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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“pushing element” in claim 1. The specification defines corresponding structure as a pressure plate (Pg. 3, Line 1) or a tilting device (Pg. 3, Line 8)
“tilting device” in claim 6 and 13. The specification defines corresponding structure as a pivotable frame (Pg. 3, Line 8)
“suction unit” in claims 1 and 15. The specification defines corresponding structure as lines connected to a suction fan (Pg. 6, Lines )
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“working means” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "claim 13" in the first line of the claim. Claim 13 was cancelled. For the purpose of examination, claim 14 will be interpreted as though it were dependent upon claim 12.
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) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotsky (US2008/0283647) in view of Song (CN111085298) and further in view of Barry (US2007/0110551)..
Re Claim 1, Sotsky discloses a device (modular single shaft rotary grinder 100) for shredding objects, including:
a) a feed tray (defined in part by upper sidewalls 121 and lower sidewalls 118) (see Fig. 1) configured for reception of objects to be shredded (“The materials to be shredded are placed into a hopper or other feeding mechanism”);
b) a roller shredder (rear power head assembly 103) with at least one powered roller (rotor 106) and a further working means in the form of a roller or a comb-shaped counter part (counter knife 109), between which a working gap (see Fig. 6, illustrated below) is formed in order to shred objects from the feed tray and convey them through the working gap ([0009]);
c) a pushing element (ram assembly 115 comprising ram 119) movable in the feed tray (“Ram slide rail 124 longitudinally extends between each lower side wall 118 and upper sidewall 121 wherein an outwardly depending portion of ram 119 slides when ram 119 is longitudinally pushed or pulled to or from rear power head assembly 103 with a ram hydraulic system having ram hydraulic cylinder 138.” [0030]), the pushing element being configured to convey objects to be shredded to the roller shredder ([0009]);
PNG
media_image1.png
852
1300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Sotsky, illustrated
Sotsky does not disclose:
d) a removable cover configured for closing the feed tray on one upside;
e) a tilting device connected to the pushing element on an upside, the tilting device being configured for pivoting a container mounted thereon.
wherein an interior space of the feed tray is connected to a suction unit for producing negative pressure.
Song teaches
d) a removable cover (top cover 15) configured for closing the feed tray (upper end of shell 1) on one upside (Fig. 1);
wherein an interior space of the feed tray (upper part of shell 1) is connected (via vent hole 12) to a suction unit (suction mechanism 13) for producing negative pressure.
Song teaches a removable cover configured for closing the feed tray “to prevent accidents” (Pg. 2, 3rd line from bottom of the page) and a suction mechanism “to improve the air quality” (Pg. 2, Lines 6-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sotsky by including a removable cover on top of the feed tray and a suction mechanism to prevent accidents and improve the air quality as taught by Song. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Barry teaches tilting device (Cylinder 66, links 74, lever dog 70, dump bed 40) connected to an element on an upside (Fig. 5 shows tilting device on upside of chassis 64), the tilting device being configured for pivoting a container (container 20) mounted thereon (Fig. 5).
Sotsky, in view of Song, discloses a device upon which the claimed invention improves by adding a tilting device to the pushing element. Barry contains a tilting device that is applicable to the device of Sotsky, in view of Song. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tilting device on the top cover 128 of Stotsky, which would have improved the system, to yield the predictable result of loading material into the feed tray (Barry, “bulk dump container and a dump truck for drive-by transfer and dumping the bulk container loads” [0004]).
PNG
media_image2.png
831
1310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Sotsky, illustrated
Re Claim 2, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that the interior space of the feed tray (Sotsky, defined by upper sidewalls 121 and lower sidewalls 118) is enclosed in a closed position (Fig. 3) by the pushing element (Sotsky, ram assembly 115 comprising ram 119), the cover (Song, top cover 15) and the roller shredder (Sotsky, rear power head assembly 103).
Re Claim 3, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose that the suction unit comprises a volume flow of at least 5 m3 per second to produce a negative pressure. However, Song teaches increasing volume flow to form a negative pressure, so as to generate suction to remove dust (Pg. 4, Lines 23-28), thus making increasing the volume flow a result effective parameter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sotsky, in view of Song, in the claimed manner, since it has been held that routine optimization of features taught in the prior art is merely design and/or engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.05 Subsection II)
Re Claim 4, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), but fails to disclose that the interior space of the feed tray in an initial position of the pushing element has a volume of at least 30 m3.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sotsky, in view of Song, in the claimed manner, since it has been held that mere changes in size/proportion of features taught in the prior art is merely design and/or engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 Subsection IV.A).
Re Claim 5, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Sotsky further discloses that the feed tray is channel shaped (defined in part by upper sidewalls 121 and lower sidewalls 118) (see Fig. 1) and the pushing element (ram assembly 115 comprising ram 119) comprises a pressure plate (ram 119) which is arranged perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the feed tray (Fig. 7).
Re Claim 7, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and Barry further discloses the tilting device comprises a frame (dump bed 40) which is pivotable about a horizontal axis and to which the container (container 20) or an adaptor (21) fixed to the container (20) can be locked.
Re Claim 8, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), and Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, further discloses the frame (Barry, dump bed 40) is pivotable relative to the pushing element (Sotsky, ram assembly 115 comprising ram 119) arranged in the feed tray via a drive (Barry, hydraulic cylinder 66).
Re Claim 9, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Sotsky further discloses the working gap (see Fig. 6, illustrated above) of the roller shredder between the roller (rotor 106) and the further working means (counter knife 109) is aligned horizontally and the roller and the further working means are arranged one above the other in a vertical direction (see Fig. 6, illustrated above).
Re Claim 10, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Sotsky further discloses the pushing element (ram assembly 115 comprising ram 119) is movable in the feed tray (2) via a hydraulic drive (ram hydraulic cylinder 138).
Re Claim 11, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Sotsky, in view of Song, further discloses that the cover (Song, top cover 15) rests in a sealed manner on one edge of the feed tray (In Song, the cover rests on an edge of the feed tray. The incorporation of the teachings of Song involved putting the top cover on the feed tray of Sotsky).
Re Claim 12, Sotsky discloses a method for shredding objects comprising the following steps:
Filling objects from above via a filling opening into a feed tray, on which a roller shredder is arranged on one side and a pushing element on the opposite side (“The materials to be shredded are placed into a hopper or other feeding mechanism such as opposed cylindrical rollers. In an embodiment having a hopper, a reciprocating ram is used to drive the material toward a counter knife horizontally situated with the longitudinal axis of the rotor.” [0009]);
Shredding the objects by the roller shredder and moving the pushing element in a pushing direction to the roller shredder to feed the objects in the feed tray to the roller shredder (“When in use, the ram travels from its open position near the front end of the rotary grinder across the hopper floor or lower compartment plate towards the rotor, pushing material towards the rotor and counter knife. As the rotor revolves about its axial shaft, the cutters on the rotor engage the material in the hopper drawing the material downward towards the counter knife. The counter knife has a cutting edge with interstices that closely receive the cutters on the rotor. The material is cut into pieces between the cutters and the counter knife” [0009]); and
Returning the pushing element to an initial position and (“Ram slide rail 124 longitudinally extends between each lower side wall 118 and upper sidewall 121 wherein an outwardly depending portion of ram 119 slides when ram 119 is longitudinally pushed or pulled to or from rear power head assembly 103 with a ram hydraulic system having ram hydraulic cylinder 138” emphasis added [0030])
Sotsky does not disclose:
closing the filling opening on an upside of the feed tray (2) with a cover (9);
removing the cover (9) on the upside of the feed tray (2),
wherein a negative pressure is generated in the feed tray (2) by a suction unit (11) during shredding of the objects.
wherein the pushing element is connected to a tilting device and the filling of objects into the feed tray is effected by tilting a container fixed to the tilting device.
Song teaches:
closing the filling opening on an upside of the feed tray with a cover (“before operating the device, the top cover 15 is closed” Pg. 4, Line 15);
removing the cover on the upside of the feed tray (“opening the top cover 15” Pg. 4, Line 13),
wherein a negative pressure is generated in the feed tray by a suction during shredding of the objects (“and then crushing the original good for sorting and processing, so as to improve the working efficiency. dust in the original while crushing will be raised, then can open the fourth motor 1301, the fourth motor 1301 to drive the blades 1302 to rotate the suction mechanism 13 inside air exhausted so that suction mechanism 13 inside to form negative pressure, so as to generate suction, suction mechanism 13 the dust and air sucked inside” Pg. 4, Lines 22-26).
Song teaches a removable cover configured for closing the feed tray “to prevent accidents” (Pg. 2, 3rd line from bottom of the page) and a suction mechanism “to improve the air quality” (Pg. 2, Lines 6-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sotsky by including a removable cover on top of the feed tray, opening and closing that cover, including a suction mechanism and generating a negative pressure to prevent accidents and improve the air quality as taught by Song. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Barry teaches tilting device (Cylinder 66, links 74, lever dog 70, dump bed 40) is connected to an element and the filling of objects into the feed tray is effected by tilting a container (container 20) fixed to the tilting device (Fig. 5)
Sotsky, in view of Song, discloses the device according to claim 1 upon which the claimed invention improves by adding a tilting device to the pushing element. Barry contains a tilting device that is applicable to the device of Sotsky, in view of Song. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tilting device on the top cover 128, which would have improved the system, to yield the predictable result of loading material into the feed tray (Barry, “bulk dump container and a dump truck for drive-by transfer and dumping the bulk container loads” [0004]).
Re Claim 14, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), and Barry further discloses that the pushing element is moved in an opposite direction to the pushing direction during the tilting and filling of objects (Fig. 5 shows that the hydraulic cylinder 66 extends in an opposite direction to the pushing direction during the tilting and filling of objects).
Re Claim 15, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), and the suction unit is connected to a filter device (filter net 1303) and air from the feed tray is sucked in via the suction unit and then cleaned in the filter device (“suction mechanism 13 the dust and air sucked inside, dust will then be suction mechanism 13 inside of the filter net 1303 filtering,” Pg. 4, Lines 26-27).
Re Claim 16, Sotsky, in view of Song and Barry, discloses the device according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), but fails to disclose that the interior space of the feed tray in the initial position of the pushing element has a volume of between 50 m3 and 200 m3.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sotsky, in view of Song, in the claimed manner, since it has been held that mere changes in size/proportion of features taught in the prior art is merely design and/or engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 Subsection IV.A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, second paragraph, filed June 24th, 2026, with respect to the word “opposite” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 24th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
“Satsky US 2008/0283647 discloses a rotary grinder with a ram assembly which is movable along a slide rail in order to push objects to the rotor for shredding. However, as stated in the Office Action, Satsky does not disclose a removable cover on the upper side of the feed tray, and it is not disclosed that there is a suction mechanism for producing negative pressure in the interior. This feature is important, as the shredding of objects with fiber-reinforced plastic material provides a health risk for people working near the machine. Thus, the negative pressure is used to flow the air through a filter system during the shredding process.
Song (CN 111 085 298) discloses another type of waste crushing device with a vertical shaft in which crushing rollers are arranged. In the shaft, some vent holes 12 are arranged which are connected to a suction mechanism. The waste crushing device shown in Song is used for electronic products of a rather small size, which are crushed by first and second crushing rollers in the vertical shaft. Such an arrangement is not configured to crush large elements, such as rotor blades of windmills. A combination of Sotsky with Song would therefore not be possible”
To the extent that this is an argument on bodily incorporation, in response to applicant's argument that the vent holes of Song cannot be incorporated on the grinder of Sotsky, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the vent holes of Song are of sufficient size because their purpose is “dust suction” (Lin, Para. 5 of Pg. 2). The size of the material to be ground, whether rotor blades or electronic is irrelevant.
To the extent that this is an argument that Sotsky, in view of Song, is not large enough, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “configured to crush large elements”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“With respect to original claims 6 and 13, now recited in amended claims 1 and 12, the Examiner cites Barry US 2007/0110551 which discloses a dump truck with a tilting mechanism. However, a combination of this tilting mechanism with Song is not reasonable due to the different structures of the two devices - one of skill in the art would not provide a dump truck tilting mechanism in the shredder of the present invention. Further, the tilting mechanism of Barry is not shown connected to a pushing element that is movable in a feed tray for conveying objects in the tray - the specific combination of the tilting mechanism with the pushing element for accomplishing shredding of objects is not taught or suggested by any of the references, even in combination.”
To the extent that applicant’s argument is that Examiner used improper hindsight, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
To the extent that applicant’s argument is the Barry is nonanalagous art, in response to applicant's argument that Barry is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Barry is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Applicant discloses that the invention is supposed comprises a tilting device “for effective filing of the feed tray” (Pg. 3, Line 7) and that the arrangement of the tilting device on the pushing element allows “the container ... be moved” (Pg. 3, Lines 13-14) which is shown to be from a position to the grinder to a position away from the grinder (Figs. 7-8). Barry solves the applicant’s problems because it is sized to move large quantities at once (“dumping the bulk container loads” [0004]) and thus effectively fill the location where the container is dumped with material. Furthermore, Barry is configured to move to and from a grinder via the wheels attached to the container (Fig. 5). As Barry is reasonably pertinent, it is analogous art.
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 WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights