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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 36 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions of group I (claims 17-35; a robotic cleaning device or a building system comprising a robotic cleaning device) and group II (claim 36; a control apparatus) are directed to related product inventions. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have: a materially different design, mode of operation, function, and effect; do not overlap in scope; and are not obvious variants. The robotic cleaning device and building system of group I do not require a control apparatus of group II. Also, the robotic cleaning device and system of group I do not require any connection to water supply as the control apparatus of group II recites. The control apparatus of group II does not require a brush and can be used for other types of chute clearing apparatus including those connected to water supply, scrapers, or non-cylindrical brushes. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 36 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-19, 24-27, and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Newly added claim 18 recites in lines 1-2 “…a docking station configured to be permanently installed at a top end of the garbage chute…” There is not support for a docking station configured to be permanently installed. Newly added claim 25 recites in lines 3-5 “…the human-machine interface monitor configured to display at least one of a motor status, a drive shaft rotation status, a cable tension status, and a cleaning cycle duration.” There is not support in the originally filed disclosure for a human-machine interface monitor being configured to display a cable tension status. Newly added claim 24 lines 2-5 recites “configured to execute a pre-programmed cleaning schedule…the cleaning cycle being executed without manual attendance at the garbage chute” and newly added claim 33 lines 1-3 recites “…the control system is configured to execute the cleaning cycle according to a pre-programmed schedule without manual intervention…” The originally filed disclosure does not provide support for a pre-programmed schedule or mention that the system is executed without manual attendance/intervention. Newly added claim 27 recites in lines 4-5 that “each roller assembly comprising a pair of part-rollers …” There is not support in the originally filed disclosure for part-rollers. Newly added claim 29 recites in line 3 “…a robotic cleaning device configured to be permanently installed within the garbage chute…” There is not support for a robotic cleaning device configured to be permanently installed. Therefore claims 18-19, 24-27, and 29-35 contain new matter.
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 27 and 35 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 27 recites that each roller assembly comprises a pair of “part-rollers”. It is unclear as to what a “part-roller” is structurally. Does this require a part of a roller?
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the external controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is claim 35 meant to depend from one of claims 32 or 33?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 17, 21, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despalle et al., FR 2486401 A1 (see also computer generated English translation) in view of Pacheco et al., US 5,038,810, Reinel et al., DE 102019000459 A1 (see also computer generated English translation), and Guo et al., CN 207048260 U (see also computer generated English translation).
Regarding claims 17 and 29, Despalle et al. disclose a robotic cleaning device for cleaning a vertical garbage chute of a building comprising: a cylindrical housing configured to be suspended within the garbage chute (Figures 1-3, chute shown in Figure 1; see English translation of the Abstract); a cable suspension system comprising a motorized cable reel (reel described in English translation as reference number 13, motor as reference number 12, see Figures) and a steel cable connecting the reel to the housing (see English translation, steel cable, Figure 1), the motorized cable reel configured to lower and raise the housing along a vertical axis of the garbage chute (see English translation); a motor disposed within the cylindrical housing (see English translation of the Abstract); and a brush connected to and disposed on an exterior of the housing (see Figures 1-3), the brush is configured to rotate and contact the inner wall of the garbage chute when the motor activated (see English translation of the Abstract and description). Regarding claim 21, the device further comprises a lower limit switch to be activated with the housing reaches a bottom of the garbage can (see English translation, described as stop 29 to “stop the device 32 at the bottom of the sheath”), the lower limit switch generating a signal that causes the motorized cable reel to reverse direction from lowering to raising the housing (see English translation, the “ascent cycle”); and an upper limit switch configured to be activated when the housing returns to a top of the garbage chute (see English translation “arriving at the top of the sheath…” the motor and reel will stop), the upper limit switch generating a signal that causes the motorized cable reel to stop (again, see English translation “arriving at the top of the sheath…” the motor and reel will stop). Further regarding claim 29, Despalle et al. teach a building system for automated cleaning of a vertical garbage chute (see English translation of the Abstract, Figures), wherein the robotic cleaning device is configured to be permanently installed within the garbage chute (see English translation, describes as being installed in an attic of a building, Figures 1-2).
Despalle et al. fail to disclose a plurality of spring-loaded roller assemblies mounted on the cylindrical housing, a flexible drive shaft connected to the motor and extending from the cylindrical housing, and that the brush is cylindrical.
Pacheco et al. teach a chute cleaning device (Title) that comprises a cylindrical housing configured to be suspended within a chute (15). Further regarding claims 17 and 29, Pacheco et al. teach a plurality of spring-loaded roller assemblies mounted on the cylindrical housing (23 or 25, see Figures), each roller assembly comprising a roller (31 or 47) mounted on an arm (27, 29 or 41, 45) connected to the cylindrical housing through a spring mechanism (53), the spring mechanism biasing the roller radially outward to contact an inner wall of the chute to stabilize the housing within the chute during vertical movement (column 2 lines 26-32, the column 3 lines 58-68) in order to help guide the cleaning device within the chute (column 2 lines 26-32).
Reinel et al. teach pipe or duct cleaning device similar to that of Despalle et al. and comprises a cylindrical housing comprising a motor (22, Figure 2) and is supported by a cable (11). Further regarding claims 17 and 29, there is a flexible drive shaft connected to the motor and extending from the cylindrical housing (unlabeled, see English translation “The brush is rotated and moved by a flexible shaft”).
Guo et al. teach a garbage or rubbish cleaning device (see English translation of Abstract) that comprises a cylindrical housing (23) that drive a cleaning brush in a rotational manner (20, see English translation; Figure 1). Further regarding claims 17 and 29, the rotational cleaning brush is cylindrical (see English translation, describes the cross section of the cleaning brush is circular when the cross section of the channel being cleaned is circular).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical housing of Despalle et al. to further include a plurality of spring-loaded roller assemblies such as the ones taught by Pacheco et al. in order to help guide the cylindrical housing within a chute. Also it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical housing of Despalle et al. to have a flexible drive shaft connecting the motor and extending from the housing to connect and rotate the brush, as taught by Reinel et al., in order to sufficiently provide rotary motion from the motor output to the rotary brush. Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the rotary brush of Despalle et al. to by cylindrical, as taught by Guo et al., as a cylindrical brush is found to be advantageous when cleaning chutes that are also circular in cross section.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despalle et al., FR 2486401 A1 (see also English translation), Pacheco et al., US 5,038,810, Reinel et al., DE 102019000459 A1 (see also English translation), and Guo et al., CN 207048260 U (see also English translation) as applied to claims 17 and 29 in further view of Dayton et al., US 9,371,651.
Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above. Further regarding claim 18, Despalle et al. disclose a docking station (see Figure 2, station where the device is housed when not in use) and it is permanently installed at a top of the garbage chute (Figure 1, permanent as long as a user leaves it in place). Despalle et al. fail to disclose that there is a charging connector configured to engage a corresponding connector on the cylindrical housing when the housing is in a docked position at the top of the chute.
With regards to claims 18 and 30, Dayton et al. teach an intelligent unmanned robotic cleaning device for garbage and laundry chutes of buildings (104, 200; column 21 lines 34-39), the device comprising: a cylindrical housing (152) comprising a motor (128, 130, 138); and a docking charging station (column 15 lines 64 to column 16 line 4) having a charging connector configured to engage a corresponding connector on the cylindrical housing when the housing is in a docked position (electrical connections, column 15 lines 53-66). Regarding claims 19 and 30, there is a rechargeable battery pack housed within the cylindrical housing and configured to receive a charging current from the docking station when the cylindrical housing is in the docked position (a battery pack 142; column 2 lines 52-59, column 15 lines 57-65).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. to include a charging connector configured to engage a corresponding connector on the cylindrical housing when the housing is in a docked position, as taught to Dayton et al., as a way to conveniently and economically provide electrical power to support the rotary motor of the cleaning device.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despalle et al., FR 2486401 A1 (see also English translation), Pacheco et al., US 5,038,810, Reinel et al., DE 102019000459 A1 (see also English translation), and Guo et al., CN 207048260 U (see also English translation) as applied to claim 17 in further view of Farajun, US 4,571,138.
Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above, however fail to disclose a cable tension sensor coupled to the cable suspension system and configured to detect a tension force; and a controller configured to halt operation of the motorized cable reel in response to the cable tension sensor detecting a tension force indicative of an obstruction within the garbage chute.
Farajun disclose a cleaning device comprising a cylindrical housing (24) having a motor (38) for rotating a brush (40) and is supported by a cable (26) supported by a reel (30, 36). Regarding claim 20, Farajun teach a cable detection sensor coupled to a cable suspension system and is configured to detect a tension force on the cable (not shown, column 6 lines 15-19); and a controller (138) configured to halt operation of a motorized cable reel in response to the cable tension sensor detecting a tension force indicative of an obstruction in order to prevent damage to the cable suspension system (several embodiments in which this occurs, see entire passage from column 5 line 63 to column 7 line 44).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. to include at least one cable tension sensor and a controller, as taught by Farajun et al., so that the steel cable and cable suspension system can be protected when there is an obstruction or emergency within the chute area being cleaned.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despalle et al., FR 2486401 A1 (see also English translation), Pacheco et al., US 5,038,810, Reinel et al., DE 102019000459 A1 (see also English translation), and Guo et al., CN 207048260 U (see also English translation) as applied to claim 17 in further view of Dayton et al., US 9,371,651.
Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above. Further regarding claim 27, Pacheco et al. additionally teach that the plurality of spring-loaded roller assemblies comprises a first group of roller assemblies mounted at a top portion of its cylindrical housing and a second group of roller assemblies mounted at a bottom portion of its cylindrical housing, each roller assembly comprising a pair of part-rollers (see rollers, Figure 1), but fails to disclose a specific material for the rollers or part-rollers, including thermoplastic rubber.
Dayton et al. disclose a robotic cleaning device for cleaning tubular areas from debris (Abstract). Further regarding claim 27, the device has a cylindrical housing (152) that is transported along areas in which its cleaning by rollers (172), the rollers are constructed of a thermoplastic rubber (column 2 lines 9-12, column 14 lines 14-15) which is suitable for providing speed and torque for the device to effectively clean a tubular area (column 14 lines 9-42).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the rollers or part-rollers of Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. to be constructed of thermoplastic rubber, as taught by Dayton et al., so that the robotic device can be transported by rollers that can support the housing in an effective manner while cleaning a narrow conduit.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despalle et al., FR 2486401 A1 (see also English translation), Pacheco et al., US 5,038,810, Reinel et al., DE 102019000459 A1 (see also English translation), and Guo et al., CN 207048260 U (see also English translation) as applied to claim 17 in further view of Kleinfeld, US 5,608,941.
Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above, the brush taught by Despalle et al. as modified by Guo et al. teaches a core with filaments extending radially outward form the core (Guo et al. Figure 1). However these do not disclose that the cylindrical brush comprises a rigid plastic core and a plurality of nylon bristle filaments.
Kleinfeld teach a rotary brush for cleaning duct areas (Abstract, see Figures, column 2 lines 33-39). Regarding claim 28, Kleinfeld particularly teaches that its rotary brush includes a rigid plastic core (20) with nylon bristle filaments extending radially outward from the core (column 3 lines 46-51), nylon filaments are taught as being flexible, commercially available at a reasonable cost, easy to clean, and durable (column 3 lines 52-54).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the materials of the rotary brush of Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. so that its core is formed of rigid plastic and the filaments are nylon, as Kleinfeld teaches, so that the materials used are available at a low cost, flexible and successful for cleaning tubular conduits, is durable, and easy to clean.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despalle et al., FR 2486401 A1 (see also English translation), Pacheco et al., US 5,038,810, Reinel et al., DE 102019000459 A1 (see also English translation), and Guo et al., CN 207048260 U (see also English translation).
Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above. Despalle et al. does not disclose that its system comprises an electrically actuated water valve connected to a water supply and configured to release water into the garbage chute during a cleaning cycle. With regards to claim 31, it is noted that Despalle et al. is configured to release detergent (powder, in the form of disinfectant and deodorant, see English translation).
Further regarding claim 31, Guo et al. teach a garbage chute cleaning system that includes an electrically actuated water valve (22, see English translation) connected to a water supply (21) and is configured to release water and detergent into the garbage chute during a cleaning cycle (see English translation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning system of Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. to further include an electrically actuated water valve connected to a water supply and is configured to release water into the garbage chute during a cleaning cycle, as Guo et al. additionally teaches, so that water can be used to assist in cleaning the garbage chute to carry away debris.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despalle et al., FR 2486401 A1 (see also English translation), Pacheco et al., US 5,038,810, Reinel et al., DE 102019000459 A1 (see also English translation), and Guo et al., CN 207048260 U (see also English translation) as applied to claim 29 in further view of Farajun, US 4,571,138.
Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above, however fail to disclose a cable tension sensor coupled to the cable suspension system and configured to detect a tension force; and a controller configured to halt operation of the motorized cable reel in response to the cable tension sensor detecting a tension force indicative of an obstruction within the garbage chute. Regarding claim 34, Despalle et al. additionally disclose that the device further comprises a lower limit switch and an upper limit switch (see English translation, described as stop 29 to “stop the device 32 at the bottom of the sheath”; see English translation “arriving at the top of the sheath…” the motor and reel will stop), the lower limit switch configured to reverse the direction of the motorized cable reel upon the cylindrical housing reaching a bottom of the garbage chute (see English translation, the “ascent cycle”), the upper limit switch generating a signal that causes the motorized cable reel to stop (again, see English translation “arriving at the top of the sheath…” the motor and reel will stop). In addition the system Despalle et al. determines an obstruction within the garbage chute during lowering or raising of the housing based on “control bodies” (see English translation), however does not disclose a cable tension sensor.
Farajun disclose a cleaning device comprising a cylindrical housing (24) having a motor (38) for rotating a brush (40) and is supported by a cable (26) supported by a reel (30, 36). Regarding claim 20, Farajun teach a cable detection sensor coupled to a cable suspension system and is configured to detect a tension force on the cable (not shown, column 6 lines 15-19); and a controller (138) configured to halt operation of a motorized cable reel in response to the cable tension sensor detecting a tension force indicative of an obstruction in order to prevent damage to the cable suspension system (several embodiments in which this occurs, see entire passage from column 5 line 63 to column 7 line 44).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. to include at least one cable tension sensor and a controller, as taught by Farajun et al., so that the steel cable and cable suspension system can be protected when there is an obstruction or emergency within the chute area being cleaned.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despalle et al., FR 2486401 A1 (see also English translation), Pacheco et al., US 5,038,810, Reinel et al., DE 102019000459 A1 (see also English translation), and Guo et al., CN 207048260 U (see also English translation) as applied to claim 29 in further view of Dayton et al., US 9,371,651.
Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above, however fail to disclose that there is an external controller configured to receive commands from a mobile application installed on a handheld device. Note that the system of Despalle et al. has an external control device as part of its remote control cabinet (see English translation).
Dayton et al. disclose a robotic cleaning device and system for cleaning tubular areas from debris (Abstract). Further regarding claim 35, the system includes a wireless communication facility (164) and controls the robotic cleaning device via a mobile application installed on a handheld device (cellular phone, internet application; column 17 line 44 to column 18 line 18; see also Figures 4 and 10). As Figure 4 shows, this would allow a user to operate the cleaning device in a wireless manner away from the tubular structure being cleaned.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of the system of Despalle et al., Pacheco et al., Reinel et al. and Guo et al. to additionally include an external controller that receives commands from a mobile application installed on a handheld device, as Dayton et al. teach, so that a user can control the system in a wireless manner away from the cleaning device location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 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.
Claims 24-26 and 32-33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art made of record disclose, teach or suggest the robotic cleaning device as comprising (1) a motor that is a geared stepper motor configured to receive pulse signals from a controller to convert the pulse signals into incremental rotational movement of the cable reel to control a rate of descent and ascent of the cylindrical housing or (2) an internal controller housed within the cylindrical housing and comprising a first wireless transceiver, and an external controller configured to be installed on a wall external to the garbage chute and comprising a second wireless transceiver, the external controller configured to transmit wireless control signals to the internal controller to activate the motor, the motorized cable reel, and an electrically actuated water valve. Some of the prior art described above and in the prior Office action describe wireless communication and controls, however none of the prior art includes an external controller configured to be installed on a wall external to the chute and is configured to transmit wireless signals to activate the motor, the motorized cable reel, and an electrically actuated water valve. In Despalle et al. there is an external controller (within a control cabinet) that controls the drive means of the cable reel (see English translation). Despalle et al. also has a manual start or can be started in programmed automatic cycles (English translation). Also, Despalle et al. describe a geared motor for winding and unwinding the reel (English translation), but it is not described as a stepper motor that receives pulse signals from a controller to convert the pulse signals into incremental rotational movement of the cable reel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights