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 .
Summary
This is the response to the communication filed on 10/06/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 remain pending in the application with claims 9-10 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The amendment filed on 10/06/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the word “semispherical” is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The word “semispherical” means “shaped like half a sphere”; however, it is apparently that neither the inner surface 21 of the clamp 20 or the peripheral surface 31 of the rotatable element 30 as shown in the originally filed disclosure is shaped like half a sphere to satisfy the limitation “semispherical in shape”. In the Remarks filed on 10/06/2025, the Applicants stated that since it is impossible for the internal surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31 to be entirely spherical, the word “semispherical” is added for clarity. Examiner acknowledges the Applicants’ reason; however, since the word “spherical” is cited in the originally filed disclosure, it can be read in light of the accompanying figures to deduce the shape of the inner surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31 even if the word “spherical” is inaccurately used to describe the inner surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31. The inclusion of the new word “semispherical” imports additional meaning that is not supported by the originally filed disclosure and it is also inaccurately used to describe the shape of the inner surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31. Therefore, it is advised that the word “spherical” is kept in place instead of being replaced by the word “semispherical” in order to overcome the new matter objection.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 14 and 17 recite “a clamp having an internal surface, semispherical in shape” and “a rotatable element mounted within the clamp and having a peripheral surface, semispherical in shape” (emphasis added) are new matters not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The word “semispherical” means “shaped like half a sphere”; however, it is apparently that neither the inner surface 21 of the clamp 20 or the peripheral surface 31 of the rotatable element 30 as shown in the originally filed disclosure is shaped like half a sphere to satisfy the limitation “semispherical in shape”. In the Remarks filed on 10/06/2025, the Applicants stated that since it is impossible for the internal surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31 to be entirely spherical, the word “semispherical” is added for clarity. Examiner acknowledges the Applicants’ reason; however, since the word “spherical” is cited in the originally filed disclosure, it can be read in light of the accompanying figures to deduce the shape of the inner surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31 even if the word “spherical” is inaccurately used to describe the inner surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31. The inclusion of the new word “semispherical” imports additional meaning that is not supported by the originally filed disclosure and it is also inaccurately used to describe the shape of the inner surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31. Therefore, it is advised that the word “spherical” is kept in place instead of being replaced by the word “semispherical” in order to overcome the new matter rejection. Furthermore, it is noted that the originally filed disclosure state that the internal surface and the peripheral surface are cylindrical in shape (previously recited claim 5), which is the most accurate description of the internal surface and peripheral surface and should be used instead of the inaccurate semispherical shape.
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 1-4, 6-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 14 and 17 recite “a clamp having an internal surface, semispherical in shape” and “a rotatable element mounted within the clamp and having a peripheral surface, semispherical in shape” (emphasis added) that render the claims indefinite due to the Applicants’ arguments in the Remarks filed on 10/06/2025. Particularly, the word “semispherical”, which is not explicitly, implicitly or inherently recited in the originally filed disclosure, means “shaped like half a sphere”; however, neither the internal surface 21 or the peripheral surface 31 as shown in the originally filed disclosure is shaped like half a sphere or semispherical. It appears that the internal surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31 are cylindrical in shape as recited in previously presented claim 5. It is noted that Fukukakis discloses the internal surface 26C and peripheral surface 34 are cylindrical similarly to the corresponding surfaces of current application; however, the Applicants asserted that the cylindrical internal surface and peripheral surface of Fukukakis are not “semispherical in shape”; therefore, it is unclear what “semispherical in shape” means when the limitation is read in light of the specification because the internal surface 21 and the peripheral surface 31 of current application are not “shaped like half a sphere” according to commonly understood meaning of the word “semispherical” and the shape of the internal surface and peripherical surface of Fukukakis resembles that of current application but they are not considered as being “semispherical in shape” according to the Applicants. In other words, what exactly is the shape of a structure that is “semispherical in shape” according to the Applicants?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fakukakis et al. (US2020/0208881).
Addressing claims 1 and 16-17, Fakukakis discloses a rotatable support for the orientation of a shaft (14) supporting a solar panel 16, the rotatable support comprising:
a clamp 26 having an internal surface 26C, semispherical in shape (fig. 4 shows the internal surface 26C of the clamp 26 having cylindrical shape that resembles the internal surface 21 of the clamp 20 shown in fig. 4 of current application, which satisfies the limitation “semispherical in shape”), that is rotationally symmetrical about a main axis;
a rotatable element (30A and 30B) mounted within the clamp and having a peripheral surface, semispherical in shape (fig. 4 shows the peripherical surface of the rotatable element 30A and 30B having cylindrical shape that resembles the peripherical surface 31 of the rotatable element 30 shown in fig. 5 of current application, which satisfies the limitation “semispherical in shape”), that is rotationally symmetrical about the main axis; and
a controllable friction means or controllable mechanism (38 and 38A, the brake band actuator corresponds to the claimed mechanical friction means) configured to impose a friction associated with a first static friction torque (friction due to the compression of the band clamp to lock the position of the rotatable platform [0045]) or a second static friction torque (paragraph [0045] further discloses that the compression force of the brake band 26 is varied to select the amount of friction force, which indicates that the brake band is configured to apply different compression forces that correspond to the claimed first and second friction torque, in order to limit the torque in relation to the amount of wind) on the peripheral surface and/or the internal surface, the first statis friction torque and the second static friction torque opposing rotation of the rotatable element [0045], the first static friction torque being smaller than the second static friction torque (the compression force, which imposes the corresponding friction torque, as disclosed in paragraph [0045] can be varied to restrict torque due to wind conditions; therefore, the controllable friction means of Fakukakis is configured to impose first and second static friction torques that are different with one being less than the other as claimed).
Addressing claim 2, fig. 4 shows the rotatable element comprises first section 30a and second section 30b that are assembled in the claimed manner.
Addressing claim 3, figs. 2-4 imply that the rotatable element 30 comprises two main surfaces (the upper and lower surfaces) connected by the peripheral surface (the surface in contact with the layer 20A), a guide channel extending through the rotatable element for guiding the shaft 14.
Addressing claim 13, fig. 4 shows the clamp comprises a longitudinal holding element 32 projecting from an outer surface thereof.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Corio (US 2020/0403561).
Addressing claims 1 and 16, Corio discloses a rotatable support for orientation of a shaft 34 supporting a solar panel 42, the rotatable support comprising:
a clamp 476 (the word “clamp” is interpreted to include the definition “a device, usually of some rigid material, for strengthening or supporting objects or fastening them together” according to www.dictionary.com; in instant situation, the bearing housing 476 supports the objects within it and holding them together, which qualifies it as the claimed clamp) having an internal surface, semispherical in shape (the shape of the internal surface of the clamp 476 is “semispherical in shape” when the phrase “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification), that is rotationally symmetrical about a main axis (the axis established by the shaft 34);
a rotatable element 470 mounted within the clamp and having a peripheral surface, semispherical in shape (the shape of the peripheral surface of the rotatable element 470 is “semispherical in shape” when the phrase “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification), that is rotationally symmetrical about the main axis; and
a controllable friction means (cords 478, which are qualified as the claimed mechanical friction means) configured to impose a friction associated with a first static friction torque or a second static friction torque (the cords provide rotational counter-balance spring force and damping capability, which corresponds the claimed first or second statis friction torque) on the peripheral surface and/or the internal surface (the cords 478 are provided between the peripheral surface and the internal surface; therefore, the static friction torque provided by the cords is imposed on the peripheral surface and the internal surface; furthermore, the degree of counter-balance spring force and damping capability depends on the material to allows for rotational movement up to plus or minus approximately 48 degrees of rotation, which is the controllable aspect that qualifies the cords 478 as the claimed controllable friction means), the first statis friction torque and the second static friction torque opposing rotation of the rotatable element (counter-balance spring force and damping capabilities, which oppose the rotation of the rotatable element), the first statis friction torque being smaller than the second static friction torque (paragraph [0092] discloses as the torque tube 34 rotates the damper cords are compressed between rotatable element 470 and the clamp 470 up to the point of maximum compressibility where the cords provide rotational spring force and damping upon compression release due to the nature of the elastomeric material, the point of maximum compressibility corresponds to the claimed first static friction force; paragraph [0098] discloses as the compressible cords reach their designed rotational limit, which corresponds to the claimed first static friction torque, further rotation is possible but the resistance to rotation can be designed to increase dramatically as the rotation exceeds the limitation value which will create a soft stop for the rotation of the system; therefore, the resistance to rotation as the rotation exceeds the limitation value as imposed by the cords corresponds to the claimed second static friction torque that is greater than the first static friction torque).
Addressing claim 3, figs. 14a-14b show the rotatable element 470 comprises two main faces connected by the peripheral surface, a guide channel 472 extending through the rotatable element for guiding the shaft.
Addressing claim 4, Corio discloses the guide channel has the shape that corresponds to the shaft; the guide channel in figs. 14a-14b has octagonal shape. However, in paragraph [0068], Corio discloses the shaft 34 has rectangular or square shape, which implies that the guide channel has the corresponding rectangular or square cross-sectional shape.
Addressing claims 14-15, Corio discloses a solar installation (fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of poles 32;
a shaft 34 extending along a main axis 40, the shaft being rigidly connected to one end of each of the poles of the plurality of poles via rotatable supports, each of the rotatable supports including:
a clamp 476 having an internal surface, semispherical in shape (the shape of the internal surface of the clamp 476 is “semispherical in shape” when the phrase “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification), that is rotationally symmetrical about a main axis (the axis established by the shaft 34);
a rotatable element 470 mounted within the clamp and having a peripheral surface, semispherical in shape (the shape of the peripheral surface of the rotatable element 470 is “semispherical in shape” when the phrase “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification), that is rotationally symmetrical about the main axis; and
a controllable friction means (cords 478) configured to impose a friction associated with a first static friction torque or a second static friction torque (the cords provide rotational counter-balance spring force and damping capability, which corresponds the claimed first or second statis friction torque) on the peripheral surface and/or the internal surface (the cords 478 are provided between the peripheral surface and the internal surface; therefore, the static friction torque provided by the cords is imposed on the peripheral surface and the internal surface; furthermore, the degree of counter-balance spring force and damping capability depends on the material to allows for rotational movement up to plus or minus approximately 48 degrees of rotation, which is the controllable aspect that qualifies the cords 478 as the claimed controllable friction means), the first statis friction torque and the second static friction torque opposing rotation of the rotatable element (counter-balance spring force and damping capabilities, which oppose the rotation of the rotatable element), the first statis friction torque being smaller than the second static friction torque (paragraph [0092] discloses as the torque tube 34 rotates the damper cords are compressed between rotatable element 470 and the clamp 470 up to the point of maximum compressibility where the cords provide rotational spring force and damping upon compression release due to the nature of the elastomeric material, the point of maximum compressibility corresponds to the claimed first static friction force; paragraph [0098] discloses as the compressible cords reach their designed rotational limit, which corresponds to the claimed first static friction torque, further rotation is possible but the resistance to rotation can be designed to increase dramatically as the rotation exceeds the limitation value which will create a soft stop for the rotation of the system; therefore, the resistance to rotation as the rotation exceeds the limitation value as imposed by the cords corresponds to the claimed second static friction torque that is greater than the first static friction torque);
at least one solar panel 42 rigidly connected to the shaft (fig. 1); and
at least one motor 15 [0071] configured to impose a torque for rotating the shaft about the main axis [0074].
Addressing claim 17, Corio discloses a rotatable support for orientation of a shaft 34 supporting a solar panel 42, the rotatable support comprising:
a clamp 476 having an internal surface, semispherical in shape (the shape of the internal surface of the clamp 476 is “semispherical in shape” when the phrase “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification), that is rotationally symmetrical about a main axis (the axis established by the shaft 34);
a rotatable element 470 mounted within the clamp and having a peripheral surface, semispherical in shape (the shape of the peripheral surface of the rotatable element 470 is “semispherical in shape” when the phrase “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification), that is rotationally symmetrical about the main axis; and
a controllable mechanism (the compressible elastic cords) located and configured to impose different levels of friction on the peripheral surface and/or the internal surface, the different levels of friction providing at least a first statis friction torque and a second static friction torque opposing rotation of the rotatable element, the first static friction torque being smaller than the second static friction torque (paragraph [0092] discloses as the torque tube 34 rotates the damper cords are compressed between rotatable element 470 and the clamp 470 up to the point of maximum compressibility where the cords provide rotational spring force and damping upon compression release due to the nature of the elastomeric material, the point of maximum compressibility corresponds to the claimed first static friction force; paragraph [0098] discloses as the compressible cords reach their designed rotational limit, which corresponds to the claimed first static friction torque, further rotation is possible but the resistance to rotation can be designed to increase dramatically as the rotation exceeds the limitation value which will create a soft stop for the rotation of the system; therefore, the resistance to rotation as the rotation exceeds the limitation value as imposed by the cords corresponds to the claimed second static friction torque that is greater than the first static friction torque).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio (US 2020/0403561) in view of Yang et al. (CN212969518 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 2, Corio is silent regarding the limitation of current claim.
Yang discloses a rotatable support for the orientation of a shaft 1 (fig. 7); wherein, the shaft has octagonal cross-section similarly to that of Corio. The rotatable support includes a bearing having two sections that are assembled to form the rotatable element, the sections are symmetrical relative to a plane passing through the main axis.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rotatable support of Corio with the rotatable element having two sections assembled to support the shaft as disclosed by Yang in order to obtain the predictable result of supporting an octagonal shaft with a rotatable element for sun tracking operation (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio (US 2020/0403561) in view of Ochs (DE1056661 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 6-8 and 18-19, Corio discloses the cords are used for counter balance torsion vibration due to wind induced torque [0099].
Corio is silent regarding the friction means or the controllable mechanism comprises an inflatable membrane interposed between the peripheral surface and the internal surface as claimed.
Ochs discloses a friction means or controllable mechanism (contract pressure body 4, working chambers 5, 5’ with elastic wall 7 filled with damping fluid shown in fig. 1 and described in paragraph [0028] of the translation document. The friction means or controllable mechanism of Ochs is designed for dampening torsional vibration [0002], which is analogous to the torsion vibration due to wind induced torque of Corio. The friction means or controllable mechanism of Ochs is an inflatable membrane capable of being inflated with a liquid (the inflatable membrane is inflated by filling the membrane with dampening fluid via opening 12, [0032]) and interposed between the peripheral surface of body 2 and the internal surface of the outer body 3.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rotatable support of Corio by substituting the known cords with the known pressure body 4 formed on the internal surface and the inflatable membrane inflatable with dampening fluid disclosed by Ochs in order to dampen torsional vibration with high level of operational reliability, easy integration and low costs (Ochs, [0005]). Ochs discloses in the associated figures and description that the inflatable membrane is secured to the internal surface such that the controllable friction means are configured to impose the claimed first or second friction torque on the peripheral and internal surface as claimed.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio (US 2020/0403561) in view of Schimelpfenig et al. (US 2018/0062565) and Ballentine et al. (US 2020/0153382).
Addressing claim 11, Corio is silent regarding the material of the clamp.
Schimelpfenig discloses bearing support 304 and 302 as the structural equivalence to the claimed clamp for supporting the torque tube bearing 306 (fig. 3). The bearing supports 302 and 304 are made of galvanized steel [0065].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the clamp of Corio with the galvanized steel material for the torque tube bearing disclosed by Schimelpfenig in order to improve strength, rigidity, durability and corrosion resistance of the rotatable support (Ballentine, [0061]) as well as obtain the predictable result of forming the support for the torque tube bearing (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio (US 2020/0403561) in view of Sasidharan et al. (US 2022/0333642).
Addressing claim 12, Corio is silent regarding the material of the rotatable element.
Sasidharan discloses a rotatable support 115 for a shaft 118; wherein, the rotatable support includes a rotatable element 217 (adaptor 217, [0028]) that is made of plastic material [0036].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rotatable element of Corio with the known plastic material for rotatable element disclosed by Sasidharan in order to obtain the predictable result of supporting the rotatable shaft within the clamp (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio (US 2020/0403561) in view of Worden et al. (US 2021/0234501).
Addressing claim 13, Corio is silent regarding the clamp comprises a longitudinal holding element projecting from an outer surface thereof.
Worden discloses a clamp for supporting a rotatable shaft 25 [0055]; wherein, the clamp 60 has a similar shape as that of Corio and is made of two sections joined together via opposing longitudinal holding element projecting from an outer surface thereof (fig. 6).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rotatable support of Corio by substituting the known clamp with the known clamp having longitudinal holding element projecting from an outer surface thereof as disclosed by Worden in order to obtain the predictable result of supporting a rotatable shaft (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 13 and 16-17 as being anticipated by Fukukakis, the Applicants argued that Fukukakis does not disclose the limitation “a clamp having an internal surface, semispherical in shape” and “a rotatable element mounted within the clamp and having a peripheral surface, semispherical in shape” as recited in claims 1 and 17. The argument is not persuasive because the word semispherical means “shape like half a sphere” which is not the shape of the internal surface 21 and peripheral surface 31 of current application. It is unclear as to what would qualify as a structure that is “semispherical in shape” when the limitation “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification. Therefore, since the internal surface and peripheral surface disclosed by Fukukakis resemble those shown in current application, it is the Examiner’s position that the internal surface and peripheral surface of Fukukakis are “semispherical in shape” when the limitation “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification. For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 1-3, 13 and 16-17 are anticipated by Fukukakis.
With regard to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1, 4-5 and 14-17 as being anticipated by Corio, the Applicants argued that Corio does not disclose the limitation “a clamp having an internal surface, semispherical in shape” and “a rotatable element mounted within the clamp and having a peripheral surface, semispherical in shape”. The argument is not persuasive because the word semispherical means “shape like half a sphere” which is not the shape of the internal surface 21 and peripheral surface 31 of current application. It is unclear as to what would qualify as a structure that is “semispherical in shape” when the limitation “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification. Therefore, since the internal surface and peripheral surface disclosed by Corio resemble those shown in current application, it is the Examiner’s position that the internal surface and peripheral surface of Corio are “semispherical in shape” when the limitation “semispherical in shape” is read in light of the specification. For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 1, 4-5 and 14-17 are anticipated by Corio.
The arguments regarding the rejection of claims 2, 6-8, 11-13 and 19 are not persuasive because the arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 14 and 17 are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 10/21/2025
Prosecution Insights