DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after non-final rejection received on August 11, 2026. Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 16-19, and 21-23 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims priority to U.S. provisional application 63/516,366 filed on July 28, 2023.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on July 27, 2026. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
The NPL document was not considered as the quality of the copy was not sufficient for the Examiner to see sufficient details and text. An example of the quality is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
898
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
896
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 6 and 16 as well as the cancelation of claims 7-8, 10-15, and 20 in the response filed on August 11, 2026. The Examiner also acknowledges the amendment to the abstract to bring it into compliance with the MPEP 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques U.S. Patent 3,837,647 (hereafter Jacques) in view of Billings et al. U.S. Publication 2007/0259732 A1 (hereafter Billings).
Regarding claim 1. Jacques discloses a grip body having a length that extends between an upper cap end and a lower mouth end (see at least Fig. 2, upper cap at end 22 and lower mouth at 21 near metal shank 11), the grip body including a bore that extends longitudinally through the grip body between the upper cap end and the lower mouth end, the bore being configured to receive the shaft of the golf club (see at least Fig. 2, metal shank 11 extends into grip 13 towards cap end 22); and the grip body including a front side, a back side, a left side, and a right side, the grip body defining a width between the left and right sides and a depth between the front and back sides, the grip body having a first reverse taper defined between the left and right sides that expands the width of the grip body as the grip body extends toward the lower mouth end of the grip body (see at least Figs. 2, 4, and 5, Abstract, so that the outer surface of the grip is gradually tapered along a straight line taper whose smaller diameter is adjacent the free end of the club, for the full length of the grip, with the grip smaller diameter end terminating in an integral, enlarged diameter knob-like portion. reverse taper between left and right sides), the grip body also having a second reverse taper defined between the front and back sides that expands the depth of the grip body as the grip body extends toward the lower mouth end of the grip body (see at least Fig. 2, 4, and 5, Abstract, so that the outer surface of the grip is gradually tapered along a straight line taper whose smaller diameter is adjacent the free end of the club, for the full length of the grip, with the grip smaller diameter end terminating in an integral, enlarged diameter knob-like portion.),
and extending along at least 75 percent of the length of the grip body to provide a gradual grip size reverse transition along at least 75 percent of the length of the grip body (see at least Fig. 2, length from at least large diameter base 18 to fillet connection 23).
Jacques discloses a single taper angle on both the top and bottom and left and right sides.
Billings discloses, in the same field of invention, discloses a golf club grip with different tapers between the top and bottom and the left and right (see at least Figs. 5 and 6) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tapered grip as disclosed by Jacques with the second different angle taper as taught by Billings for an ergonomic grip shape to improve accuracy, consistency, and success of the golfer as combination of prior art elements is known to yield predictable results (KSR A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jacques and Billings discloses wherein the front side has a cross-sectional profile that is generally flatter than the cross-sectional profiles of the left and right sides of the grip (see at least Billings, Fig. 6, [0028] a sectional view 6-6 of an embodiment wherein the upper, or elevated, portion 107' of butt portion 106' of the grip 101' on the top of the grip designed for a putter is generally flat and has a generally rounded side 108' on the opposite side.).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the width defined by the front side that has a cross-sectional profile that is generally flatter (see at least Billings, Fig. 6, [0028]) than the cross-sectional profiles of the left and right sides of the grip expands as the front side extends toward the lower mouth end of the grip body (see at least Jacques Fig. 2, grip expands as to extends towards mouth at joint 18).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jacques and Billings discloses that of claim 1 except for defining the first reverse taper of the left and right sides having a taper rate of at least about 0.025mm change in width for every mm of length of the grip for the entire tapered portion of the grip body. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice have a taper rate of 0.025mm width to 1mm length, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jacques and Billings discloses that of claim 1 except for defining the second reverse taper of the front and back sides having a taper rate of at least about 0.006mm change in depth for every mm of length of the grip for the entire tapered portion of the grip body. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice have a taper rate of 0.025mm width to 1mm length, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 6, 9, 16-19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques U.S. Patent 3,837,647 (hereafter Jacques) in view of Chu et al. U.S. Publication 2015/0196813 A1 (hereafter Chu).
Regarding claim 6, Jacques discloses a grip body having a length that extends between an upper cap end and a lower mouth end (see at least Fig. 2, upper cap at end 22 and lower mouth at 21 near metal shank 11), the grip body including a bore that extends longitudinally through the grip body between the upper cap end and the lower mouth end, the bore being configured to receive the shaft of the golf club (see at least Fig. 2, metal shank 11 extends into grip 13 towards cap end 22), the bore defining a longitudinal bore axis centered with respect to the bore, the grip body including a tapered portion that extends along at least about 75 percent of the length of the grip body longitudinally between an upper location and a lower location of the grip body, the upper location being closer to the upper cap end than the lower mouth end and the lower location being closer to the lower mouth end than the upper cap end (see at least Figs. 2, 4, and 5, Abstract, so that the outer surface of the grip is gradually tapered along a straight line taper whose smaller diameter is adjacent the free end of the club, for the full length of the grip, with the grip smaller diameter end terminating in an integral, enlarged diameter knob-like portion. reverse taper between left and right sides ), the bore extending longitudinally through the tapered portion (see at least Fig. 2);
the tapered portion including a front side, a back side, a left side, and a right side, the tapered portion defining a width between the left and right sides and a depth between the front and back sides (see at least Fig. 2, 4, and 5, Abstract, so that the outer surface of the grip is gradually tapered along a straight line taper whose smaller diameter is adjacent the free end of the club, for the full length of the grip, with the grip smaller diameter end terminating in an integral, enlarged diameter knob-like portion.);
the front side including a front surface that extends from the upper location to the lower location, the front surface having a front surface width that extends between a left transition location where the front side transitions to the left side and a right transition location where the front side transitions to the right side, the tapered portion having a first cross-sectional dimension that extends radially from the bore axis to a centerline of the front surface that is centered between the left and right transition locations (see at least, Figs 2, 4, [Abstract] A golf club hand grip formed of a tubular sleeve of substantially circular cross-section surrounding the free end of the golf club shank, with the grip being formed in an elongated, truncated conical shape whose larger base is at the sleeve end closest to the club head end of the shank and whose smaller base is adjacent the free end of the shank, so that the outer surface of the grip is gradually tapered along a straight line taper whose smaller diameter is adjacent the free end of the club, for the full length of the grip, with the grip smaller diameter end terminating in an integral, enlarged diameter knob-like portion.); and
the tapered portion having a reverse taper defined between the left and right sides that expands the width of the tapered portion as the tapered portion extends from the upper location to the lower location (see at least Jacques Fig. 2, grip expands as to extends towards mouth at joint 18).
Jacques fails to disclose a second and third cross-sections where the dimension form the bore axis is larger than the first cross-section dimension.
Chu discloses, in the same field of invention, a golf club grip where the grip has a cavity (3) to accommodate the golf putter shaft where the grip has a first cross-section dimension (from center axis C13 to top edge 13 along center line indication 18) and second and third cross-sectional dimensions (from center axis C13 to edges 20a and 20b) which are larger than the first cross-sectional dimension; and
wherein the tapered portion has a second reverse taper defined between the front and back sides that expands the depth of the tapered portion as the tapered portion extends from the upper location to the lower location (see at least Fig. 13, front side 59, back side [unlabeled, opposite of 59, edge defined between 85-84), wherein the second reverse taper that expands the depth of the tapered portion is defined only by the back side, and the first cross-sectional dimension stays generally constant from the upper location to the lower location, wherein the first and second reverse tapers have different taper angles (1st reverse taper see in Fig. 11-12, taper between top 59 and bottom [unlabeled between 84-84] and 2nd reverse taper between dotted line 53 and dotted line 54, Figs. 11-12, where the thickness of the grip increases from cap end towards the mouth end while at the same time the cavity diameter decreased from the cap end when moving towards the mouth end as represented in Fig. 13). therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tapered golf grip as disclosed by Jacques with the flat top dual reverse taper putter grip as taught by Chu for holding the putter more comfortably with less wrist movement as combination of prior art elements is known to yield predictable results (KSR A).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Jacques and Chu disclose wherein the front surface has a front surface width that gradually increases as the tapered portion extends in a direction toward the lower mouth end of the grip body (see at least Chu, Fig. 9, cap end 22 and mouth end 31’, reverse taper as the grip extends towards the club shaft)
Regarding claim 16, Jacques discloses a grip body having a length that extends between an upper cap end and a lower mouth end (see at least Fig. 2, upper cap at end 22 and lower mouth at 21 near metal shank 11), the grip body including a bore that extends longitudinally through the grip body between the upper cap end and the lower mouth end (see at least Fig. 2, metal shank 11 extends into grip 13 towards cap end 22), the bore being configured to receive the shaft of the golf club, the bore defining a longitudinal bore axis centered with respect to the bore, the grip body including a tapered portion that extends along at least about 75 percent of the length of the grip body longitudinally between an upper location and a lower location of the grip body, the upper location being closer to the upper cap end than the lower mouth end and the lower location being closer to the lower mouth end than the upper cap end, the bore extending longitudinally through the tapered portion (see at least Figs. 2, 4, and 5, Abstract, so that the outer surface of the grip is gradually tapered along a straight line taper whose smaller diameter is adjacent the free end of the club, for the full length of the grip, with the grip smaller diameter end terminating in an integral, enlarged diameter knob-like portion. reverse taper between left and right sides );
the tapered portion including a front side, a back side, a left side, and a right side, the tapered portion defining a width between the left and right sides and a depth between the front and back sides (see at least Jacques Fig. 2, grip expands as to extends towards mouth at joint 18), the tapered portion having a reverse taper defined between the left and right sides that expands the width of the tapered portion as the tapered portion extends from the upper location to the lower location (see at least Jacques Fig. 2, grip expands as to extends towards mouth at joint 18); and
Jacques fails to disclose a protrusion generally defined by the back side adjacent the upper location.
Chu discloses, in the same field of invention, a the grip body further including a protrusion generally defined by the back side adjacent the upper location, the protrusion having at least a portion extending along the depth in a direction from the front side toward the back side and having at least a portion extending along a length of the grip body in a direction from the upper location toward the lower location, the portion extending along the length of the grip body being longer than the portion extending along the depth defined by the grip body (see at least Figs. 7, cap end 22 and mouth end at 31, depth of protrusion at 44 greater than dept of grip at 45) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tapered grip as disclosed by Jacques with the second different angle taper as taught by Chu for an ergonomic grip shape to improve accuracy, consistency, and success of the golfer as combination of prior art elements is known to yield predictable results (KSR A).
The combination of Jacques and Chu discloses that of claim 16 except wherein the protrusion defines a generally flat sidewall on both the right side and the left side of the grip body, wherein a surface area of each flat sidewall is at least about 17cm2. It would have been an obvious matter is design choice to define the surface of the flat area of the grip to 17cm, since such a modification would have involved mere change in size of a component or area. In Gardner v. TEC Cyst. Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 20 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 13 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 14 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 21, a grip body having a length that extends between an upper cap end and a lower mouth end (see at least Fig. 2, upper cap at end 22 and lower mouth at 21 near metal shank 11), the grip body including a bore that extends longitudinally through the grip body between the upper cap end and the lower mouth end (see at least Fig. 2, metal shank 11 extends into grip 13 towards cap end 22), the bore being configured to receive the shaft of the golf club, the bore defining a longitudinal bore axis centered with respect to the bore, the grip body defining an upper location and a lower location, the upper location being closer to the upper cap end than the lower mouth end and the lower location being closer to the lower mouth end than the upper cap end (see at least Figs. 2, 4, and 5, Abstract, so that the outer surface of the grip is gradually tapered along a straight line taper whose smaller diameter is adjacent the free end of the club, for the full length of the grip, with the grip smaller diameter end terminating in an integral, enlarged diameter knob-like portion. reverse taper between left and right sides ), the grip body including a front side, a back side, a left side, and a right side, the grip body defining a width between the left and right sides and a depth between the front and back sides (see at least Jacques Fig. 2, grip expands as to extends towards mouth at joint 18); and
Jacques fails to disclose a protrusion generally defined by the back side adjacent the upper location.
Chu discloses, in the same field of invention, a the grip body further including the grip body further including a protrusion generally defined by the back side adjacent the upper location, the protrusion having at least a portion extending along the depth in a direction from the front side toward the back side and having at least a portion extending along a length of the grip body in a direction from the upper location toward the lower location, the portion extending along the length of the grip body being longer than the portion extending along the depth defined by the grip body, wherein an overall length of the protrusion as measured from the upper cap end to a portion of the grip body that defines a generally constant cross-sectional dimension taken in an orientation perpendicular to the bore axis adjacent the lower location is at least about 40 percent of the overall length of the grip body (see at least Figs. 7, cap end 22 and mouth end at 31, depth of protrusion at 44 greater than dept of grip at 45) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tapered grip as disclosed by Jacques with the second different angle taper as taught by Chu for an ergonomic grip shape to improve accuracy, consistency, and success of the golfer as combination of prior art elements is known to yield predictable results (KSR A).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Jacques and Billings discloses that of claim 20 except wherein the overall length of the protrusion, as measured from the upper cap end to the portion of the grip body that defines a generally constant cross-sectional dimension taken in an orientation perpendicular to the bore axis adjacent the lower location, is at least about 50 percent of the overall length of the grip body. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice have a length at least 50% of the overall length of the grip body, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Jacques and Chu discloses that of claim 16 except wherein the protrusion defines a generally flat sidewall on both the right side and the left side of the grip body, wherein a surface area of each flat sidewall is at least about 17cm2. It would have been an obvious matter is design choice to define the surface of the flat area of the grip to 17cm, since such a modification would have involved mere change in size of a component or area. In Gardner v. TEC Cyst. Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 20 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Response to Arguments
The remarks begin on page 9 of the response after non-final rejection mailed on May 11, 2026. The remarks start with the summary of the amendments to the abstract and claims as well as canceled claims. Regarding the specification objections, the Applicants cite the amendments and request the objection be withdrawn.
Upon review of the amended abstract, the objection has been overcome one the rejection is vacated.
The arguments proceed to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 for claims 1-5 and 6-23. On page 10, the remarks discuss claim 1 and take the position that Jacques does not suggest or disclose the features in claim 1. Applicant specifically argues that Jacques discloses a grip with a round cross section with taper from cap end to lower mouth end but the taper is constant. Arguments state that Jacques lacks essential features of a reverse taper defined between left and right sides that expands the width of the tapered position as the tapered portion extends from the upper location to the lower location and a second reverse taper defined between the front and back aides that expands the depth of the tapered portion extending form upper to lower where the first and second tapers have different angles.
First, the Applicant cites Jacques constant taper in all direction as it extends and not two tapers with different angles. Applicant further argues the secondary reference of Billings, which has a golf putter grip with reverse tapers, would not be used by one of ordinary skill in the art to suggest or modify the grip of Jaques. Applicant argues that the grip of Billings is not designed to be a reverse taper grip let along one that tapers in two different directions. Applicant argues there is no reason to a grip such as Billings for modifying a grip such as Jacques, which has a reverse taper in all directions. Applicants further state the Billings grip is conventional and there is no reason to suggest combining the two grips, including reverse tapers at different angels.
The Applicant also argues that Jacques contemplates no modification as the cone shaped grip provides uniform, gradual, strait line reverse taper grip. There is no mention of potential modifications and one of skill would have no reason. Applicant further states it could lead to unwanted consequences.
The Examiner is not in agreement. The reference of Jacques discloses a reverse taper grip. The fact that it’s a cone does not disqualify it from meeting the limits of the claims. From the left and right, and also from the front and back, the grip is tapered from the cap end to the mouth end of the grip. Examiner pointed out the deficiency in the rejection of Jaques only having a single taper angle. Billings, in Figs. 9 and 10 for example, disclose a golf club grip where the grip has a taper from location 10 (Fig. 9, cross section shown in Fig. 10) where the top and bottom taper from cap end to mouth end and the left and right also taper between the cap and mouth ends. The only caveat is that the taper in this case is not reverse. The combination of references do not teach away from one another, and combining elements of one grip with another grip is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the combination, the Examiner does not agree. Occasionally a patent will contemplate potential or future adjustments but not every application has unlimited discussion on future ideas. Jacques has top and bottom and left and right reverse tapers with the same angle. Simply having a different taper angle for either does not destroy the gripping surface as disclosed. Combining two ideas does not have to be functional, merely show that the ideas existed prior to the instant application claims.
Applicants remarks move on the claims 6, where it is noted that the claim has been amended to incorporate claims 7, 8, and 10 of the application (remarks page 11). Applicant reproduces the amended claim 6 and argues that Jacques does not disclose or suggest a grip that has all the features listed in claim 6. Specifically, Applicant argues Jaques Fig. 4 and 5 for the round cross section defining even taper and having a tapered portion that is constant from the upper cap to the lower end. Applicant argues that Jacques lack the essential features of the grip in claim 6, specifically first and second reverse tapers where applicant contends the reference does not show a second reverse taper and also that the reference does not have different angles (remarks page 13).
Applicant further argues that Jaques having a round grip and does not define a second reverse taper along the depth direction where the taper is only defined by the back side and the first cross-section dimension stays constant as it extends from upper to lower. Applicant further argues that the cited secondary reference of Chu would not have one of ordinary skill in the art to suggest or reason to modify the Jaques grip with features of Chu.
Applicant contends that Chu is not designed to be a reverse taper grip in two different directions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to refer to a grip such as that in Chu for modifying Jaques, which has a reverse taper in all directions. Applicant alleges that Chu does not mention reverse taper and the only mention of reverse tape is provided top to bottom. Applicant claims the taper in the side direction is misleading and the drawings are not to scale. Applicant claims the drawings front to back show different widths but the feature is not specified. Applicant cites Figs. 11 and 12 where “w” or “w1” is the same dimension front and back and never mentioned as different. Applicant claims the dimensions are different in length indicated by “D13” and “D14” and Applicants only accept the dimension reverse taper in the top to bottom direction (remarks page 14). Thus, Applicant alleges the reference of Chu only has reverse taper in one direction.
The Examiner does not share the same opinion. First, Jaques disclose first and second tapers, that being the top and bottom, and the left and right. As the shape is a cone the taper angle is the same and it’s the one limitation which requires the reference of Chu. The Examiner does not agree with the inability to modify, Chu disclose two different tapers with two different angles. A combination does not need to functionally combine, simply show that the prior art references also disclose the claimed limitations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply one to another.
With respect to the reference of Chu, the Examiner does not agree with the Applicant. While the specification does not specifically state the second taper as a reverse, the drawings clearly disclose it. Looking at Figures 10, 11, and 12, it’s clear that Fig. 11 is a cross section of the grip at 53 indicated by dotted line 11. Further, it also clear that Fig. 12 is the cross section at dotted line 12. While Fig. 10 is a single point perspective view the position of the element in the Figure does not mean that there is zero change in the width of the grip. In fact, looking at Figs. 11 and 12 the diameter of cavity 7 is different, which correlates to Fig. 13 where is the shown that the diameter of the cavity at cap end 53 is larger than the diameter at mouth end 71. This is concurrent in Figs. 11 and 12 indicating that the scale of the drawings appears to be correct. This would potentially indicate that the references variables Fw1 and w1 should have had a different indication between the two Figures. Assuming that the other features are correct such as the change in size between D54 and D53 and the change in diameter of the cavity 7, it would only make logical sense that the difference in width as indicated by the flat area of fw1 and the width of the grip w1 would mean that there is a reverse taper in the left to right direction when the grip extends from the cap end to the mouth end.
Applicant continues to contend that Chu does not disclose two reverse tapers with different angles. Also, the Applicant continues to argue there is a lack of reason to combine Jacques with Chu since Jacques is a single taper grip (remarks page 14-15). Again, the Applicant argues that Jacques does not contemplate modification from Chu or any potential modifications (remarks page 15).
Applicant notes that claims 16 and 21 require features such as a protrusion to define a flat sidewall on the left and right of the grip, where the surface has a defined area (claim 16), and the overall length of the protrusion as measured from upper end to a portion of the grip body that defines a generally constant cross sectional dimension taken in an orientation perpendicular to the bore axis adjacent the lower location at least 40% of the overall length of the grip body (claim 21), that the combination does not disclose the limitations.
The Examiner does not agree. The Applicant with respect to claim 16 is arguing an amended claim limitation which was previously claim 20. The claim was rejected, and the Applicants arguments are that the references fail to disclose, however the Applicant doesn’t actually argue against the rejection which was that Chu disclosed a flat sided putter grip (see Fig. 10) and without area measurements disclose, the federal circuit has held that a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, then the claimed device was not patentable distinct In re Gardner v. Tec Cyst. Inc..
The similar argument for claim 21 is not persuasive, the same decision was cited with respect to the relative size of an element.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 October 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights