SPEC PAR. 0034, 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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-11 were previously pending. Claims 1-3, 6-7 have been amended. Claims 5 and 8-11 are canceled. Claims 12-34 are newly added. Applicants’ amendments to the drawings have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/14/2026. Applicants’ amendments to the claimed limitations that were previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (stop mechanisms) in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/14/2026 are no longer subject to a 112(f) interpretation. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/14/2026.
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 15 - 20, 27 - 32, 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.
Regarding claim 15, 17-20, 27, and 29-32 the claimed limitation, “the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the first sleeve” is confusing. How is the upwardly facing surface of the stop mechanism on the second sleeve spaced axially above the lower edge of the first sleeve when it is below the lower edge of the first sleeve? Aren’t the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve? Is this referring to the sleeves in a specific state of telescoping or particular height? Is this the correct distance? As a result of the confusion created by the claimed language, the claim is considered indefinite. The examiner will interpret the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve.
Claims 16 and 28 are similarly rejected as being dependent on previously rejected claims.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 12-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (U.S. 6,659,428 B2), in view of Lucker (U.S. 2,096,050 A) and Liu et al., (CN 206,513,187 U).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota teaches a screw jack system (Paragraph 0023, Figures 1-6) comprising: a base (Column 5, Lines 22-23, substantially rectangular base 1); a case body (Column 5, Lines 26-29, housing 3) having a drive gear (Column 5, lines 32-35, substantially bowl-shaped bevel gear 30) to provide rotational motion; a rotational input (Column 6, Lines 44-48, drive gear 32) for driving the gear; a drive screw (Column 6, lines 30-34, first screw shaft 29) perpendicular to said drive gear and rotatable therewith to convert rotation motion into linear motion; a plurality of telescoping sleeves (substantially rectangular pipe-shaped upper half portion of housing 3 (Lines 26 – 29, Column 5), ram guide 45 (lines 26 – 32, Column 7), and ram 47 (lines 44-49, Column 7)) extendible and retractable relative to one another to permit vertical elevation, the telescoping sleeves comprising a first sleeve (Column 5, Lines 26 – 29, substantially rectangular pipe-shaped upper half portion of housing 3) connected to the base (Column 5, Lines 22-23, substantially rectangular base 1) and a second sleeve (Column 7, lines 26 – 32, ram guide 45) telescopingly received within the first sleeve; a raising and lowering mechanism within said sleeves for extending and lowering comprising an internally threaded shaft (Column 5 and 6, lines 67 and 1-10, respectively, second screw shaft 40 with female thread portion 41) meshed with the drive screw such that rotation of the drive screw raises and lowers the internally threaded shaft linearly to extend and retract the sleeves relative to one another; and a load rest (Column 9, Lines 44-48, vehicle mounting table 50) affixed atop said plurality of sleeves for engagement under a vehicle.
Kubota does not teach wherein an upper portion of the first sleeve and a lower portion of the second sleeve each have at least three stop mechanisms configured to engage one another on at least three locations, wherein each stop mechanism of the first sleeve has a downwardly facing surface and each stop mechanism of the second sleeve has an upwardly facing surface, the upwardly and downwardly facing surfaces being positioned for engagement when said second sleeve is fully extended with respect to the first sleeve to retain the second sleeve against withdrawal from the first sleeve; wherein the stop mechanisms on the first sleeve are each spaced axially below an upper edge of the first sleeve, such that when fully extended the lower portion of the second sleeve and the upper portion of the first sleeve above the stop mechanisms thereof overlap axially to engage one another in the radial direction to provide direction to provide additional support against radial deflection
However, Lucker teaches a screw jack system (Figure 2) wherein an upper portion of the first sleeves (Pg. 1, Column 2, lines 19-22, casting 10) and a lower portion of the second sleeve (Pg. 2, Column 1, lines 21-22, nonthreaded sleeve member 37) have a stop mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1) configured to engage one another at a location, wherein each stop mechanism (Pg. 2, Column 1, lines 20-35, channel 40 and lower portion of inwardly projection portion 42) of the first sleeve (Pg. 1, Column 2, lines 19-22, casting 10) has a downwardly facing surface (See Annotated Figure 1) and each stop mechanism (Pg. 2, Column 1, lines 29-32, upper portion of outwardly struck portion 41) of the second sleeve (Pg. 2, Column 1, lines 21-22, nonthreaded sleeve member 37) has an upwardly facing surface (See Annotated Figure 1), the upwardly and downwardly facing surfaces being positioned for engagement when said second sleeve is fully extended with respect to the first sleeve to retain the second sleeve against withdrawal from the first sleeve (See Annotated Figure 1); wherein the stop mechanism on the first sleeve are spaced axially below an upper edge of the first sleeve (See Annotated Figure 1), such that when fully extended the lower portion of the second sleeve and the upper portion of the first sleeve above the stop mechanisms thereof overlap axially to engage one another in the radial direction (See Annotated Figure 1) to provide direction to provide additional support against radial deflection.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: Stop Mechanism on First and Second Sleeve
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanisms in Lucker to efficiently and adequately secure the sleeves, so that the second sleeve wouldn’t withdraw from the first sleeve (Page 2, Lines 15-35).
Kubota, as modified by Lucker, fails to teach at least three stop mechanisms on both the first and second sleeve.
However, Liu et al., teaches at least three stopping mechanisms wherein arranged at intervals along the axial direction of a pipe (first pipe 5) are guide protrusions (5a), and arranged inside yet, along the axial direction of another pipe (tube 6) are guide grooves (See Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
692
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2: Lances and Guided Lances on Sleeves
Kubota is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure from deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker, with the teachings of Liu et al. Increasing the number of projections and guide grooves would reduce any motion (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 2, Kubota as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of telescoping sleeves has three sleeves including the first sleeve (Column 5, lines 26 – 29, substantially rectangular pipe-shaped upper half portion of housing 3), the second sleeve (Column 7, lines 26 – 32, ram guide 45) telescopingly received in the first sleeve, and a third sleeve (Column 7, lines 44-49, ram 47), the third sleeve being a top, elevator tube telescopingly received in the second elevator sleeve, the load rest (Column 9, Lines 44-48, vehicle mounting table 50) being mounted atop the top, third elevator tube;
Kubota does not teach that the internally threaded shaft is an elevator screw that is also threaded externally and the top elevator tube is internally threaded and meshed with the external threads of the elevator screw such that rotation of the elevator screw raises and lowers the top elevator tube.
However, Lucker teaches a lifting jack where the internally threaded shaft (Page 1 and 2, lines 55 and 1-2, respectively, intermediate screw sleeve 28) is an elevator screw that is also externally threaded (Page 2, Column 1, lines 2-6, intermediate screw sleeve 28) and the top elevator tube is internally threaded and meshed with the external threads of the elevator screw (Page 2, lines 7-11, sleeve member 30), such that rotation of the elevator screw raises and lowers the top elevator tube.
Kubota and Lucker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified jack of Kubota, with the teachings of Lucker to have an externally/internally threaded elevator screw mesh with the third elevator internally threaded elevator tube. This would lead to a predictable result of success in the rotation of the elevator screw raising and lowering the top elevator tube (Page 1 and 2, lines 55 and 1-11)
Regarding claim 3, Kubota as modified by Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 2. Kubota further teaches wherein the elevator screw is internally threaded only at a lower end thereof (Column 6, lines 67 to Column 7, line 1, female portion 41), wherein the drive screw has a stop (Column 9, lines 59-65, pin 39) at an upper end thereof and the elevator screw has a stop (Column 10, lines 15-18, pin 43) at an upper end thereof, such that (a) as the drive screw is rotated to extend the sleeves the elevator screw is driven upward by the drive screw until the stop on the drive screw engages an upper edge of the internal threading of the elevator screw (Column 9, lines 59-65) which then rotatably drives the elevator screw to continue extending the top elevator tube until the stop on the elevator screw, top elevator tube engages an upper edge of the internal threading of top elevator tube (Column 9, line 66 to Column 10, line 28), and (b) as the drive screw is rotated to retract the sleeves the drive screw rotates in an opposite direction to lower the elevator screw and screw to lower the top elevator tube together, and thereafter rotate the elevator screw to lower the top elevator tube(Column 10, lines 29-60).
Kubota does not teach that the top elevator tube is internally threaded at only a lower end thereof.
Lucker does teach that the top elevator tube is internally threaded at only a lower end thereof (Page 2, Column 1, lines 6-12, sleeve member 30).
Kubota and Lucker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, with the teachings of Lucker to have an internally threaded elevator screw only at the lower end providing the predictable result of the elevator screw only meshing with the lower portion of the elevator tube for engagement (Page 2, Column 1, lines 6-12, sleeve member 30).
Regarding claim 4, Kubota as modified by Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 3.
Kubota, as modified, further teaches wherein each stop is a drive pin (See Kubota, Column 9 and 10, lines 59-65 and lines 15-18, pins 39 and 43, respectively).
Regarding claim 6, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 1, but Kubota fails to teach the at least three lances present on the second sleeve and at least three guiding lances on the first sleeve.
However, Lucker teaches a stop mechanism comprising a lance on the second sleeve and a guiding lance on the first sleeve (See Annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
430
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3: Lances and Guiding lances
Kubota and Lucker are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, with the teachings of Lucker. Doing so would create a screw jack sleeve with two stop mechanism comprising two lances on a plurality of inner case sleeves and at least two guiding lances on a plurality of outer case sleeves in order to prevent withdrawal of the sleeve from the outer most sleeve or lance from guiding lance section (Page 2, Column 1, Lines 22-34).
Kubota, as modified by Lucker fails to teach the number (at least three) of lances and guiding lances on the plurality of inner case sleeves and outer case sleeves, respectively.
However, Liu et al., teaches the number of at least three lances and guiding lances on sleeves (See Annotated Figure 2).
Kubota is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker, with the teachings on Liu et al. Doing so would create a screw jack sleeve with at least three stop mechanism comprising three lances on a plurality of inner case sleeves and at least three guiding lances on a plurality of outer case sleeves. The three lances and guiding lances included to reduce any motion (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kubota as modified by Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Kubota fails to teach the at least three stop mechanisms on the first sleeve are spaced apart on a circumference of the first sleeve and wherein the at least three stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are equally spaced apart on a circumference of the second sleeve.
Lucker teaches a stop mechanism on the circumference of a first and second sleeve (See Annotated Figure 1).
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanism in Lucker to secure the sleeves (Page 2, Column 1, Lines 15-35),
Lucker does not teach the number (three) stop mechanisms as well as them retaining said plurality of case sleeves on at least three locations equally spaced apart on the circumference of each case sleeve.
However, Liu et al. teaches the number at least three lances and guiding lances (which make up said stop mechanisms) equally spaced apart on the circumference of the first and second sleeve (See Annotated Figure 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
538
563
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4: Equally Spaced Lances and Guiding Lances
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure from deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker with the teachings of Liu et al. Doing so would create a jack with an increased number of projections and guide grooves (which make up stop mechanisms) that are equally spaced apart on the circumference of each case sleeve to reduce any motion. (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota, as modified Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Kubota fails to teach wherein the stop mechanisms on the first sleeve are spaced axially below the upper edge of the first sleeve between 5 and 20 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the stop mechanism and upper edge of the first sleeve to be between 5 and 20 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 13, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 12.
However, Kubota fails to teach wherein the stop mechanisms on the first sleeve are spaced axially below the upper edge of the first sleeve between 7 and 15 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the stop mechanism and upper edge of the first sleeve to be between 7 and 15 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 14, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 13.
However, Kubota fails to teach wherein the stop mechanisms on the first sleeve are spaced axially below the upper edge of the first sleeve to be 8 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed value solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the value of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the stop mechanism and upper edge of the first sleeve to be 8 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 15, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve between 1-6 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of stop mechanism on the second sleeve and the lower edge of the second sleeve to be between 1-6 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood by the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system according to claim 15.
Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve by about 4.5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of stop mechanism on the second sleeve and the lower edge of the second sleeve to be about 4.5 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood by the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system according to claim 12.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve between 1-6 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve and lower edge of the second sleeve to be between 1-6 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood by the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system according to claim 13, wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve between 1-6 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve and lower edge of the second sleeve to be between 1-6 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood by the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system according to claim 14.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve between 1-6 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve and lower edge of the second sleeve to be between 1-6 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood by the 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al. teaches the system according to claim 19.
Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve by about 4.5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the stop mechanism and lower edge of the second sleeve to be about 4.5 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 21, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 1.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the first sleeve has at least three channels and the stop mechanisms of the second sleeve are received in said at least three channels to travel along said channels during telescoping extension and retraction of the second sleeve, the downwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms of the first sleeve being upper ends of said at least three channels.
Lucker teaches a first sleeve (Pg. 1, Column 2, lines 19-22, casting 10) with a channel(Pg. 2, Column 1, lines 20-35, channel 40) and the stop mechanisms of the second sleeve (Pg. 2, Column 1, lines 21-22, nonthreaded sleeve member 37) are received in said channel to travel along said channel during telescoping extension and retraction of the second sleeve, the downwardly facing surface of the first sleeve being upper end of the channel (See Annotated Figure 1).
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanisms in Lucker to efficiently and adequately secure the sleeves, so that the second sleeve wouldn’t withdraw from the first sleeve (Page 2, Lines 15-35).
Kubota, as modified by Lucker fails to teach the number of at least three channels and the multiple mechanisms of the second sleeve.
Liu et al. teaches at least three guide grooves on a pipe sleeve and at least three guide protrusions on the second tube wherein the sleeves are slidably engaged (See Annotated Figure 2).
Kubota is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker, with the teachings on Liu et al. Doing so would create a screw jack sleeve with at least three stop mechanism comprising three lances on a plurality of inner case sleeves and at least three guiding lances on a plurality of outer case sleeves. The three lances and guiding lances included to reduce any motion (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 22, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teach the system of claim 21.
Kubota fails to reach the upper ends of the channels on the first sleeve are axially below the upper edge of the first case sleeve.
Lucker teaches the upper ends of the channels on the first sleeve are spaced axially below the upper edge of the first case sleeve (See Annotated Figure 1).
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanisms in Lucker to efficiently and adequately secure the sleeves, so that the second sleeve wouldn’t withdraw from the first sleeve (Page 2, Lines 15-35).
Regarding claim 23, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 22.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upper ends of the channels on the first sleeve being spaced axially below the upper edge of the first case sleeve provides an upper section thereabove free from the channels that remains telescopingly engaged with the lower portion of the second sleeve when fully extended.
Lucker teaches wherein the upper end of the channel on the first sleeve being spaced axially below the upper edge of the first case sleeve provides an upper section thereabove free from the channel that remains telescopingly engaged with the lower portion of the second sleeve when fully extended (See Annotated Figure 1 for axial spacing).
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanisms in Lucker to efficiently and adequately secure the sleeves, so that the second sleeve wouldn’t withdraw from the first sleeve (Page 2, Lines 15-35).
Regarding claim 24, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 22.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upper ends of the channels on the first sleeve are spaced axially below the upper edge of the first case sleeve between 5 and 20 mm
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the stop mechanism and upper edge of the first sleeve to be between 5 and 20 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 25, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 24.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upper ends of the channels on the first sleeve are spaced axially below an upper edge of the first case sleeve between 7 and 15 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the stop mechanism and upper edge of the first sleeve to be between 7 and 15 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 26, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 25.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upper ends of the channels on the first sleeve are spaced axially below an upper edge of the first case sleeve by about 8 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the stop mechanism and upper edge of the first sleeve to be about 8 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 27, as best understood by the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system according to claim 21.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve between 1-6 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of stop mechanism on the second sleeve and the lower edge of the second sleeve to be between 1-6 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 28, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system according to claim 27.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve by about 4.5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of stop mechanism on the second sleeve and the lower edge of the second sleeve to be about 4.5 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 29, as best understood by the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system according to claim 24.
Kubota fails to the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve between 1-6 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of stop mechanism on the second sleeve and the lower edge of the second sleeve to be between 1-6 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 30, as best understood by the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system according to claim 25.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve between 1-6 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of stop mechanism on the second sleeve and the lower edge of the second sleeve to be between 1-6 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 31, as best understood by the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system according to claim 26.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve between 1-6 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of stop mechanism on the second sleeve and the lower edge of the second sleeve to be between 1-6 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 32, as best understood by the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system according to claim 31.
Kubota fails to teach wherein the upwardly facing surfaces of the stop mechanisms on the second sleeve are spaced axially above the lower edge of the second sleeve by about 4.5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimension of the axial spacing, for the stop mechanisms below the upper edge of the first sleeve, would result in a difference in function of the Kubota device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the stop mechanism of Kubota, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, yet indicates that the totality of the axial spacing design provides additional support against deflection in all radial directions (Spec Par. 0034) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range of dimension as claimed, such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 device of Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., to have an axial spacing between the upwardly facing surfaces of stop mechanism on the second sleeve and the lower edge of the second sleeve to be about 4.5 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 33, Kubota teaches a screw jack system (Paragraph 0023, Figures 1-6) comprising: a base (Column 5, Lines 22-23, substantially rectangular base 1); a case body (Column 5, Lines 26-29, housing 3) having a drive gear (Column 5, lines 32-35, substantially bowl-shaped bevel gear 30) to provide rotational motion; a rotational input (Column 6, Lines 44-48, drive gear 32) for driving the gear; a drive screw (Column 6, lines 30-34, first screw shaft 29) perpendicular to said drive gear and rotatable therewith to convert rotation motion into linear motion; a plurality of telescoping sleeves (substantially rectangular pipe-shaped upper half portion of housing 3 (Lines 26 – 29, Column 5), ram guide 45 (lines 26 – 32, Column 7), and ram 47 (lines 44-49 Column 7) extendible and retractable relative to one another to permit vertical elevation, the telescoping sleeves comprising a first sleeve (Column 5, Lines 26 – 29, substantially rectangular pipe-shaped upper half portion of housing 3) connected to the base (Column 5, Lines 22-23, substantially rectangular base 1) and a second sleeve (Column 7, lines 26 – 32, ram guide 45) telescopingly received within the first sleeve; a raising and lowering mechanism within said sleeves for extending and lowering comprising an internally threaded shaft (Column 5 and 6, lines 67 and 1-10, respectively, second screw shaft 40 with female thread portion 41) meshed with the drive screw such that rotation of the drive screw raises and lowers the internally threaded shaft linearly to extend and retract the sleeves relative to one another; and a load rest (Column 9, Lines 44-48, vehicle mounting table 50) affixed atop said plurality of sleeves for engagement under a vehicle.
Kubota fails to teach wherein a upper portion of the first sleeve and a lower portion of the second sleeve each have a plurality of stops configured to engage one another, wherein the stops of the second sleeve is received in the plurality of channels of the first sleeve to travel along said channels during telescoping extension and retraction of the second sleeve and the stops of the first sleeve are upper ends of said plurality of channels such that the stops are engaged with one another when the second sleeve is fully extended with respect to the first sleeve to retain the second sleeve against withdrawal from the first sleeve; and wherein the stop mechanisms on the first sleeve are each spaced axially below an upper edge of the first sleeve, such that when fully extended the lower portion of the second sleeve and the upper portion of the first sleeve above the stop mechanisms thereof overlap axially to engage one another in the radial direction to provide direction to provide additional support against radial deflection
However, Lucker teaches a screw jack system (Figure 1) wherein an upper portion of the first sleeve(Pg. 1, Column 2, lines 19-22, casting 10), and a lower portion of a second sleeve (Pg. 2, Column 1, lines 21-22, nonthreaded sleeve member 37) each have a stop configured to engage one another(See Annotated Figure 1), wherein the stop of the second sleeve (Pg. 2, Column 1, lines 29-32, upper portion of outwardly struck portion 41) is received in the channel (channel 40) of the first sleeve to travel along said channel during telescoping extension and retraction of the second sleeve and the stop of the first sleeve are upper ends of said plurality of channels (Pg. 2, Column 1, lines 20-35, channel 40 and lower portion of inwardly projection portion 42) such that the stops are engaged with one another when the second sleeve is fully extended with respect to the first sleeve to retain the second sleeve against withdrawal from the first sleeve; and the stop mechanism on the first sleeve is spaced axially below an upper edge of the first sleeve (See Annotated Figure 1), such that when fully extended the lower portion of the second sleeve and the upper portion of the first sleeve above the stop mechanisms thereof overlap axially to engage one another in the radial direction (See Annotated Figure 1)
Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota with the stop mechanism in Lucker to adequately secure the sleeves (Page 2, Lines 15-35), preventing withdrawal of the second sleeve from the first.
Kubota, as modified by Lucker, does not teach a plurality of stop mechanisms and channels.
Liu et al. teaches a plurality of stop mechanisms (guide protrusions) lances on a plurality of locations on a sleeve and plurality of channels (guide grooves 6a) on another sleeve (See Annotated Figure 2).
4Kubota and Lucker are both considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of screw-operated jacks with telescopic sleeves. Liu et al. is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor in having multiple lances and guide lances on telescopic sleeves for supporting a structure from deformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jack of Kubota, as modified by Lucker, with the teachings of Liu et al. Increasing the number of projections and guide grooves would reduce any motion (Description, Advantage 2).
Regarding claim 34, Kubota, as modified by Lucker and Liu et al., teaches the system of claim 33.
Kubota fails to teach herein the upper ends of the channels on the first sleeve being spaced axially below the upper edge of the first case sleeve provides an upper section thereabove free from the channels that remains telescopingly engaged with the lower portion of the second sleeve when fully extended.
Lucker teaches the upper ends of the channel on the first sleeve being spaced axially below the upper edge of the first case sleeve (See Annotated Figure 1) provides an upper section thereabove free from the channels that remains telescopingly engaged with the lower portion of the second sleeve when fully extended (See Annotated Figure 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
483
599
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5: Axial Spacing Providing Upper Section
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 9/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the Lucker reference cited lacks the relationship of the stop mechanism of the first sleeve being axially below the upper edge of the first sleeve as necessitated by the limitation in claim 1. Examiner’s updated rejections, as seen above, utilizing the same prior art more clearly identifies and details the relationship of the stop mechanisms of the first sleeve being axially below the upper edge of the first sleeve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawasaki et al. (US 6499722 B1) teaches a screw jack
Ivanova (US 6145812 A) teaches a vehicle jack
Rothbaner (US 5664762 A) teaches an automotive screw jack
Krenze (US 1829662 A) teaches a lifting jack.
Akins (US 2096022A) teaches a lifting jack
Gobbers (US 6247718 B1) teaches a wheelchair lifting device with a plurality of stops. Specifically, the telescopic transmission elements have collars on the upper sleeves that engage the entire stopping circumference of the lower element.
Applicants’ 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 DANIEL S LUNDY whose telephone number is (571)270-0752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 5712724475. 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.
/Daniel Lundy/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
10/7/2026
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
