
Regarding claim 12, Ellberg discloses the holding rack wherein an end of the slide rod (Figs 1-4, #7) is open (as shown in Fig 4) to enable the fixture (Figs 1-4, #10) to be added to or removed from the slide rod (Figs 1-4, #7).
Regarding claim 13, Ellberg discloses the holding rack further comprising an end cap (Fig 1, #9) configured to engage with the end of the slide rod (Figs 1-4, #7), where the end cap (Fig 1, #9) prevents addition or removal of the fixture (Figs 1-4, #10) when engaged in the slide rod (Figs 1-4, #7).
Regarding claim 15, Ellberg discloses the holding rack wherein the attachment portion (annotated Fig 3 above) of the fixture (Figs 1-4, #10) is an oversized hook suitable for supporting any object with a holding eyelet or other attachment mechanism.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Ellberg discloses the holding rack wherein, when in use, the combined motion or rotation of the fixture (Figs 1-4, #10) is configured to align its attachment portion (annotated Fig 3 above) with an attachment mechanism of the object.
Regarding claim 20, Ellberg discloses the holding rack of claim 7, wherein, when in use, the object is a handled tool such as a broom, mop, duster, shovel, rake or other similar object, along with articles of attire such as a backpack, umbrella, purse, scarf, coat, or a hat or any other object suitable for attachment.
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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellberg 1,613,447 in view of Wood 2020/0163471.
Regarding claim 17, Ellberg has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the mounting flange comprises metal.
Wood discloses a holding rack (Fig 1) comprising a mounting flange (Fig 1, #140) that comprises metal [0017] & [0014].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the mounting flange (Ellberg, Fig 1, #3) of Ellberg from metal as taught Wood 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. Further metal is well known in the art as being durable, inexpensive, and easily accessible.
Regarding claim 18, Ellberg has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the slide rod comprises metal.
Wood discloses a holding rack (Fig 1) comprising a slide rod (Fig 1, #110) that comprises metal [0014].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the slide rod (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #7) of Ellberg from metal as taught Wood 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. Further metal is well known in the art as being durable, inexpensive, and easily accessible.
Regarding claim 19, Ellberg has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the fixture comprises metal.
Wood discloses a holding rack (Fig 1) comprising a fixture (Fig 1, #120A) that comprises metal [0022].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the fixture (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #10) of Ellberg from metal as taught Wood 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. Further metal is well known in the art as being durable, inexpensive, and easily accessible.
Claims 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood 2020/0163471 in view of Ellberg 1,613,447.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Wood discloses a holding rack (Fig 1) comprising:
a single mounting flange (Fig 1, #140) attached to a slide rod (Fig 4, #410) [0024] having an internal slide channel (Fig 4, #430) wherein a slot (Fig 4, #440) provides access to an exterior of the rod (Fig 4, #410) and a fixture (Figs 1 & 2B, #120) including: a shaft (Fig 2B, #210) having a first end (top end) and a second end (bottom end or lower end), the second end (bottom end or lower end) opposite the first end (top end) relative to a long axis of the shaft (Fig 2B, #210); a swivel ball or head (Fig 2B, #230) coupled to the first end (top end) of the shaft (Fig 2B, #210) and configured to rest against the interior surface, wherein the head (Fig 2B, #230) allows the fixture (Figs 1 & 2B, #120) to slide along the slot (Fig 4, #440), and an attachment portion (Fig 2B, #220) coupled to the second end (bottom end or lower end) of the shaft (Fig 2B, #210) and configured to support an object in an exterior space.
Wood has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach a swivel ball coupled to the first end of the shaft and configured to rest against the interior surface, wherein the swivel ball provides for rotation of the fixture around the long axis while allowing the fixture to angle upward in the direction of the slide rod.
Ellberg discloses a holding rack (Fig 1) that comprises a a fixture (Figs 1 & 3, #10) including: a shaft (Fig 3, #10) or (annotated Fig 3 below) (For clarification, the examiner maintains that the shaft #10 or (annotated Fig 3 below) of Ellberg is very similar to the curved shaft of the applicant’s hooks in Figs 1-4 of the applicant’s drawings) having a first end (top end) and a second end (lower end or bottom end), the second end (lower end or bottom end) opposite the first end (top end) relative to a long axis of the shaft (Fig 3, #10) or (annotated Fig 3 below); a swivel ball (Fig 3, #11) (For clarification, the claim does not required the ball to be circular or shaped as a sphere, for example a football is not circular but it is still considered to be a ball) coupled to the first end (top end) of the shaft (Fig 3, #10) or (annotated Fig 3 below) and configured to rest against the interior surface (as shown in Figs 1 & 3), wherein the swivel ball (Fig 3, #11) is configured to enable rotation of the fixture (Fig 1, #10) around the long axis while allowing the fixture (Fig 3, #10) to angle upward in the direction of the slide rod (Figs 1-4, #7), and allow the fixture (Fig 3, #10) to slide along the slot (Figs 3 & 4, #8) (col 2, lines 73-79 and lines 85-90), and an attachment portion (annotated Fig 3 below) coupled to the second end (lower end or bottom end) of the shaft (annotated Fig 3 below) and configured to support an object in an exterior space.
PNG
media_image2.png
480
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fixtures (Wood, Figs 1 & 2B, #120) of Wood with the fixtures (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #10) of Ellberg which can rotate around the long axis of Wood while allowing the fixture (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #10) to angle upward in the direction of the slide rod (Wood, Fig 4, #410) because the substitution of one known fixture or hook for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein the mounting flange (Wood, Fig 1, #140) is elongated to provide for the distributed transfer of load to the mounting surface.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein the mounting flange (Wood, Fig 1, #140) is configured with a top (Wood, annotated Fig 1 below) and bottom (Wood, annotated Fig 1 below) mounting hole to accommodate secure anchoring to the mounting surface.
PNG
media_image3.png
618
1014
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein the slide rod (Fig 4, #410) has a substantially round cross-section.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein a portion of the round cross-section is absent (Wood, Fig 4, #440), the absent section (Wood, Fig 4, #440) defining the slot (Wood, Fig 4, #440).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein an end of the slide rod (Wood, Fig 4, #410) is open (as shown in Fig 4) to enable the fixture (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #10) to be added to or removed from the slide rod (Wood, Fig 4, #410).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wood discloses the holding rack further comprising an end cap (Wood, Fig 1, #130B) configured to engage with the end of the slide rod (Wood, Fig 4, #410), where the end cap (Wood, Fig 1, #130B) prevents addition or removal of the fixture (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #10) when engaged in the slide rod (Wood, Fig 4, #410).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein the attachment portion (Ellberg, annotated Fig 3 above) of the fixture (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #10) is an oversized hook suitable for supporting any object with a holding eyelet or other attachment mechanism.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein, when in use, the combined motion or rotation of the fixture (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #10) will align its attachment portion (Ellberg, annotated Fig 3 above) with the attachment mechanism of the object.
Regarding claim 17, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein the mounting flange (Wood, Fig 1, #140) comprises metal (Wood, [0017]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein the slide rod (Wood, Fig 4, #410) comprises metal (Wood, [0014] [0024]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wood has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the fixture (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #10) comprises metal.
Wood discloses a holding rack (Fig 1) comprising a fixture (Fig 1, #120A) that comprises metal [0022].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the fixture (Ellberg, Figs 1-4, #10) of modified Wood from metal as taught Wood 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. Further metal is well known in the art as being durable, inexpensive, and easily accessible.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, modified Wood discloses the holding rack wherein, when in use, the object is a handled tool such as a broom, mop, duster, shovel, rake or other similar object, along with articles of attire such as a backpack, umbrella, purse, scarf, coat, or a hat or any other object suitable for attachment.
Claim 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wood 2020/0163471 and Ellberg 1,613,447; and further in view of Flickinger 8,727,143.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, in another interpretation, modified Wood has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the mounting flange is elongated to provide for the distributed transfer of load to the mounting surface.
Flickinger discloses a holding rack (Fig 1, #100) comprising a mounting flange (Fig 1, #106) that is elongated to provide for a distributed transfer of load to a mounting surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting flange (Wood, Fig 1, #140) of modified Wood to be elongated and rectangular as taught by Flickinger because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the substitution of one known mounting flange shape (i.e. circular or elongated rectangle) for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, modified Wood discloses wherein the slide rod (Fig 4, #410) [0024] is attached to the mounting flange (Fig 1, #140) in a perpendicular position and cantilevered out from the mounting flange (Fig 1, #140) ([0017] states that “Alternatively, one or both ends of the support bar 110 may be mounted by inserting the end of the bar into a hole in a mounting bracket or wall”).
Modified Wood has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the slide rod is attached to the mounting flange in a perpendicular position and cantilevered out from the mounting flange using a load bearing fastener and interlocking attachment points.
Flickinger discloses a holding rack (Fig 7, #700) comprising a slide rod (Fig 7, #702) that is attached to a mounting flange (Fig 7, #704) in a perpendicular position and cantilevered out from the mounting flange (Fig 7, #704) using a load bearing fastener (screw) (col 8, line 61 - col 9, line 5) and interlocking attachment points (annotated Fig 7 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
855
965
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the slide rod (Wood, Fig 4, #410) to the mounting flange (Wood, Fig 1, #140) in a perpendicular and cantilevered position as taught by Flickinger using a screw (Flickinger, col 8, line 61 - col 9, line 5) and interlocking attachment points (Flickinger, annotated Fig 7 above) because the substitution of one known mounting means for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/15/2025 with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/DEVIN K BARNETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631