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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 09/17/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "c", as seen in Fig. 2; "h", as seen in Fig. 3; and "i", as seen in Fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (JP H11170818 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Takahashi (JP 2002316517 with English Machine Translation) (of record) and Wada (JP 2010023586 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a pneumatic tire (title; [0032]) comprising: a tread (2); and first and second shoulders (see tread edges E) formed at first (left side) and second (right side) sides of the tread (2) and having a circular shape (inherent for pneumatic tires) (see Fig. 1; [0009]-[0011]), wherein the tread (2) includes: first and second grooves (3) disposed on a surface of the tread (2) and extending in a circumferential direction of the circular shape (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0010]); and a plurality of kerf grooves (6) disposed on the surface of the tread (2) to extend in an axial direction of the circular shape (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0015]), the plurality of kerf grooves (6) comprising a first set of kerf grooves (6) provided between the first shoulder and the first groove (3), a second set of kerf grooves (6) provided between the first and second grooves (3), and a third set of kerf grooves (6) provided between the second groove (3) and the second shoulder (see Modified Figure 1 below), wherein each of the plurality of kerf grooves (6) includes: a first straight portion extending in the axial direction; a first concave portion extending from the first straight portion and in the axial direction and having a first radius of curvature; a first convex portion extending from the first concave portion and in the axial direction and having a second radius of curvature; a second concave portion extending from the first convex portion and in the axial direction and having a third radius of curvature; a second convex portion extending from the second concave portion and in the axial direction and having a fourth radius of curvature; and a second straight portion extending from the second convex portion and in the axial direction (see Modified Figure 2 below), wherein for the second set of kerf grooves (6), an end of the first straight portion opposite from the first concave portion extends to the first groove (3), and an end of the second straight portion opposite from the second convex portion extends to the second groove (3) (see Modified Figure 1 below). Nakagawa fails to disclose, however, that the plurality of kerf grooves (6) have a trapezoid shape in a depth direction of the tread (2).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Nakagawa
PNG
media_image2.png
444
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Nakagawa
Takahashi teaches a similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising a tread (T) having a plurality of kerf grooves (10) (see Fig. 1; [0013]). Takahashi further teaches that each of the kerf grooves (10) has a trapezoid shape in a depth direction of the tread (T) (see Fig. 2; [0016]). Specifically, this trapezoid shape includes a first linear section extending perpendicular from a surface of the tread (T), a second linear section extending in a first angle from the first linear section, a third linear section extending in a second angle from the second linear section, and a fourth linear section extending in a third angle from the third linear section, the first and third linear sections being parallel to each other, and the second and fourth linear sections being non-parallel to each other (see Modified Figure 2 above). Takahashi further teaches that configuring the kerf grooves (10) in this way helps to improve icy and snowy performance, wet braking performance, and resistance to uneven wear ([0007]; [0011]).
PNG
media_image3.png
783
743
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Takahashi
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of kerf grooves disclosed by Nakagawa to have a trapezoid shape in a depth direction of the tread, as taught by Takahashi, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the icy and snowy performance, wet braking performance, and resistance to uneven wear of the tire.
Modified Nakagawa still fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the third linear section is offset from the first linear section by a width corresponding to its respective kerf groove. Examiner notes that this offset amount is equal to half of the amplitude of the trapezoidal wave shape of the kerf grooves in the depth direction of the tread.
Wada teaches a similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising a tread (12) having a plurality of kerf grooves (30) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0018]-[0022]). Wada further teaches that each of the kerf grooves (30) has a zigzag shape in the depth direction of the tread (12) with an amplitude (A3) in the tire circumferential direction (see Fig. 1; [0023]; [0038]). Specifically, Wada teaches that the amplitude (A3) can be between 1.0 to 2.0 mm ([0038]), and the thickness (t1) of the kerf grooves (30) can be 0.5 mm ([0044]). Thus, Wada necessarily teaches that half of the amplitude (A3/2) can be equal to 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm. Thus, the disclosure of Wada includes the claimed scenario in which the thickness (t1) of the kerf grooves (30) is equal to half of the amplitude (A3/2) of the zigzag shape of the kerf groove (30) in the depth direction of the kerf groove (30). Wada further teaches that configuring the amplitude (A3) in this way can help suppress block collapse in the tread while ensuring good release properties after vulcanization ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the tire disclosed by modified Nakagawa such that the third linear section is offset from the first linear section by a width equal to the width of the kerf groove, as suggested by Wada, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help suppress block collapse in the tread while ensuring good release properties after vulcanization. Thus, modified Nakagawa satisfies all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that an overall shape of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) has a wave shape (Nakagawa: see Figs. 1 and 2; [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that the first and second concave portions and the first and second convex portions are formed by a regular sine wave shape (Nakagawa: see Fig. 2; [0024]-[0025]; [0031]). Thus, modified Nakagawa necessarily discloses that a length of the first and second concave portions in the axial direction is equal to a length of the first and second convex portions in the axial direction. Thus, modified Nakagawa satisfies all of the limitations in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that a depth (Nakagawa: d) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) is from 0.5 to 1.0 times the height (Nakagawa: BH) of the blocks (Nakagawa: 5) (Nakagawa: [0028]). Modified Nakagawa further discloses that the height (Nakagawa: BH) of the blocks (Nakagawa: 5) is 5 mm or more (Nakagawa: [0014]). Thus, modified Nakagawa discloses that the depth (Nakagawa: d) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) is at least 2.5 mm (5*0.5) or more, which encompasses the claimed groove depth of 7 mm. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed depth, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least tried configuring the depth (Nakagawa: d) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) to meet the claimed depth based on finite number of possible depth values in the encompassing range disclosed by modified Nakagawa.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that a wavelength (Nakagawa: W) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) is between 2 to 15 mm (Nakagawa: [0025]; see Fig. 2). Therefore, since a length of the first concave portion, the second concave, the first convex portion, or the second convex portion is equal to half of the wavelength (Nakagawa: W) (Nakagawa: see Fig. 2), it is clear that modified Nakagawa discloses that the length of the first concave portion or the second concave and the length of the first convex portion or the second convex portion are each between 1 mm (2/2) and 7.5 mm (15/2), overlapping the claimed ranges of 5 mm to 12 mm. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Nakagawa to have satisfied the claimed ranges based on the overlapping range disclosed by modified Nakagawa.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 5, respectively. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that the first and second concave portions and the first and second convex portions are formed by a regular sine wave shape (Nakagawa: see Fig. 2; [0024]-[0025]; [0031]). Thus, modified Nakagawa necessarily discloses that the first radius of curvature is equal to the third radius of curvature, and the second radius of curvature is equal to the fourth radius of curvature (Nakagawa: see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that a width (Nakagawa: a1) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) in the circumferential direction is 0.3 mm or more (Nakagawa: [0019]; see Fig. 2), overlapping the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.4 mm. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Nakagawa to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by modified Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 3. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that the wavy portion (Nakagawa: 6c) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) where the first and second concave portions and the first and second convex portions are provided is located in the exact center of the kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6), with the first and second straight portions located on either side of the wavy portion (Nakagawa: 6c) (Nakagawa: see Fig. 2; [0021]). Thus, modified Nakagawa necessarily discloses that a length of the first straight portion is equal to a length of the second straight portion (see Modified Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 12, Nakagawa discloses a tire (title) comprising: a first shoulder (E, left side Fig. 1) having a circular shape (inherent for tires); a second shoulder (E, right side Fig. 1) having the circular shape and spaced apart from the first shoulder (E); and a tread (2) provided between the first and second shoulders (E) to form a surface around a circumference of the first and second shoulders (E) (see Fig. 1), wherein the tread (2) includes: first and second grooves (3) provided parallel to each other and extending along the surface in a circumferential direction (see Modified Figure 1 above; [0010]); and a plurality of kerf grooves (6) provided between the first and second grooves (3), the first groove (3) and the first shoulder (E), and the second groove (3) and the second shoulder (E) (see Modified Figure 1 above), wherein each of the kerf grooves (6) has a wave shape in an axial direction of the circular shape, and a prescribed shape in a depth direction of the kerf groove (6) (see Figs. 2 and 3; [0024]), wherein the wave shape is provided by a first concave portion having a first radius of curvature and a first convex portion having a second radius of curvature (see Modified Figure 2 above). Nakagawa fails to disclose, however, that the prescribed shape in the depth direction comprises a first linear section extending perpendicular from the surface, a second linear section extending in a first angle from the first linear section, a third linear section extending in a second angle from the second linear section, and a fourth linear section extending in a third angle from the third linear section, the first and third linear sections being parallel to each other and the second and fourth linear sections being non-parallel to each other.
Takahashi teaches a similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising a tread (T) having a plurality of kerf grooves (10) (see Fig. 1; [0013]). Takahashi further teaches that each of the kerf grooves (10) has a prescribed trapezoid shape in a depth direction of the tread (T) (see Fig. 2; [0016]). Specifically, this trapezoid shape includes a first linear section extending perpendicular from a surface of the tread (T), a second linear section extending in a first angle from the first linear section, a third linear section extending in a second angle from the second linear section, and a fourth linear section extending in a third angle from the third linear section, the first and third linear sections being parallel to each other, and the second and fourth linear sections being non-parallel to each other (see Modified Figure 2 above). Takahashi further teaches that configuring the kerf grooves (10) in this way helps to improve icy and snowy performance, wet braking performance, and resistance to uneven wear ([0007]; [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of kerf grooves disclosed by Nakagawa to have the predetermined trapezoid shape in the depth direction taught by Takahashi because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the icy and snowy performance, wet braking performance, and resistance to uneven wear of the tire.
Modified Nakagawa still fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the third linear section is offset from the first linear section by a width corresponding to its respective kerf groove. Examiner notes that this offset amount is equal to half of the amplitude of the trapezoidal wave shape of the kerf grooves in the depth direction of the tread.
Wada teaches a similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising a tread (12) having a plurality of kerf grooves (30) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0018]-[0022]). Wada further teaches that each of the kerf grooves (30) has a zigzag shape in the depth direction of the tread (12) with an amplitude (A3) in the tire circumferential direction (see Fig. 1; [0023]; [0038]). Specifically, Wada teaches that the amplitude (A3) can be between 1.0 to 2.0 mm ([0038]), and the thickness (t1) of the kerf grooves (30) can be 0.5 mm ([0044]). Thus, Wada necessarily teaches that half of the amplitude (A3/2) can be equal to 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm. Thus, the disclosure of Wada includes the claimed scenario in which the thickness (t1) of the kerf grooves (30) is equal to half of the amplitude (A3/2) of the zigzag shape of the kerf groove (30) in the depth direction of the kerf groove (30). Wada further teaches that configuring the amplitude (A3) in this way can help suppress block collapse in the tread while ensuring good release properties after vulcanization ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the tire disclosed by modified Nakagawa such that the third linear section is offset from the first linear section by a width equal to the width of the kerf groove, as suggested by Wada, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help suppress block collapse in the tread while ensuring good release properties after vulcanization. Thus, modified Nakagawa satisfies all of the limitations in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 12. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that the wave shape further comprises a second concave portion having a third radius of curvature, and a second convex portion having a fourth radius of curvature, the first convex portion provided between the first and second concave portions and the second concave portion being provided between the first and second convex portions (see Modified Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 13. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that the wave shape further comprises first and second linear portions (shown as the first and second straight portions in Modified Figure 2 above), the first and second concave and convex portions being provided between the first and second linear portions (see Modified Figure 2 above). Takahashi further teaches that the plurality of kerf grooves (Takahashi: 10) have the same trapezoid shape in the depth direction along the whole length of the kerf grooves (Takahashi: 10) (Takahashi: see Fig. 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first and second concave and convex and linear portions in modified Nakagawa to have the same prescribed shape in the depth direction since modified Nakagawa includes the teachings from Takahashi regarding the prescribed shape in the depth direction of the plurality of kerf grooves.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 12. Takahashi further teaches that the trapezoid shape comprises a fifth linear section extending in a fourth angle from the fourth linear section, a sixth linear section extending in the first angle from the fifth linear section, a seventh linear section extending in the second angle from the sixth linear section, and an eighth linear section extending in the third angle from the seventh linear section, wherein the first, third, and fifth linear sections are parallel to each other, the second and sixth linear sections are parallel to each other, and the fourth and eighth linear sections are parallel to each other (see Modified Figure 2 above). Takahashi further teaches that the trapezoid shape comprises a ninth linear section extending in the fourth angle from the eighth linear section, a tenth linear section extending in the first angle from the ninth linear section, and an eleventh linear section extending in the second angle from the tenth linear section, the first and eleventh linear sections being parallel to each other, and the second and tenth linear sections being parallel to each other (see Modified Figure 2 below). Therefore, since modified Nakagawa includes the teachings from Takahashi regarding the trapezoid shape, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Nakagawa to have satisfied all of the limitations in claims 15 and 16.
Regarding claim 17, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that a depth (Nakagawa: d) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) is from 0.5 to 1.0 times the height (Nakagawa: BH) of the blocks (Nakagawa: 5) (Nakagawa: [0028]). Modified Nakagawa further discloses that the height (Nakagawa: BH) of the blocks (Nakagawa: 5) is 5 mm or more (Nakagawa: [0014]). Thus, modified Nakagawa discloses that the depth (Nakagawa: d) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) is at least 2.5 mm (5*0.5) or more, which encompasses the claimed groove depth of 7 mm. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed depth, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least tried configuring the depth (Nakagawa: d) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) to meet the claimed depth based on finite number of possible depth values in the encompassing range disclosed by modified Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 18, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 14. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that the first and second concave portions and the first and second convex portions are formed by a regular sine wave shape (Nakagawa: see Fig. 2; [0024]-[0025]; [0031]). Thus, modified Nakagawa necessarily discloses that the first, second, third, and fourth radius of curvatures are the same (Nakagawa: see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 12. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that a width (Nakagawa: a1) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) in the circumferential direction is 0.3 mm or more (Nakagawa: [0019]; see Fig. 2), overlapping the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.4 mm. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Nakagawa to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by modified Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 20, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 18. Modified Nakagawa further discloses that a wavelength (Nakagawa: W) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) is between 2 to 15 mm (Nakagawa: [0025]; see Fig. 2). Therefore, since a length of the first and second concave and convex portions is equal to two wavelengths (Nakagawa: W) of the plurality of kerf grooves (Nakagawa: 6) (see Modified Figure 2 above), modified Nakagawa clearly discloses that the length of the first and second concave and convex portions is between 4 (2*2) to 30 mm (15*2), overlapping the claimed range of at least 22 mm. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Nakagawa to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by modified Nakagawa.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (JP H11170818 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Takahashi (JP 2002316517 with English Machine Translation) (of record) and Wada (JP 2010023586 with English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohashi (JP 2002046426 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified Nakagawa discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Nakagawa fails to disclose, however, that at least one of the first, second, third, or fourth radius of curvatures are equal to 6.6021 mm.
Ohashi teaches a similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising a tread (T) with a plurality of kerf grooves (10) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0015]). Ohashi further teaches that the plurality of kerf grooves (10) have a wavy shape in which concave and convex portions of the wavy shape have a radius of curvature equal to 0.5 mm or more ([0018]), encompassing the claimed value of 6.6021 mm. Ohashi further teaches that configuring the kerf grooves (10) in this way improves the wear resistance of the kerf grooves (10) ([0012]; [0018]). Thus, Ohashi clearly teaches that the radius of curvature of the concave and convex portions of the wavy shape of the kerf grooves (10) is a result-effective variable affecting the wear resistance of the kerf grooves (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the first, second, third, or fourth radius of curvatures disclosed by modified Nakagawa to meet the claimed radius of curvature through routine optimization of the encompassing range taught by Ohashi because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the wear resistance of the plurality of kerf grooves.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the amendments to claim 20 have resolved the 35 U.S.C. 120 priority issues, and, thus, claim 20 is now supported by the prior-filed Application No. 17/336,981.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 20 overcome the drawings objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/24/2025. However, these amendments do not overcome the previous drawings objections because they do not resolve the issue of reference characters not mentioned in the description, which would require amendments to the specification and/or drawings. Thus, the drawings objections remain and are reproduced above.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/24/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As such, claims 1-20 stand rejected.
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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749