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
.
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims and specification filed 08/11/2026 have been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the objection(s) to the Title, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 102 prior art anticipatory rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 12, Applicant argued on page(s) 8 that the amendment overcame said rejection(s); the Examiner is generally in agreement, therefore said rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, with regards to Applicant’s comments pertaining to assembling without tooling, the Examiner generally notes that while many manual labor activities may be intended to be so easy as to be performed without a tool (for a normal worker), there are various groups of people for whom a tool can still be of benefit including those who have infirmities, deformities, injuries, or otherwise rendered lame who can still benefit from use of a tool, as well as those of excessive strength prone to use too much force which may result in damage of the product, as well as those of inadequate skill or attention to detail who may fail to properly/sufficiently displace the portions of the assembly into proper assemblance; see also pages 10-11 of Office Action dated 05/13/2026. Nevertheless, the amendment as a whole is considered as overcoming the prior art of record; see also page 12 of the aforementioned previous Office Action pertaining to previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 15.
Regarding the 102 prior art anticipatory rejection(s) of independent claim 1, Applicant argued that Dreyer does not teach wherein the ring is mechanically fixed in the interior hollow portion of the housing by the at least partially deformed protrusions. MPEP § 2111 requires that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and an Examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. The Examiner verified the meaning of (emphasis in italics) “at least partially deformed protrusions” in the specification to see if a special definition precluded the plain meaning. No such special definition was found. The Examiner identifies that the plain meaning of deformation includes both plastic deformation and elastic deformation. Dreyer teaches at least partially (elastic) deformable protrusions (figs. 3-4, protruding elastic spring claws 43) (Examiner notes that the claws 43 protrude outward from member 41) configured to be at least partially deformed (elastic deformation) by a force applied in the axial direction (Examiner notes force from insertion upon plug 30 that is applied thereby to the member 41 thereof), and that these elastically deformed protrusions (figs. 3-4, protruding elastic spring claws 43) provide the aforementioned mechanical fixing (claws securely dig into metal shroud) in the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) (Abstract “ring on which radially protruding spring claws of elastic material are provided” and “The length of the spring claws is dimensioned so that on insertion of the plug in the metal shroud they are flexed in the metal shroud and come into spring contact with the inside surface of the metal shroud”; col. 5, ll. 9-32 “elastic flexing the ends of the spring claws 43 come into contact with the inside surface of the metal tube with considerable pressure force, resulting in a good electrical contact”; col. 1, ll. 35-57 “On insertion of the plug the ends of the spring claws come up against the edge of the metal shroud so that they are held back on further insertion of the plug and are thereby flexed” and “the flexed spring claws exert a high resistance to the movement of the plug since their ends then dig into the metal shroud. Accordingly, the plug is secured in the electronics enclosure”). The Examiner is therefore unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument.
Further regarding the 102 prior art anticipatory rejection(s) of independent claim 1, Applicant further argued that Dreyer teaches elastic flexing that must be preserved, not deformation that fixes the ring. MPEP § 2141(II)(C) states: “Office personnel may rely on their own technical expertise to describe the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Federal Circuit has stated that examiners and administrative patent judges on the Board are “persons of scientific competence in the fields in which they work” and that their findings are “informed by their scientific knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 2003, 2007 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In addition, examiners “are assumed to have some expertise in interpreting the references and to be familiar from their work with the level of skill in the art.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 86 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, 725 F.2d 1350, 1360, 220 USPQ 763, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2141 for a discussion of the level of ordinary skill. In the present case, as one of ordinary skill in the art, and as put forth in the preceding paragraph, it is the Examiner’s position that elastic deformation is a type of deformation and a reasonably broad interpretation of deformation includes both elastic deformation and plastic deformation. Applicant’s remarks upon the resiliency of the elastic spring claws utilized to exert the force to dig into the metal tube for the securing by said spring claws is elastic deformation that fixes the ring. The Examiner is therefore unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument.
Yet further regarding the 102 prior art anticipatory rejection(s) of independent claim 1, Applicant yet further argued that Dreyer locates and retains its plug by a clearance fit and a shoulder stop while the sprung claws are (as best understood merely) for electrical contact and therefore Dreyer has an opposite arrangement of the claimed invention of press-fitting into the hollow portion/tube. However this argument is merely an assertion and lacks the necessary supporting evidence. MPEP § 2145(I) states:
Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
In the present case, Dreyer’s shoulder is in an effort to prevent the plug from penetrating too far into the enclosure (i.e., limits unidirectionally down, not up) and fails by itself to secure pulling back up, whereas Dreyer’s elastic spring claws flex (elastically deform) on the way down (as permitted by the clearance of the groove) and then dig into the hollow tube providing the securement with considerable pressure in a practically non-releasable manner (see previously provided citation sections). With further regards to Applicant’s opposite remarks, the Examiner notes that previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 15 (now included allowed independent claim 12) comprises the feature of the protruding element in the interior hollow portion which prevents further movement of the ring instead of Dreyer’s shoulder on the plug which the Examiner assumes is the alluded to opposite arrangement; however, while said feature of a different claim in combination with other limitations of said different claim are acknowledged by the Examiner as reasonably opposite, said feature is not claimed in independent claim 1 and has not been read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111.01(II) IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION, MPEP § 2145(VI), and In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For all of the aforementioned reasons, and for the reasons put forth in the actual rejections below, the Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments that the amendments overcome the prior art rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 8-9 are still indicated as comprising allowable subject matter for the original reasons as put forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 05/13/2026 (i.e., the added language of independent claim 1 from the amendment being unnecessary therefor, though still acceptable to include).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 4 and 5,
the Examiner objects to “the cylindrical ring”, as introducing “cylindrical” property as an interjected adjective, the Examiner generically suggesting instead “wherein the ring is cylindrical” as being more proper way to further limit.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant previously cited Dreyer et al (US 5709558 A; hereafter “Dreyer”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Dreyer teaches a housing assembly (figs. 1-2, enclosure 20 with plug 30) for a level sensor field device system (figs. 1-2, level sensor 10) (Title “Electronics Enclosure”; Abstract), the housing assembly (figs. 1-2, enclosure 20 with plug 30) comprising:
an electrically conductive housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) having an interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) and an opening (opening in metal shroud comprising metal tube 21) in a first end portion (first end portion of metal shroud) (Summary of the Invention “metal shroud”);
an electrically conductive ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41; see especially figs. 3-4) (Examiner notes that metallic grounding is electrically conductive) comprising protrusions (figs. 3-4, protruding elastic spring claws 43) (Examiner notes that the claws 43 protrude outward from member 41) configured to be at least partially deformed (elastic deformation) by a force applied (Examiner notes force from insertion upon plug 30 that is applied thereby to the member 41 thereof) to the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) in an axial direction (axial direction of assembly) to press the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) into the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) (Abstract “ring on which radially protruding spring claws of elastic material are provided” and “The length of the spring claws is dimensioned so that on insertion of the plug in the metal shroud they are flexed in the metal shroud and come into spring contact with the inside surface of the metal shroud”; col. 5, ll. 9-32 “elastic flexing the ends of the spring claws 43 come into contact with the inside surface of the metal tube with considerable pressure force, resulting in a good electrical contact”), the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) being mechanically fixed (claws securely dig into metal shroud) in the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) by the at least partially deformed protrusions (figs. 3-4, protruding elastic spring claws 43; experiencing elastic deformation) (col. 1, ll. 35-57 “On insertion of the plug the ends of the spring claws come up against the edge of the metal shroud so that they are held back on further insertion of the plug and are thereby flexed” and “the flexed spring claws exert a high resistance to the movement of the plug since their ends then dig into the metal shroud. Accordingly, the plug is secured in the electronics enclosure”); and
a lead (figs. 3-4, metallic grounding contact member 41a) electrically connected to the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41), the lead (figs. 3-4, metallic grounding contact member 41a) being configured to be connected to circuitry (level sensor circuitry) for providing a predetermined electrical potential to the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) via the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) (Abstract “The length of the spring claws is dimensioned so that on insertion of the plug in the metal shroud they are flexed in the metal shroud and come into spring contact with the inside surface of the metal shroud. As a result of this the plug is fixed in the metal shroud and, at the same time, a good electrical contact is produced between the grounding contact member and the metal shroud”; col. 1, ll. 35-57 “good electrical contact between the grounding contact member and the metal shroud is achieved at the same time. Both the holding effect and the contact making are all the better”; col. 4, ll. 31-46 “plug 30 serves, in addition to closing off the electronics enclosure 20, also to connect the electronics assembly accommodated in the electronics enclosure 20 to external leads. For this purpose several metallic contact members 40 and a metallic grounding contact member 41 are incorporated in the plug 30”).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Dreyer teaches wherein the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) and the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) have circular cross sections (col. 6, ll. 18-30 “the open end of the electronics enclosure 20 and thus also the plug are round” and “grounding contact member 41 having elastic spring claws 43 protruding from a ring 42”; col. 4 line 63 through col. 5 line 8 “radial length of the spring claws 43 is dimensioned such that the ends of the spring claws 43 lie on a circle, the diameter of which is somewhat larger than the inner diameter of the metal tube 21”), and
wherein an outer diameter (outer diameter of member 41) of the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) including the protrusions (figs. 3-4, protruding elastic spring claws 43) is larger than an inner diameter (inner diameter of tube/shroud 21) of the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) (Abstract “The length of the spring claws is dimensioned so that on insertion of the plug in the metal shroud they are flexed in the metal shroud and come into spring contact with the inside surface of the metal shroud”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1,
Dreyer teaches wherein
the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) and the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) have circular cross sections (col. 6, ll. 18-30 “the open end of the electronics enclosure 20 and thus also the plug are round” and “grounding contact member 41 having elastic spring claws 43 protruding from a ring 42”; col. 4 line 63 through col. 5 line 8 “radial length of the spring claws 43 is dimensioned such that the ends of the spring claws 43 lie on a circle, the diameter of which is somewhat larger than the inner diameter of the metal tube 21”),
the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) comprising a first section (figs. 1-2, metal tube 21) having a first diameter (diameter of metal tube 21) and a second section (figs. 1-2, screw-in part 11) having a second diameter (diameter of screw-in part 11),
the first section (figs. 1-2, metal tube 21) being located towards the first end portion (first end portion of metal shroud) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) and the second section (figs. 1-2, screw-in part 11) being located towards a second end portion (second end portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) opposite the first end portion (first end portion of metal shroud),
an outer diameter (outer diameter of member 41) of the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) including the protrusions (figs. 3-4, protruding elastic spring claws 43) being smaller than an inner diameter of the first section (figs. 1-2, metal tube 21) of the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) and larger than an inner diameter of the second section (figs. 1-2, screw-in part 11) of the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
Dreyer teaches wherein the lead (figs. 3-4, metallic grounding contact member 41a) connected to the cylindrical ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) is a male connector configured to be connected to a corresponding female connector (col. 6, ll. 9-17 “Mounted on the flat terminals 40a, 41a extending upwards is a connecting member 45 joined to a cable, as a result of which the connection between the cable and the electronics assembly in the electronics enclosure 20 is made”).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1,
Dreyer teaches wherein the lead (figs. 3-4, metallic grounding contact member 41a) connected to the cylindrical ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) is a spade (shape of member 41a is spade) or pin (silent to pin) connector configured to be connected to a corresponding female connector (col. 6, ll. 9-17 “Mounted on the flat terminals 40a, 41a extending upwards is a connecting member 45 joined to a cable, as a result of which the connection between the cable and the electronics assembly in the electronics enclosure 20 is made”).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1,
Dreyer teaches wherein a portion of the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) configured to face towards the second end portion (second end portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) has a tapered profile (see bottom of peripheral edge 36 in fig. 3, which appears as chamfered).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1,
Dreyer teaches further comprising a level sensor (level sensor portion comprising oscillating rods 16 & 17; see figs. 1-2) attached to a second end portion (second end portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11), opposite the first end portion (first end portion of metal shroud) (col. 2, ll. 34-47 “By means of the screw-in part 11 the level sensor 10 is secured in a threaded opening of the container wall so that the oscillating rods 16, 17 protrude into the interior of the container and come into contact with the contents material when it has attained the level to be monitored”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant previously cited Dreyer in view of previously cited Inglis et al (US 20090322440 A; hereafter “Inglis”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1,
Dreyer teaches the protrusions (figs. 3-4, protruding elastic spring claws 43) of the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) configured to be at least partially deformed when the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) is inserted in the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11).
Dreyer does not teach wherein the protrusions of the ring are provided in the form of a knurled surface.
However:
The Examiner previously took Official Notice that utilizing knurls as a deformation surface is a conventionally known alternative. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, and solving a similar problem, Inglis teaches protrusions of a ring (fig. 7, grounding ring 56) provided in the form of a knurled surface (surface comprising knurls 58) configured to be at least partially deformed when the ring fig. 7, grounding ring 56) is inserted in an interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of housing 30) of a housing body (fig. 7, housing 30) ([0027] “knurled external surfaces 58 are forced against the inside surface of the housing 30. This force causes some deformation of the knurls 58 into adjacent grooves between the knurls and allows the material of the grounding ring 56 to accommodate any slight irregularities on the surface of the housing 30 to form a close, intimate, low impedance electrical contact between the two surfaces”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a conventional knurled surface for Dreyer’s grounding ring protrusions—as factually supported by Inglis’ knurled grounding ring—for the expected advantages of accommodate any slight irregularities on the surface of the housing to form a close, intimate, low impedance electrical contact between the two surfaces, the Examiner additionally noting the cost effectiveness and simplicity of a manufacturing process to add knurling.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1,
Dreyer teaches wherein the protrusions (figs. 3-4, protruding elastic spring claws 43) of the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) are ridges.
Dreyer teaches the protrusions (figs. 3-4, protruding elastic spring claws 43) of the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) configured to be at least partially deformed when the ring (plug 30 comprising metallic grounding contact member 41) is inserted in the interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11) of the housing body (figs. 1-2, metal shroud comprising metal tube 21 & screw-in part 11).
Dreyer does not teach wherein the protrusions of the ring are ridges.
However:
The Examiner previously took Official Notice that utilizing knurls as a deformation surface is a conventionally known alternative. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C). The Examiner notes that knurls are inclusive of ridges.
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, and solving a similar problem, Inglis teaches protrusions of a ring (fig. 7, grounding ring 56) provided in the form of a knurled surface (surface comprising knurls 58) comprising ridges (see fig. 7 showing the knurls as longitudinal ridges) configured to be at least partially deformed when the ring fig. 7, grounding ring 56) is inserted in an interior hollow portion (interior hollow portion of housing 30) of a housing body (fig. 7, housing 30) ([0024] “external curved surface of the grounding ring 56 is formed with shallow longitudinal knurls 58 (FIG. 7)”; [0027] “knurled external surfaces 58 are forced against the inside surface of the housing 30. This force causes some deformation of the knurls 58 into adjacent grooves between the knurls and allows the material of the grounding ring 56 to accommodate any slight irregularities on the surface of the housing 30 to form a close, intimate, low impedance electrical contact between the two surfaces”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a conventional knurled surface for Dreyer’s grounding ring protrusions—as factually supported by Inglis’ knurled grounding ring comprising longitudinal ridges—for the expected advantages of accommodate any slight irregularities on the surface of the housing to form a close, intimate, low impedance electrical contact between the two surfaces, the Examiner additionally noting the cost effectiveness and simplicity of a manufacturing process to add knurling, and especially the simplicity of longitudinal ridges to form the knurls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all* of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
*Examiner notes that claims 8-9, prior to the amendment of independent claim 1 adding limitations, were likewise so indicated.
When this application is finally acted upon and allowed (i.e., the Notice of Allowance), the Examiner will determine, at the same time, whether the reasons why the application is being allowed are sufficiently evident from the record; see MPEP § 1302.14(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner. The Examiner notes that the listed NPL is merely supportive information for Examiner’s discussion of elastic/plastic deformation.
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 DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is (303) 297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 07SEP2026
Prosecution Insights