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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the amendments.
The applicant argues Hayamitsu, Matsunaga, or Miyamoto discloses / teaches the airflow flows through the outlet along the axial direction and flows through a plurality of static blades of the frame. The examiner notes that Miyamoto teaches static blades (72) in Figure 1 and has air flowing through the outlet along the axial direction through these static blades. A new grounds of rejection that includes Yapp is presented below to best address the claims.
Any changes to the rejection are necessitated by amendment; therefore the rejections are final.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitsu et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20160290358) hereinafter Hayamitsu in view of Matsunaga et al. (U.S Patent 5,813,831) hereinafter Matsunaga, Hayamitsu et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20180245601) hereinafter Miyamoto, and Yapp (U.S Patent 5,743,710) hereinafter Yapp.
The second inventor name is used to reference U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20180245601 rather than the first inventor name to avoid confusion.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hayamitsu discloses:
A diagonal fan, comprising:
a frame {Figure 3 (20)} comprising:
an inlet {Figure 3 (23a) forms an inlet},
an outlet {Figure 3 (62)},
an accommodation space {Figure 3 ((20) has an accommodation space to house (30))} and
a guiding wall {Figure 3, the interior of (23a) forms a guiding wall adjacent shroud (33a)},
wherein the inlet and the outlet are disposed at two opposite sides of the frame, respectively, and in fluid communication with each other through the accommodation space {Figure 3 (23a) and (62) are on opposite sides of the frame (20)},
wherein the guiding wall is connected to an inner wall surface of the frame {Figure 3 the guiding wall formed by (23a) is connected to an inner wall of (21)}, and
the guiding wall is extended from a periphery of the inlet along an axial direction into the accommodation space {Figure 3 (23a) extends from a periphery of the inlet along the axial direction into the accommodation space which is occupied by (30)}; and
an impeller accommodated within the accommodation space of the frame {Figure 3 (30) is accommodated within the accommodation space of (20)},
wherein when the impeller is rotated, an airflow flowing from the inlet to the outlet is generated {[0027]/[0032]; Figure 3 (30) rotates and generates an airflow shown by the arrows from inlet to outlet},
wherein the impeller comprises:
a conical section shell {Figure 3 (33) is a conical section shell}, and
an outer wall and an upper end of the conical section shell to form a backflow channel {Figure 3, the gap between (30) and (21) and the pressure differential caused by the impellers rotation implicitly creates a backflow through the gap/channel; see MPEP 2112},
wherein the impeller comprises a hub {Figure 3 (31)}, and
the outer diameter of the hub of the impeller is expended gradually in a direction from the inlet toward the outlet so that the flowing direction of the airflow is expended gradually around a periphery of the impeller {Figure 3 (31) has an outer diameter that increases along the axial direction which causes the flowing direction to gradually expand},
wherein the backflow channel comprises:
an intake section {Annotated Figure 1 (Ia)},
a horizontal section {Annotated Figure 1 (Ib)} and
an exhaust section {Annotated Figure 1 (Ic)},
the intake section is located adjacent to a lower end of the conical section shell and in fluid communication with the exhaust section through the horizontal section {Annotated Figure 1 (Ia) is adjacent the lower end of the conical section shell (33) and is fluid communication with (Ic) through (Ib)}, and
the upper end of the conical section shell is at least partially shielded by the guiding wall to form the exhaust section {Annotated Figure 1, (23a) partially shields (33a) to form the exhaust section (Ic)},
wherein when the airflow flows from the inlet to the outlet {Figure 3, see arrows; [0027]/[0032]},
a backflow is transported from the intake section, flows through the horizontal section, is exhausted out through the exhaust section, and is converged with the airflow {Annotated Figure 1, the backflow flows from (Ia) to (Ib) and is exhausted through (Ic) and is converged back to the main airflow, see implicit disclosure in MPEP 2112},
and the backflow channel further the horizontal section spatially corresponding to the upper end of the conical section shell {Annotated Figure 1 (Ib) spatially corresponds to the upper end of the conical shell},
Hayamitsu is silent regarding the precise distribution of the distance of the gap between the inner wall surface of the frame and the outer wall of the upper end of the conical section shell along the length these components. Hayamitsu is therefore silent regarding:
a gap having a spacing distance is substantially maintained between the inner wall surface of the frame, and an outer wall and an upper end of the conical section shell to form a backflow channel
Also, Hayamitsu does not teach:
wherein the conical section shell comprises a plurality of balance holes disposed around the lower end of the conical section shell,
the horizontal section is spatially corresponding to the plurality of balance holes, and
the backflow channel further comprises a second horizontal section spatially corresponding to the upper end of the conical section shell
wherein the lower end of the conical section shell is protruded outwardly in a radial direction so as to form a horizontal annular flat surface, and
the plurality of balance holes are concaved from the horizontal annular flat surface
wherein the airflow flows through the outlet along the axial direction, and
the airflow flows through a plurality of static blades of the frame
Matsunaga pertains to blowers with bell mouths. Matsunaga is also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of reducing backflow between the impeller and the casing of a fan {instant application [0002]}.
