DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to claim amendment filed on 07/14/2026 and wherein claims 1,
2, 4, 5 being currently amended and claims 7 – 20 being added. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has amended the claim to include the limitation “wherein the cable
guide is disposed above the pair of first arms and at an elevation within a height range of pivotable portions of the pair of second arms”.
The applicant argues that Takeshi discloses a cable routing structure in which a cable bends back and follows movement of a moveable portion, but does not disclose the routing of the cable within a multi-joint articulated arm configuration. In addition the applicant argues that the Office action does not adequately explain how the cable routing structure of Takeshi could be combined with the articulated joint linkage structure of Sakata without substantially altering the intended operation and movement configuration of Sakata.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Takashi discloses a single SCARA arm mechanism with a cable guide, and translating this mechanism to a conveyance apparatus with two pivotably connected SCARA arm mechanisms would not substantially alter the intended operation and movement of Sakata’s disclosed conveyance apparatus. SCARA arms are very well known in the art, altering them with known techniques used for other SCARA arms would not substantially alter their use, especially in the regard of combining Sakata and Takashi. In addition, when combined the location of the cable guide would fall at the same level or higher than the level of the first articulated arm as necessitated in the claim amendment, disposing the cable guide (7) taught by Takashi on the link mechanism support (P0) Takata would yield an elevated surface for the cable falling above the first pair of arms (P1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (JP 5590411) in view of Takeshi (JP 2018090391 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sakata teaches A conveyance apparatus (5) comprising:
a base (15);
a link mechanism support (P0) provided on the base (15);
a holder (P3) configured to hold a conveyance target object;
a link mechanism (32) including a plurality of multi-joint arms that connect the link mechanism support and the holder (fig. 8 – link mechanism is two SCARA style arms),
and configured to advance and retreat the holder horizontally with respect to the link mechanism support (fig.7/8 – shows arms retreating and advancing);
the plurality of multi-joint arms includes:
a pair of first arms (P1) pivotably connected to the link mechanism support (P0):
and a pair of second arms (P2) pivotably connected to the pair of first arms and the holder (P3),
Sakata fails to explicitly teach,
a cable fixed to the holder and the link mechanism support,
A cable guide configured to guide the cable
wherein the cable is fixed to the link mechanism support by extending from a portion thereof fixed to the holder in a retreating direction of an advancing and retreating direction of the holder,
and then, being bent back in an advancing direction, and as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder,
a bent-back position of the cable between the portion of the cable fixed to the holder and the portion fixed to the link mechanism support also advances.
and wherein the cable guide is disposed above the pair of first arms and at an elevation within a height range of pivotable portions of the pair of the second arms
However, Takeshi teaches,
a cable (5) fixed to the holder (22) and the link mechanism support (4)
A cable guide (7) configured to guide the cable
wherein the cable is fixed to the link mechanism support (fixing at EG2(5)) by extending from a portion thereof fixed to the holder in a retreating direction of an advancing and retreating direction of the holder and then, being bent back in an advancing direction, (fig. 5 – cable advances and retreats with holder),
and as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder, a bent-back position (BE (5)) of the cable between the portion of the cable fixed to the holder and the portion fixed to the link mechanism support also advances (fig. 5 – cable advances and retreats with holder)
and wherein the cable guide (7) is disposed above the pair of first arms and at an elevation within a height range of pivotable portions of the pair of the second arms
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi. Providing a cable guide and external cable routing allows for the conveyance of heavier objects as traditional internal cable routing reduces load capacity in conveyance apparatuses. In addition, while Takeshi discloses a transferring device with only one arm (22), the cable guide is located in the center of that arm, if combined with a transferring device with two arms such as Sakata’s it would have been obvious to locate the cable guide in the center of the transferring base and in turn between the pair of second arms, in this same construction the guide would be located at a height range between the two pairs of arms.
Regarding claim 2, Sakata fails to teach, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1,
Wherein the cable guide extends, extending in the advancing and retreating direction of the holder, and is configured to place thereon at least a portion of the cable in a contacting and separable manner and
wherein as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder a portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide is separated from the cable guide in turn from a side of the retreating direction of the advancing and retreating direction of the holder
However, Takeshi teaches,
Wherein the cable guide (7) extends, in the advancing and retreating direction of the holder (fig. 3/4 – guide extends in the direction of arm advancement/retreat), and is configured to place thereon at least a portion of the cable in a contacting and separable manner (fig 6/7 – cable and cable guide are separated in the advancing and retreating direction – See figures below), and
wherein as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder a portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide is separated from the cable guide in turn from a side of the retreating direction of the advancing and retreating direction of the holder (fig 6/7 – cable and cable guide are separated in the advancing and retreating direction – See figures below).
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 3, Sakata fails to teach, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein the cable is fixed to the cable guide at the portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide even when the holder advances most
However, Takeshi teaches,
wherein the cable (5) is fixed to the cable guide (EG1) at the portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide even when the holder advances most ([Abstract] – cable fixed at EG1, Fig. 6/7 – shows cable fixed at extension).
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above.
PNG
media_image1.png
867
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Sakata fails to teach, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 2,
Wherein the cable guide is disposed between the pair of second arms when the holder is located at a retreat position.
However, Takeshi teaches,
Wherein the cable guide (7) is disposed between the pair of second arms when the holder is located at a retreat position.
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above. In addition, while Takeshi discloses a transferring device with only one arm (22), the cable guide is located in the center of that arm, if combined with a transferring device with two arms such as Sakata’s it would have been obvious to locate the cable guide in the center of the transferring base and in turn between the pair of second arms when the holder is located at a retreat position.
Regarding claim 5, Sakata teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 4,
wherein the pair of second arms (P2) are pivotably connected to the holder (P3) while forming a gap through which the cable guide passes when the holder is located at the retreat position (fig. 7 – gap between two arms).
For the reasons noted above for claim 4, it would have been obvious to use the gap between the two second arms as a location for the cable guide when the holder is in a retreat position.
Regarding claim 6, Sakata fails to teach, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the cable has a structure in which a plurality of unit cables is arranged in parallel to have a horizontally long cross section.
However, Takeshi teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the cable (5) has a structure in which a plurality of unit cables is arranged in parallel to have a horizontally long cross section (cable is both power and control cables parallel to each other).
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 7, Takeshi teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the cable guide (7) is disposed above the pair of first arms and at the height corresponding to the heights of the pair of second arms such that the cable guide avoids interference with the plurality of multi-joint arms during advancement and retraction of the holder.
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above. In addition, while Takeshi discloses a transferring device with only one arm (22), the cable guide is located in the center of that arm, if combined with a transferring device with two arms such as Sakata’s it would have been obvious to locate the cable guide in the center of the transferring base and in turn above higher than the first arm and at a height corresponding to the second arm.
Regarding claim 8, Takeshi teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the cable guide (7) has a cantilevered structure extending in the advancing direction (figure above – cable guide (7) is beam fixed at one end),
and when the holder is located at a retreat position, at least a portion of the cable guide is disposed between the pair of second arms (figure above).
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above. In addition, while Takeshi discloses a transferring device with only one arm (22), the cable guide is located in the center of that arm, if combined with a transferring device with two arms such as Sakata’s it would have been obvious to locate the cable guide in the center of the transferring base and in turn between two arms.
Regarding claim 9, Takeshi teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein when the holder (22) is located at a retreat position, the cable guide (7) overlaps with at least one of the pair of first arms when viewed in a plan view.
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above. In addition, while Takeshi discloses a transferring device with only one arm (22), the cable guide is located in the center of that arm, if combined with a transferring device with two arms such as Sakata’s it would have been obvious to locate the cable guide in the center of the transferring base and in turn above higher than the first arm and at a height corresponding to the second arm.
Regarding claim 10, Sakata teaches, A conveyance apparatus comprising:
a base (15);
a link mechanism support (P0) provided on the base (15);
a holder (P3) configured to hold a conveyance target object;
a link mechanism (32) including a plurality of multi-joint arms that connect the link mechanism support and the holder, and configured to advance and retreat the holder horizontally with respect to the link mechanism support (fig. 7/8 – link mechanism is two SCARA style arms which advance and retreat);
Sakata fails to teach,
a cable fixed to the holder and the link mechanism support, wherein the cable is disposed in a vertical plane extending along an advancing and retreating direction of the holder and passing through a central region of the plurality of multi-joint arms,
wherein the cable is fixed to the link mechanism support by extending from a portion thereof fixed to the holder in a retreating direction of the advancing and retreating direction of the holder,
and then, being bent back in an advancing direction, and as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder,
a bent-back position of the cable between the portion of the cable fixed to the holder and the portion fixed to the link mechanism support also advances.
However, Takeshi teaches,
and a cable (5) fixed to the holder (22) and the link mechanism support (4), wherein the cable is disposed in a vertical plane extending along an advancing and retreating direction of the holder and passing through a central region of the plurality of multi-joint arms,
wherein the cable is fixed to the link mechanism support (4) by extending from a portion thereof fixed to the holder in a retreating direction of the advancing and retreating direction of the holder (fig. 6/7 – cable retreats with holder),
and then, being bent back in an advancing direction, and as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder (BE (5)),
a bent-back position of the cable between the portion of the cable fixed to the holder and the portion fixed to the link mechanism support also advances (fig. 5 – cable advances and retreats with holder).
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 11, Sakata teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 10,
wherein the plurality of multi-joint arms includes:
a pair of first arms (P1) pivotably connected to the link mechanism support (P0);
and a pair of second arms (P1) pivotably connected to the pair of first arms and the holder,
Sakata fails to teach,
and wherein the cable is disposed above the pair of first arms and at a height corresponding to heights of the pair of second arms.
However, Takeshi teaches,
wherein the cable (5) is disposed above the pair of first arms and at a height corresponding to
heights of the pair of second arms.
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above. In addition, while Takeshi discloses a transferring device with only one arm (22), the cable guide is located in the center of that arm, if combined with a transferring device with two arms such as Sakata’s it would have been obvious to locate the cable guide in the center of the transferring base and in turn above higher than the first arm and at a height corresponding to the second arm.
Regarding claim 12, Sakata fails to teach, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 11, further comprising:
a cable guide configured to guide the cable, wherein the cable guide extends in the advancing and retreating direction of the holder,
and is disposed above the pair of first arms and at a height corresponding to heights of the pair of second arms,
the cable guide being configured to place thereon at least a portion of the cable in a contacting and separable manner,
and wherein as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder,
a portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide is separated from the cable guide in turn from a side of the retreating direction of the advancing and retreating direction of the holder.
However, Takeshi teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 11,
further comprising:
a cable guide (7) configured to guide the cable (5), wherein the cable guide extends in the advancing and retreating direction of the holder (figure above – cable guide (7) extends during advancing and retreating),
and is disposed above the pair of first arms and at a height corresponding to heights of the pair of second arms,
the cable guide being configured to place thereon at least a portion of the cable in a contacting and separable manner (figure above – shows cable guide (7) with cable contacting it),
and wherein as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder, a portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide is separated from the cable guide in turn from a side of the retreating direction of the advancing and retreating direction of the holder (figure above – shows cable guide (7) with cable contacting it, and cable separating from guide during advancement)
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above. In addition, while Takeshi discloses a transferring device with only one arm (22), the cable guide is located in the center of that arm, if combined with a transferring device with two arms such as Sakata’s it would have been obvious to locate the cable guide in the center of the transferring base and in turn above higher than the first arm and at a height corresponding to the second arm.
Regarding claim 13, Sakata fails to teach, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 12,
wherein the cable is fixed to the cable guide at the portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide even when the holder advances most.
However, Takeshi teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 12,
wherein the cable is fixed to the cable guide at the portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide even when the holder advances most (figure above – shows cable (5) fixed to cable guide (7) at extension position).
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 14, Takeshi teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 12,
wherein when the holder is located at a retreat position, the cable guide overlaps with at least one of the pair of first arms when viewed in a plan view (fig. 3 – cable guide overlaps with first arm during retreat position).
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 15, Sakata teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 11,
wherein the holder is located above the pair of second arms (fig. 5 – holder (P3) located above pair of second arms (P2)).
Regarding claim 16, Sakata teaches, a conveyance apparatus comprising:
a base (15);
a link mechanism (P0) support provided on the base (15);
a holder (P3) configured to hold a conveyance target object;
a link mechanism (32) including a plurality of multi-joint arms that connect the link mechanism support and the holder, and configured to advance and retreat the holder horizontally with respect to the link mechanism support (fig. 7/8 – link mechanism is two SCARA style arms which advance and retreat);
Sakata fails to teach,
a cable fixed to the holder and the link mechanism support;
and a cable guide having a fixed position relative to the link mechanism support, extending in an advancing and retreating direction of the holder, and configured to place thereon at least a portion of the cable in a contacting and separable manner,
wherein the cable is fixed to the link mechanism support by extending from a portion thereof fixed to the holder in a retreating direction of the advancing and retreating direction of the holder, and then, being bent back in an advancing direction, as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder, a bent-back position of the cable between the portion of the cable fixed to the holder and the portion fixed to the link mechanism support also advances,
and wherein both when the holder is located at a retreat position with respect to the link mechanism support and when the holder is located at a most advanced position with respect to the link mechanism support, the cable guide remains at the fixed position relative to the link mechanism support, and the cable is fixed to the cable guide at the portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide when viewed in a plan view.
However, Takashi teaches,
a cable (5) fixed to the holder (22) and the link mechanism support (4);
and a cable guide having a fixed position relative to the link mechanism support, extending in an advancing and retreating direction of the holder, and configured to place thereon at least a portion of the cable in a contacting and separable manner (figure shown above – cable guide (7) is a fixed beam),
wherein the cable (5) is fixed to the link mechanism support by extending from a portion thereof fixed to the holder in a retreating direction of the advancing and retreating direction of the holder (fig.3/4 – cable is fixed to holder (4) and link mechanism support (4)),
and then, being bent back in an advancing direction, as the holder advances along with the portion of the cable fixed to the holder, a bent-back position of the cable between the portion of the cable fixed to the holder and the portion fixed to the link mechanism support also advances (fig. 3/4 – cable is bent as holder advances and retreats),
and wherein both when the holder is located at a retreat position with respect to the link mechanism support and when the holder is located at a most advanced position with respect to the link mechanism support, the cable guide remains at the fixed position relative to the link mechanism support, and the cable is fixed to the cable guide at the portion of the cable disposed on the cable guide when viewed in a plan view (fig. 3/4 – cable guide (7) remains in fixed position as arm retreats and advances).
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 17, Sakata teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the plurality of multi-joint arms includes:
a pair of first arms (P1) pivotably connected to the link mechanism support;
and a pair of second arms (P2) pivotably connected to the pair of first arms and the holder,
Sakata fails to teach,
wherein the cable guide is disposed between the pair of second arms when the holder is located at the retreat position.
However, Takashi teaches,
wherein the cable guide (7) is disposed between the pair of second arms when the holder is located at the retreat position.
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above. In addition, while Takeshi discloses a transferring device with only one arm (22), the cable guide is located in the center of that arm, if combined with a transferring device with two arms such as Sakata’s it would have been obvious to locate the cable guide in the center of the transferring base and in turn between the pair of second arms when the holder is located at the retreat position.
Regarding claim 18, Sakata teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 17,
wherein the pair of second arms are pivotably connected to the holder while forming a gap (fig. 7 – shows a gap between both arms) through which the cable guide passes when the holder is located at the retreat position.
Takeshi teaches,
wherein the pair of second arms are pivotably connected to the holder while forming a gap through which the cable guide (7) passes when the holder is located at the retreat position.
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above. In addition, while Takeshi discloses a transferring device with only one arm (22), the cable guide is located in the center of that arm, if combined with a transferring device with two arms such as Sakata’s it would have been obvious to locate the cable guide in the center of the transferring base and in turn between the pair of second arms when the holder is located at the retreat position.
Regarding claim 19, Sakata teaches, the conveyance apparatus of claim 16, wherein the plurality of multi-joint arms includes:
a pair of first arms (P1) pivotably connected to the link mechanism support (P0);
and a pair of second arms (P2) pivotably connected to the pair of first arms and the holder,
Sakata fails to teach,
and wherein a portion of the cable fixed to the holder is disposed in a vertical plane extending along an advancing and retreating direction of the holder (fig. 3/4 – cable loop Is disposed in a vertical plane),
and a portion of the cable fixed to the cable guide is disposed above the pair of first arms and at a height corresponding to heights of the pair of second arms (cable (5) is disposed at level of guide (7) up to the level of second arm)
Sakata and Takeshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of article transport and conveyance. 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 Sakata’s stacker crane and conveyance apparatus to include the cables and cable guides taught by Takeshi for the reasons disclosed above
Regarding claim 20, Sakata teaches, the conveyance apparatus according to claim 19,
wherein the holder is located above the pair of second arms (fig. 5 – P3 is above second arms).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights