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 Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8-9: “which comprises reversible coupling apparatus” should read –which comprises a reversible coupling apparatus--.
Claim 8, line 10: “comprise” should read –comprises--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 7-9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmitti (US 3527191, as cited on previous 892) in view of Yang (CN 120153952 A, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Zimmitti and Yang, respectively.
Regarding claim 1:
Zimmitti discloses a dispenser (hopper 12 with shaft 41 and attached implements 42/44, Fig 2) for dispensing feed (title), which comprises reversible coupling apparatus (corresponding threads for stud bolts 26 in hopper; a mechanical rotary coupling, as best understood), which are configured to removably apply (Col 2, lines 5-7) the dispenser to a dispenser holder (hopper cover 28 with stud bolts 26, Fig 2) of a feeder for dispensing feed (feeder is remaining components of Fig 2), and a container (hopper 12, Fig 2), which is configured to contain feed (Col 2, lines 7-8) and is provided with an inlet opening (top end of hopper 12, over which cover 28 sits, Fig 2) for loading feed into the container (configured to be used as such – Col 2, lines 5-10) and an outlet opening for dispensing feed contained in the container (claim 2), wherein an auger (conveyer worm 42, Fig 2) is arranged at the outlet opening (claim 2; Fig 2) and is mechanically connected to an end of a rotor (food agitator shaft 41, Fig 2) which is arranged in the container (see Fig 2) and is configured to be mechanically connected to an actuator fixed to the dispenser holder (motor 48 with coupler 46, Fig 2) to rotate the auger around a rotation axis (Col 2, lines 65-75), wherein the rotor comprises a head (top of food agitator shaft 41) configured to mechanically connect the rotor to the actuator (capable of attaching to actuator via coupler 46, Fig 2; Col 2, lines 24-26), wherein an end of the rotor, which is opposite the end of the rotor connected to the auger, protrudes from the container and comprises said head (see Figs 1-2), wherein said reversible coupling apparatus comprises one or more magnets and/or a mechanical rotary coupling (a threaded hole that receives a screw through rotation of the screw is a mechanical rotary coupling).
Zimmitti fails to specifically disclose wherein said reversible coupling apparatus comprises one or more magnets and/or a mechanical rotary coupling configured to be rotated around said rotation axis, so that the dispenser can be applied to or removed from the dispenser holder by pushing, pulling, rotating around said rotation axis and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the dispenser holder.
Yang discloses a food dispenser with a cover assembly detachably connected to the main housing by way of snap-fit, magnetic, or threaded connection (Pg 8, ¶2), application or removal of the cover assembly being possible, in the magnetic embodiment, by pushing, pulling, rotating around said rotation axis and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the cover assembly (magnets may be decoupled by simply separating the magnets, an act which could be achieved by pulling, similarly, they may be coupled by pushing the magnetic pair towards each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the threaded reversible coupling means of the cover/hopper of Zimmitti for magnets, as suggested by Yang, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide an equally secure connection, while allowing for easier removal of the lid in a timely fashion, as needed, to refill the hopper. Further, the equivalence of magnetic and threaded connections in their ability to secure a lid to a feed dispenser is known in the art, as evidenced by Yang, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the simple substitution of magnets for a bolt and threaded hole would have yielded the predictable results of continued secure attachment of the lid to the dispenser.
Regarding claim 2:
Zimmitti as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the container comprises a hopper (see Fig 2) arranged between the outlet opening and the inlet opening of the container to convey to the outlet opening (capable of conveying food to outlet opening, given funnel-like shape), wherein the rotor comprises a propeller (food agitator bars 44, Fig 2) which is arranged in the hopper and comprises one or more blades (see Fig 2), wherein distal portions of the one or more blades of the propeller are facing a side of the container and are substantially parallel to an adjacent portion of an internal surface of the hopper (see Fig 2), or are facing a side of the auger and are substantially perpendicular to the adjacent portion of the internal surface of the hopper.
Regarding claim 7:
Zimmitti as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein, when said reversible coupling apparatus comprises one or more magnets, the inlet opening of the container is partially or completely closed by a lid (hopper cover 28, Fig 2) which comprises the one or more magnets (see rejection of claim 1 above) and a hub (hole in lid through which 46 with 41 passes, Fig 2) which houses a portion of the rotor in a rotatable and non-axially sliding manner (see Figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 8:
Zimmitti discloses a feeder for dispensing feed (all in Fig 2 except for hopper 12 and shaft 41 with attached implements 42 and 44; title; claim 1), which comprises at least one dispenser holder (hopper cover 28 with stud bolts 26, Fig 2), which comprises reversible coupling apparatus (stud bolts 26, Fig 2; mechanical rotary coupling, as best understood) configured to cooperate with reversible coupling apparatus (threads in hopper paired with studs 26) of a dispenser for dispensing feed (hopper 12 with shaft 41 and attached implements 42/44, Fig 2) to mechanically couple the dispenser holder with the dispenser (Col 2, lines 5-7), as well as an actuator (motor 28, Fig 2) and a joint (coupler 46, Fig 2) which is configured to be rotated by the actuator and is configured to be mechanically connected to and rotate a head of a rotor (discharge shaft 41, Fig 2)of the dispenser around a rotation axis when the dispenser is mechanically coupled with the dispenser holder (Col 2, lines 24-30 and 65-75), wherein the joint is arranged under the actuator (see Fig 2, as best understood), so that the dispenser is arranged under the dispenser holder when the dispenser is mechanically coupled with the dispenser holder (see Fig 2), wherein said reversibly coupling apparatus of the dispenser holder comprises one or more magnets and/or a rotary coupling (a threaded hole that receives a screw through rotation of the screw is a mechanical rotary coupling).
Zimmitti fails to specifically disclose wherein said reversible coupling apparatus comprises one or more magnets and/or a rotary coupling, so that the dispenser can be applied to or removed from the dispenser holder by pushing, pulling, rotating around said rotation axis and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the dispenser holder.
Yang discloses a food dispenser with a cover assembly detachably connected to the main housing by way of snap-fit, magnetic, or threaded connection (Pg 8, ¶2), application or removal of the cover assembly being possible, in the magnetic embodiment, by pushing, pulling, rotating around said rotation axis and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the cover assembly (magnets may be decoupled by simply separating the magnets, an act which could be achieved by pulling, similarly, they may be coupled by pushing the magnetic pair towards each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the threaded reversible coupling means of the cover/hopper of Zimmitti for magnets, as suggested by Yang, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide an equally secure connection, while allowing for easier removal of the lid in a timely fashion, as needed, to refill the hopper. Further, the equivalence of magnetic and threaded connections in their ability to secure a lid to a feed dispenser is known in the art, as evidenced by Yang, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the simple substitution of magnets for a bolt and threaded hole would have yielded the predictable results of continued secure attachment of the lid to the dispenser.
Regarding claim 9:
Zimmitti discloses a feeder for dispensing feed (all in Fig 2 except for hopper 12 and shaft 41 with attached implements 42 and 44; title; claim 1), which comprises at least one dispenser holder (hopper cover 28 with stud bolts 26, Fig 2) which is mechanically coupled with a dispenser according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above; Col 2, lines 5-7) and comprises reversible coupling apparatus (stud bolts 26, Fig 2; mechanical rotary coupling, as best understood) cooperating with the reversible coupling apparatus of the dispenser to mechanically couple the dispenser holder with the dispenser (Col 2, lines 5-7), as well as an actuator (motor 28, Fig 2) and a joint (coupler 46, Fig 2) which is configured to be rotated by the actuator around a rotation axis and is mechanically connected to the head of the rotor of the dispenser (Col 2, lines 24-30 and 65-75), wherein the joint is arranged under the actuator (see Fig 2, as best understood), so that the dispenser is arranged under the dispenser holder (see Fig 2), wherein said reversibly coupling apparatus of the dispenser holder comprises one or more magnets and/or a rotary coupling (a threaded hole that receives a screw through rotation of the screw is a mechanical rotary coupling).
Zimmitti fails to specifically disclose wherein said reversible coupling apparatus comprises one or more magnets and/or a rotary coupling, so that the dispenser can be applied to or removed from the dispenser holder by pushing, pulling, rotating around said rotation axis and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the dispenser holder.
Yang discloses a food dispenser with a cover assembly detachably connected to the main housing by way of snap-fit, magnetic, or threaded connection (Pg 8, ¶2), application or removal of the cover assembly being possible, in the magnetic embodiment, by pushing, pulling, rotating around said rotation axis and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the cover assembly (magnets may be decoupled by simply separating the magnets, an act which could be achieved by pulling, similarly, they may be coupled by pushing the magnetic pair towards each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the threaded reversible coupling means of the cover/hopper of Zimmitti for magnets, as suggested by Yang, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide an equally secure connection, while allowing for easier removal of the lid in a timely fashion, as needed, to refill the hopper. Further, the equivalence of magnetic and threaded connections in their ability to secure a lid to a feed dispenser is known in the art, as evidenced by Yang, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the simple substitution of magnets for a bolt and threaded hole would have yielded the predictable results of continued secure attachment of the lid to the dispenser.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmitti and Yang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gessler (NO 140340 B, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Gessler.
Regarding claim 3:
Zimmitti as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Zimmitti fails to specifically disclose wherein the auger is frustoconical and the thread of the auger has a pitch that increases towards a free end of the auger.
Gessler teaches a feed dispensing device with an auger (auger 2, Fig 1) that is frustoconical, the thread of the auger having a pitch that increases from the feed storage container towards the feed outlet (abstract; claim 1; Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the auger of Zimmitti in a frustoconical manner, having a pitch and diameter that increases towards the outlet, as in Gessler, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide sufficient volumetric output, as needed, whilst preventing blockages and allowing for even dispersal of feed (Pg 2, last ¶ - Pg 3, ¶4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmitti and Yang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nowacek (US 20080202435, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Nowacek.
Regarding claim 4:
Zimmitti as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the head of the rotor is configured to be coupled mechanically with a joint (joint is coupler 46) which can be operated by the actuator fixed to the dispenser holder (Col 2, lines 24-30 and 65-75).
Zimmitti as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the head of the rotor has a polygonal shape with a tapered free end.
Nowacek discloses an animal feeder with an auger on a rotor shaft, the head of the rotor (top end 44b, Fig 4A) reversibly coupling to a motor (motor 46, Fig 4A) through a sleeve joint (sleeve 64, Fig 4A), the head of the rotor having a polygonal shape (hexagonal per ¶0034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the head of the rotor of Zimmitti with a hexagonal shape, and connection, as in Nowacek, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to allow for co-rotation of the rotor (¶0038) in a secure manner that allows for more even force distribution during rotation and prevents excess wear or loosening during use. Further, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Zimmitti as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the head having a tapered free end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have tapered the head of the rotor of Zimmitti to lightly blunt the edges of the top of the shaft in order to prevent injury to the user when removing/replacing the auger to clean, or in order to decrease rotor weight to provide more energy efficient rotation, the result having a reasonable expectation of success, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmitti and Yang, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Haynes (US 20140058559, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Haynes.
Regarding claim 10:
Zimmitti as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein the actuator comprises an electric motor (Col 2, lines 24-33).
Zimmitti as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the actuator comprises an electric stepper motor configured to rotate in both directions of rotation.
Haynes discloses an animal feed dispenser (abstract) with an auger driven by an electric stepper motor (¶0046) configured to rotate in both directions of rotation (¶0074).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the electric motor of Zimmitti as an electric stepper motor, as in Haynes, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide optimal precision in an energy and cost efficient manner. Further, the equivalence of standard electric motors and electric stepper motors in their ability to provide rotation to an auger in a dispenser is known in the art, as evidenced by Haynes, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the simple substitution of an electric motor for an electric stepper motor would have yielded the predictable results of continued operability of the dispenser and rotation of the auger.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically provided the motor of Zimmitti with the functionality of rotating in both directions of rotation, as in Haynes, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Haynes, doing so can be helpful for clearing treats that have been jammed within the auger housing (¶0074).
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmitti and Yang, as applied to claims 8 and 9 above, in view of Fabiano (BR 102018004954 A2, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Fabiano.
Regarding claim 15:
Zimmitti as modified discloses a system for dispensing feed into a container for animals, which system comprises a feeder according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above; Fig 2; claim 1).
Zimmitti as modified fails to disclose wherein the system further comprises a transport structure for moving the feeder in a substantially horizontal direction and/or in a substantially vertical direction, wherein the feeder comprises a cart and the transport structure comprises a horizontal rail and/or a vertical rail for moving the cart along the substantially horizontal direction and/or along the substantially vertical direction, respectively.
Fabiano discloses an animal feed dispensing system with a feeder (silo 4, Fig 1) and transport structure for moving the feeder in a substantially horizontal direction and/or in a substantially vertical direction wherein the feeder comprises a cart (see motor driven wheels 2, Fig 3) and the transport structure comprises a horizontal rail and/or a vertical rail for moving the cart along the substantially horizontal direction and/or along the substantially vertical direction, respectively (rail 3, Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the feeder of Zimmitti on driven wheels transportable along a rail, as in Fabiano, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for the feeder to, economically, as in Fabiano, be used to feed animals in separate stalls (abstract) without requiring the excessive labor of manually transporting the feeder between stalls.
Regarding claim 16:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 15 above and Fabiano further discloses wherein the transport structure comprises one or more proximity sensors configured to stop the movement of the feeder if they detect an obstacle (safety system 16, Fig 1; ¶014).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the proximity sensors of Fabiano as a part of the transport means, when providing the transport means to Zimmitti, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to improve the safety of the assembly and ensure that the feeder does not hurt any being in its path, by accident, or damage any important structure in the feeding facility.
Regarding claim 18:
Zimmitti as modified discloses a system for dispensing feed into a container for animals, which system comprises a feeder according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above; Fig 2; claim 1).
Zimmitti fails to disclose wherein the system further comprises a transport structure for moving the feeder in a substantially horizontal direction and/or in a substantially vertical direction, wherein the feeder comprises a cart and the transport structure comprises a horizontal rail and/or a vertical rail for moving the cart along the substantially horizontal direction and/or the substantially vertical direction, respectively.
Fabiano discloses an animal feed dispensing system with a feeder (silo 4, Fig 1) and a transport structure means for moving the feeder in a substantially horizontal direction and/or in a substantially vertical direction (rail 3, Fig 3), wherein the feeder comprises a cart (see motor driven wheels 2, Fig 3) and the transport structure comprises a horizontal rail and/or a vertical rail for moving the cart along the substantially horizontal direction and/or along the substantially vertical direction, respectively (rail 3, Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the feeder of Zimmitti on driven wheels transportable along a rail, as in Fabiano, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for the feeder to, economically, as in Fabiano, be used to feed animals in separate stalls (abstract) without requiring the excessive labor of manually transporting the feeder between stalls.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers (US 9374981, as cited on previous 892) in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 8:
Powers discloses a feeder for dispensing feed (title) which comprises at least one dispenser holder which comprises reversible coupling apparatus (guide pins 16, Fig 1) configured to cooperate with reversible coupling apparatus (holes in hanger arms, see Fig 4) of a dispenser for dispensing feed (hopper assembly 3, Fig 2) to mechanically couple the dispenser holder with the dispenser (Col 4, lines 30-35), as well as an actuator (motor 30, Fig 9) and a joint (motor coupler 27, Fig 9) which is configured to be rotated by the actuator and is configured to be mechanically connected to and rotate a head (coupler assembly 13) of a rotor (screw 6, Fig 3) of the dispenser around a rotation axis when the dispenser is mechanically coupled with the dispenser holder (Col 5, lines 4-6), wherein the joint is arranged under the actuator (see Fig 2), so that the dispenser is arranged under the dispenser holder when the dispenser is mechanically coupled with the dispenser holder (see Fig 1), wherein said reversibly coupling apparatus of the dispenser holder comprises pins (see guide pins 16, Fig 1), such that the dispenser can be applied to or removed from the dispenser holder by pushing, pulling, rotating around said rotation axis and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the dispenser holder (pulling the dispenser up off the pins would allow for removal of the dispenser from the dispenser holder).
Powers fails to specifically disclose wherein said reversible coupling apparatus comprises one or more magnets and/or a rotary coupling, such that the dispenser can be applied to or removed from the dispenser holder by pushing, pulling, rotating around said rotation axis and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the dispenser holder.
Yang discloses a food dispenser with a cover assembly detachably connected to the main housing by way of snap-fit, magnetic, or screw/threaded hole connection (Pg 8, ¶2), application or removal of the cover assembly being possible, in the magnetic embodiment, by pushing, pulling, rotating around said rotation axis and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the cover assembly (magnets may be decoupled by simply separating the magnets, an act which could be achieved by pulling, similarly, they may be coupled by pushing the magnetic pair towards each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the pin/hole fastening means of the dispenser holder of Powers for magnets, as suggested by Yang, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide an equally secure connection, while allowing for easier removal of the dispenser/lid in a timely fashion, as needed, to refill the hopper. Further, Power contemplates that any number of connectors may be used in connecting the hopper assembly 3 to the outer shell assembly 4 (col 4, lines 10-15), and the functional equivalence of magnetic and mechanical post/hole connections in their ability to secure two components of a feed dispenser together is known in the art, as evidenced by Yang, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the simple substitution of magnets for a bolt and threaded hole would have yielded the predictable results of continued secure attachment of the lid to the dispenser. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 19:
Powers discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein the dispenser is held suspended under the dispenser holder only by the dispenser holder when the dispenser is mechanically coupled with the dispenser holder (see Figs 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9, the applicant contends that the cover 28 of Zimmitti cannot be a proper dispenser holder because it cannot hold or support a dispenser.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, per MPEP 2111, the words of a claim must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and claims must be given their “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) in light of the specification, unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification. Nothing in the disclosure indicates that the term should be limited to something other than its BRI/plain meaning. This being said, the word “holder” is defined by Dictionary.com as “something that holds hold or secures”. This definition is understood as the plain meaning of the term under broadest reasonable interpretation, and is consistent with the specification. The cited structures fulfill this plain meaning of the term under BRI; the hopper cover secures the hopper by preventing contamination, it also secures the dispenser’s position to itself and the actuator, and it physically holds onto the top of the dispenser through fasteners 26.
On page 10, the applicant states that Yang does not teach or suggest a reversible coupling apparatus to solve the technical problem of quick and easy application and removal of a dispenser by pushing, pulling, rotating around the rotation axis of the auger, and/or tilting the dispenser with respect to the dispenser holder.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, noting the rejection above, and reaffirming that Yang makes obvious the substitution of threaded fastening means for magnetic ones, and that such a substitution would naturally provide the dispenser/dispenser holder application/removal capability via pushing/pulling, as claimed, given the way magnets function – moving the magnets close to each other allows for coupling of the magnets, and moving magnets away from each other allows for decoupling of the magnets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14, 17, and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642