Matsunaga teaches:
the distance of the gap between the inner wall surface of the frame and the outer wall of the upper end of the conical section shell in the portion adjacent the bell mouth (132) is almost constant {Figure 2 (77c), Column 5 lines 4-8}
Since Hayamitsu is silent regarding the precise spacing distance distribution one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied to Hayamitsu the teachings of Matsunaga regarding the back flow passage around the bell mouth being a constant gap. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as constant and nonconstant gaps are known alternatives and to suppress the amount of back flow {Matsunaga Column 5 lines 4-33, Column 6 lines 10-16, and Column 7 lines 31-35}.
The combination of Hayamitsu and Matsunaga therefore teaches:
a gap having a spacing distance is substantially maintained between the inner wall surface of the frame and an outer wall of the upper end of the conical section shell {The constant spacing distance as taught by Matsunga chosen for the distribution of the spacing distance of Hayamitsu; Matsunaga Column 5 lines 4-33, Column 6 lines 10-16, and Column 7 lines 31-35. Additionally, there is a degree of interpretation as to what is required by “substantially maintained” under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner finds the implicit disclosure of the figure in Hayamitsu at the least almost teaches this concept}.
PNG
media_image2.png
692
1033
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Miyamoto pertains to shrouded fan impellers and balancing. Miyamoto teaches:
wherein the conical section shell comprises a plurality of balance holes disposed around the lower end of the conical section shell {Figures 8 and 9, (541/542/543) form a pocket/hole that is used for balancing around the lower end of the conical section shell; [0059]},
the horizontal section is spatially corresponding to the plurality of balance holes {Annotated Figure 2 (II) spatially corresponds to the balance holes described above}
wherein the lower end of the conical section shell is protruded outwardly in a radial direction so as to form a horizontal annular flat surface {Annotated Figure 2 (IV) is a part of the lower end of the conical section shell and is protruded outwardly in the radial direction to form the rest of (541/542/543) and also forms a horizontal annular flat surface / horizontal annular surface (III) at the axially top of (541/542/543)}, and
the plurality of balance holes are concaved from the horizontal annular flat surface {Annotated Figure 2, the balance holes formed by (541/542/543) are concaved from the horizontal annular surface (III)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the balancing portion and corresponding backflow horizontal section of Miyamoto to the fan of the combination of Hayamitsu and Matsunga. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to be able to provide an impeller that can be balanced to avoid undesirable vibration {Miyamoto [0059]}.
It is noted that the horizontal section of the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunga, and Miyamoto is taught by Annotated Figure 2 (II) and the second horizontal section is taught by Annotated Figure (Ib). Annotated Figure 2 (II) being the horizontal section satisfies the claim limitations discussed with regard to (Ib) of Hayamitsu being the horizontal section in a substantially identical manner.
Yapp pertains to fans which direct air outward using centrifugal forces. Yapp teaches:
wherein the airflow flows through the outlet along the axial direction {Figure 1 (24) are blades which form an outlet for the airflow to flow through the axial direction}, and
the airflow flows through a plurality of static blades of the frame {Figure 1 (24) are static blades connected to the frame which form an outlet for the airflow to flow through}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an axially oriented outlet with static blades as taught by Yapp for the fan configuration of the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunaga, and Miyamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as fans have a variety of applications which dictate the outlet configuration {Yapp Column 1 lines 12-20} and the static blades turn the airflow from tangential toward the axial direction at a higher pressure {Yapp Column 3 lines 14-19}.
Regarding claim 2, Hayamitsu further discloses:
wherein the backflow flows in the intake section along a direction reversed to that of the backflow flowing in the exhaust section {Annotated Figure 1, the flow direction of the intake section (Ia) is upward in the figure which is opposite to that of the flow direction in the exhaust section (Ic) which is downward}.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunga, Miyamoto, and Yapp further teaches:
wherein the backflow flows in the horizontal section along a direction perpendicular to the axial direction {Miyamoto, Annotated Figure 2 (II) is perpendicular to the axial direction}.
Regarding claim 4, Hayamitsu further discloses:
wherein the backflow flows in the exhaust section along a direction identical to that of the airflow flowing {Annotated Figure 1 (Ic) flows in the same direction as the airflow at the inlet (61), see vertical downward arrow}.
Regarding claim 11, Hayamitsu further discloses:
wherein the inlet has an inlet diameter, the outlet has an outlet diameter, and the inlet diameter is less than the outlet diameter {Figure 3 the diameter of the inlet at (61) is less than the diameter of the outlet at (62)}.
wherein the frame, the upper end of the conical section shell and the guiding wall are at least partially overlapped in view of a radial direction.
Regarding claim 15, Hayamitsu further discloses:
wherein the frame, the upper end of the conical section shell and the guiding wall are at least partially overlapped in view of the radial direction {Figure 3, the frame which includes (23) overlaps in the radial direction the upper end of the conical section shell (33a) and the guiding wall (23a)}.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitsu in view of Matsunga, Miyamoto, and Yapp as applied to 1, and in further view of Chang et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20200124051) hereinafter Chang and Teramoto et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20130236303) hereinafter Teramoto.
Regarding claim 5, Hayamitsu further discloses:
wherein the impeller {Figure 3 (30)} comprises:
the hub {Figure 3 (31)},
a plurality of blades {Figure 3 (32)},
the plurality of blade are spaced apart and disposed on the hub {Figure 3, blades (32) are spaced apart circumferentially and disposed on hub (31)}; [0025]}, and
the plurality of blades are connected between the hub and the conical section shell {Figure 3 the blades (32) are connected between the hub (31) and the conical section shell (33), [0025]},
wherein when the impeller is rotated, the airflow is formed to flow through the plurality of blades and between the hub and the conical section shell {Figure 3, the arrows show the airflow through the blades and between the hub and conical section shell}.
Hayamitsu also teaches the fan is operated by a motor {Figure 3 (40) operates (30); [0021]}. Hayamitsu is silent regarding the details of the motor.
Hayamitsu does not disclose:
wherein the impeller comprises a cylindrical part
wherein the cylindrical part is configured to accommodate a rotor and a stator,
the hub is disposed on the cylindrical part.
Chang pertains to diagonal fans. Chang teaches:
wherein the impeller comprises a cylindrical part {Figure 2 the portion of (121) that is axial and covers (131)/(132)}
wherein the cylindrical part is configured to accommodate a rotor and a stator {Figure 2 the portion of (121) that is axial and covers (131)/(132); [0048]},
the hub is disposed on the cylindrical part {Figure 2 the hub (121) is disposed on the cylindrical part described above}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used for Hayamitsu a configuration of the hub, motor, and base such that a cylindrical part houses the motor which includes the rotor and the stator as taught by Chang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the cylindrical part is recognized as extending the length of the motor or just to the bottom of the hub {Chang [0046]}, having the motor placed inside of a hollow hub makes the fan a more compact design, and axial extensions can be applied to centrifugal and/or mixed/diagonal fans to support the rotor {Teramoto [0031] and Figures 1 and 5}.
Regarding claim 6, Hayamitsu further discloses:
wherein the frame comprises an upper frame and a lower frame assembled with each other to form the inlet, the outlet and the accommodation space {Figure 3 the frame (20) has an upper frame (21) and a lower frame (22) which together form the inlet (61), outlet (62), and the accommodation space which houses (30)}
wherein the inlet and the guiding wall are disposed on the upper frame {The inlet and guiding wall described in claim 1 are part of the upper frame (21)}.
Regarding claim 7, Hayamitsu further discloses:
the inlet is located at the upper frame {Figure 3, the inlet described in claim 1 is a part of (21)}, and
the guiding wall extends downwardly from the periphery of the inlet into the accommodation space {Figure 3, the interior of (23a) forms a guiding wall and extends downwardly from the periphery of the inlet into the accommodation space}
Hayamitsu is silent regarding wherein the upper frame comprises an upper frame plate disposed on an upper end of the upper frame.
Chang pertains to diagonal fans. Chang teaches:
wherein the upper frame comprises an upper frame plate disposed on an upper end of the upper frame {Figure 8b the upper instance of (114)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used for an upper frame plate as taught by Chang for the upper frame of Hayamitsu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to install / fix the device to other structures {[Chang [0059]}.
The combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunga, Miyamoto, Chang, and Teramoto teaches the guiding wall is connected to the upper frame plate {Hayamitsu Figure 3 (33a) is connected to the guiding wall based on the teaching of Chang Figure 8b (114)}.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunaga, Miyamoto, Yapp, Chang, and Teramoto teaches the diagonal fan of claim 7 and a plurality of static blades {Yapp Figure 1 (24)}. Hayamitsu does not teach:
wherein the lower frame comprises:
a lower frame plate
a base, and
the lower frame plate and the upper frame plate are overlapped in the axial direction
the plurality of static blades are disposed between the base and the lower frame plate to form the outlet between the lower frame plate and base.
Chang pertains to diagonal fans. Chang teaches:
wherein the lower frame comprises:
a lower frame plate {Figure 8b lower instance of (114), [0059]}
A base {Figure 8b (111)} and
the lower frame plate is spatially corresponding to the upper frame plate {Figure 8b upper and lower instances of (114) spatially correspond}
the plurality of static blades are disposed between the base and the lower frame plate to form the outlet between the lower frame plate and base {Figure 8 (113) is between (111) and (112) to form outlet (O1)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a static structure including the lower frame plate, the base, positioned relative to the static blades as taught by Chang applied to the fan of the combination Hayamitsu, Matsunga, Miyamoto, Yapp, Chang, and Teramoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to install / fix the configuration to other structures {Chang [0059]} and for the benefits of static blades to the airflow characteristics / performance {Chang [0060]}.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunga, Miyamoto, Yapp, Chang, and Teramoto further teaches:
wherein the base further comprises a tube {Chang Figure 2 portion of (111) and surrounds (1321)}
the stator comprises:
a winding {Chang Figure 8b (131) implicitly has windings as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.01} and
a printed circuit board disposed on a periphery of the tube {Chang Figure 8b (14) is outside of tube}, and
the rotor comprises:
a magnetic shell {Chang Figure 8b (1322)},
a magnet {Chang Figure 8b (1323)} and
a shaft {Chang Figure 8b (1320)},
wherein the magnetic shell is disposed within the cylindrical part of the impeller and configured to accommodate the magnet, the shaft, the winding and a part of the tube {Chang Figure 8b (1322) is disposed within cylindrical part of (121) and accommodates (1323), (1321), (131), and a portion of the tube of (111)},
the magnet is disposed on an inner wall of the magnetic shell spatially corresponding to {Chang Figure 8b (1323) is disposed on inner wall of (1322) spatially corresponds with (131)},
the shaft is disposed at a center of the magnetic shell, and {Chang Figure 8b (1321) is disposed at center of (1322)}
the shaft is disposed in the tube through a bearing {Chang Figure 8b bearing is unlabeled but in between (1321) and (1322) to maintain position of shaft within tube but allow rotation, implicit disclosure, see MPEP 2144.01}.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunga, Miyamoto, Yapp, Chang, and Teramoto further teaches:
wherein a chamber is formed between the base and the tube {Chang Figure 8b has opening between base (111) and the portion of (111) that forms the tube}, and configured to accommodate an electronic component on the printed circuit board {Chang Figure 8b the chamber described above has room to accommodate an electronic component; electronic components are implicitly on circuit boards, see MPEP 2144.01}.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitsu in view of Matsunaga, Miyamoto, and Yapp as applied to 1, and in further view of Heli et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20210277910) hereinafter Heli.
Regarding claim 12, Hayamitsu further discloses:
wherein the frame has a frame diameter {Annotated Figure 1 (Dframe)},
wherein the inlet has an inlet diameter {Annotated Figure 1 (Dinlet)},
the outlet has an outlet diameter {Annotated Figure 1 (Doutlet)}, and
Hayamitsu is silent regarding precise dimensions or ratios of the above diameters and is therefore does not explicitly state:
a ratio of the inlet diameter to the frame diameter is ranged from 0.5 to 0.7, and
a ratio of the outlet diameter to the frame diameter is ranged from 0.8 to 0.98.
Heli pertains to diagonal fans. Heli teaches a ratio of the inlet diameter to the frame diameter is ranged from 0.5 to 0.7 {[0010] teaches 0.70 to 0.95 which touches the claimed range; see MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05}
Since Hayamitsu is silent precise dimensions or ratios of the above diameters, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose the precise dimensions or ratios of the above diameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen 0.7 as the ratio of the inlet diameter to the outlet diameter as taught by Heli and applied it to the fan of the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunaga, Miyamoto, and Yapp. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as precise ratios / dimensions must be chosen and Heli shows the claimed range is known with beneficial radial deflection resulting in the ability to use an outlet guide vane with an axially short design {Heli [0010]}.
Regarding claim 13, Hayamitsu further discloses:
wherein the frame has a frame diameter {Annotated Figure 1 (Dframe)},
wherein the inlet has an inlet diameter {Annotated Figure 1 (Dinlet)},
the outlet has an outlet diameter {Annotated Figure 1 (Doutlet)}, and
Hayamitsu is silent regarding precise dimensions or ratios of the above diameters and is therefore does not explicitly state:
a ratio of the inlet diameter to the frame diameter is ranged from 0.6 to 0.8, and
a ratio of the outlet diameter to the frame diameter is ranged from 0.8 to 0.98.
Heli pertains to diagonal fans. Heli teaches a ratio of the inlet diameter to the frame diameter is ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 {[0010] teaches 0.70 to 0.95 which overlaps the claimed range; see MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05}
Since Hayamitsu is silent precise dimensions or ratios of the above diameters, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose the precise dimensions or ratios of the above diameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a value between 0.6 and 0.8 as the ratio of the inlet diameter to the outlet diameter as taught by Heli and applied it to the fan of the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunaga, Miyamoto, and Yapp. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as precise ratios / dimensions must be chosen and Heli shows the claimed range is known with beneficial radial deflection resulting in the ability to use an outlet guide vane with an axially short design {Heli [0010]}.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitsu in view of Matsunaga, Miyamoto, and Yapp as applied to 1, and in further view of Stagg et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20100111667) hereinafter Stagg.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunaga, Miyamoto, and Yapp teaches the diagonal fan of claim 1. Hayamitsu also teaches:
wherein the frame has a frame diameter {Annotated Figure 1 (Dframe)},
Hayamitsu is silent regarding precise dimensions of the frame diameter and spacing distance and therefore silent regarding that a ratio of the spacing distance to the frame diameter is ranged from 0.01 to 0.02.
Stagg pertains to diagonal fans. Stagg teaches that the spacing distance is a result effective variable {[0005], [0007], [0026], and [0036]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed a routine optimization of the spacing distance of the combination of Hayamitsu, Matsunaga, Miyamoto, and Yapp based on teachings from Stagg resulting in a ratio of the spacing distance to the frame diameter being from 0.01 to 0.02. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the tip gap is a result effective variable that impacts the leakage flow {Stagg [0005], [0007], [0026], and [0036]; see MPEP 2144.05 II}. The solution is predictable as the outer diameter of the frame is not directly related to the fluid dynamics of the system and spacing distance or tip gap is a known variable that is designed for based on desired behavior of the fluids around the impeller shroud {Stagg [0005], [0007], [0026], and [0036]}.
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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745