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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims and any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Therefore, the valves in each coupling part of claim 1 and the mechanical actuating mechanism must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. The drawings do not show any specific detail of the claimed valve and a person of ordinary skill in the art would question how the valve is connected to each coupling part and if the valves are standard or not. Additionally, valves such as at least ball valves, butterfly valves, gate valves, and check valves have very distinct structures that are not simply interchangeable. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the valves are open…is formed wherein the valves are closed…is not formed wherein an opening and closing” and should include commas to define proper breaks to recite “wherein the valves are open…is formed, wherein the valves are closed…is not formed, wherein an opening and closing”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an opening and closing of the valves is positively guided by a mechanical actuating mechanism”. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
On page 4, last paragraph, to page 5, first paragraph, recites “The opening and closing of the valves is advantageously positively guided, in particular via mechanical actuating mechanisms…Once the coupling parts are connected, the valves are opened by means of the actuating mechanisms”, which does not appear to adequately describe the structure of the claimed “mechanical actuating mechanism” and the specification describes it as being plural using the term “mechanisms” rather than singular “mechanism”. On page 7, paragraphs 6-8 also recite “The opening and closing…via mechanical actuating mechanisms…by means of the actuating mechanisms…Control elements can be provided to operate the actuating mechanisms…” also do not provide any structure to the mechanical actuating mechanisms.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “an opening and closing of the valves is positively guided by a mechanical actuating mechanism” as “an opening and closing of the valves is positively guided by the coupling connection between the first coupling part and the second coupling part” since the opening and closing of the valves depend on the connection between the first coupling part and the second coupling part absent proper and sufficient details of the structure of mechanical actuating mechanisms.
Because the above claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “an opening and closing of the valves is positively guided by a mechanical actuating mechanism” which “mechanical actuating mechanism” is not adequately described in applicant’s specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably practice the invention. As previously described above under Claim Interpretation and Drawings, the specification lacks any proper structural description of the mechanical actuating mechanism and is also further confusing when the specification utilizes the plural form of mechanism as “mechanisms” and the drawings do not show any details of the valves or a mechanical actuating mechanism.
Claim 1 recites “the mechanical actuating mechanism closes the valves within the one third of the revolution of the screw connection” which is lacks proper description in applicant’s specification for similar reasons above and this limitation is considered new matter since the original disclosure lacks any description of closing the valves within one third of the revolution of the screw connection by the mechanical actuating mechanism.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th first paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 4-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 112th first paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the screw connection is closable by less than one revolution”, and the claim also recites “the screw connection is closable by one third of a revolution” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as closable by less than one revolution or closable by one third of a revolution such that the closing can be either of the two.
Claim 1 recites “an opening and closing of the valves is positively guided by a mechanical actuating mechanism” which is unclear of what mechanism positively guides the opening and the closing of the valves. See above under Claim Interpretation for interpretation of the limitation for examination purposes.
Claim 1 recites “the mechanical actuating mechanism closes the valves within the one third of the revolution of the screw connection” which is new matter is previously mentioned and is also unclear absent proper description of how the mechanical actuating mechanism closes the valves within the one third of the revolution when applicant’s specification describes the valves are only closed when the coupling parts are separated. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the disconnection of the coupling connection closes the valves prior to the less than one revolution of the screw connection or prior to the one third of the revolution of the screw connection” to be consistent with the applicant’s invention and specification such that the valves are closed when the first and second coupling parts are disconnected and prior to any screwing revolution of the multi-start threads.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 4-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 112th second paragraph.
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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US 3,276,474) in view of Rothe (DE 102019100897 A1) and Laverdiere et al. (US 2014/0091027 A1, hereinafter “Laverdiere”).
In regard to claim 1, Gill discloses an arrangement (Fig. 1 shows an arrangement) having a coupling connection (Fig. 1, a coupling connection between A and B) comprising:
a first coupling part (Fig. 1, plug member A defines a first coupling part); and
a second coupling part (Fig. 1, socket member B defines a second coupling part),
wherein the first coupling part and the second coupling part are connectable by a screw connection to form a fluid channel (Fig. 1, screw connection between 19 and 75 and fluid channel within A and B when connected by 19 and 75),
wherein the first coupling part includes a multi-start thread configured as a first part of the connection screw (Fig. 1, threads 19 define at least a first part of the connection screw and in 6:38-61 discloses 19 is a multi-start thread),
wherein the second coupling part includes a multi-start mating thread as a second part of the screw connection (Fig. 1, threads 75 defines at least a second part of the screw connection which has a complementary multi-start thread for 19);
wherein the first coupling part and the second coupling part each include a valve,
wherein the valves are open when the coupling connection is formed (Fig. 1, each coupling part has a valve 10 and 10’ and in 1:9-14 discloses the valves are actuated to an open position when the coupling members are joined together, therefore, when A and B are connected, the valves are in the open position and when disconnected the valves close in order to avoid unwanted leaks when the parts are disconnected),
wherein the valves are open when the coupling connection is formed (Fig. 1, as previously mentioned, the valves are opened when the coupling connection is formed between the first coupling part and the second coupling part),
wherein the valves are closed when the coupling connection is not formed (Fig. 1, the valves are closed as shown when the coupling parts are disconnected),
wherein an opening and closing of the valves is positively guided by the coupling connection between the first coupling part and the second coupling part (Fig. 1, opening and closing the valves are positively guided by the coupling connection between the first coupling part and the second coupling part),
wherein the disconnection of the coupling connection closes the valves prior to the less than one revolution of the screw connection or prior to the one third of the revolution of the screw connection (Fig. 1, prior to any screwing of the threads and when the coupling parts are separated, the valves are closed).
Gill does not expressly disclose the multi start thread of the first coupling part and the multi start thread of the second coupling part are made of plastic, and wherein the first coupling part and the second coupling part are made of plastic, and wherein the screw connection is closable by less than one revolution or closable by one third of a revolution.
In the related field of threaded pipe couplings, Rothe teaches a threaded pipe coupling can be made of plastic in order to have the advantage of corrosion resistance which ensures long-term durability and allow for at least ease of manufacturing (Figs. 1-2, pipe fitting at 10 and in [0018] of the English translation discloses the advantage of the fitting 10 being made of plastic).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of both the multi start threads and the coupling parts of Gill to be made of plastic with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of corrosion resistance which ensures long-term durability and allow for at least ease of manufacturing as taught by Rothe.
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of both the multi start threads and the coupling parts of Gill to be made of a known material such as plastic for at least the advantages of corrosion resistance, energy saving, and recyclable as disclosed at https://aliaxis.com/the-benefits-of-plastic-pipe-systems/.
In the related field of threaded couplings, Laverdiere teaches a threaded connection having a multi-start thread that includes a triple start in order to have the advantage of at least a known and reliable type of multi start thread that provides 360 degrees axial loading and a full seal connection with less than one rotation which reasonably suggest at least faster assembly as compared to single start threads (In [0242-0244] discloses double start and triple start threading connections allow for 360 degrees axial loading and a full seal connection with less than one rotation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi start threads of Gill to be triple start threads with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a known and reliable type of multi start thread that provides 360 degrees axial loading and a full seal connection with less than one rotation and faster assembly as taught by Laverdiere.
Additionally, triple start threads are well known type of threading as disclosed at https://baer.tools/en/blog/multi-start-thread-unlike-other-threads?srsltid=AfmBOoqFhDd9FvZ3Ed3NhNQthPq3lkq4zy_MSTBg-wE2pLVOWxLrx4hX and https://www.harveyperformance.com/in-the-loupe/multi-start-thread-guide/ to provide 360 degrees of locking with less than one revolution and provide fast acting connections and triple start threads are the type of threads that are closed by one third of a revolution. Therefore, Gill in view of Laverdiere would reasonably suggest the valves are opened by one third of revolution of the screw connection and closed when the one third of revolution is unscrewed and the first and second coupling parts of Gill are separated.
In regard to claim 2, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 1, and Gill further discloses wherein the multi-start thread is an outer thread (Fig. 1, threads at 19 are outer threads), and the multi-start mating thread is an inner thread (Fig. 1, threads at 75 are inner threads).
In regard to claim 3, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 2, and Gill further discloses wherein the outer thread is arranged on an outside of a hollow cylindrical shaft of the first coupling part (Fig. 1, 19 is arranged on an outside of a hollow cylindrical shaft which defines the cylindrical shape of 19 of the first coupling part A).
In regard to claim 4, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 2, and Gill further discloses wherein the inner thread is arranged in a union nut of the second coupling part (Fig. 1, the part at 74 defines at least a union nut which has inner threads 75 similar to applicant’s invention which union nut 18 is a part that has inner threads).
In regard to claim 5, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 4, and Gill further discloses wherein the screw connection is established or disconnected by operating the union nut (Fig. 1, rotation of 74 to thread 75 over 19).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US 3,276,474) in view of Rothe (DE 102019100897 A1) and Laverdiere (US 2014/0091027 A1) and further in view of Prymych (US 2003/0047238 A1).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 1, and Gill further discloses wherein the first coupling part is connected directly or via a line (Fig. 1, first coupling part A has a connection at 16 for a flexible hose line and in 2:18-44 discloses A and B can connect flexible hose lines together) and the second coupling part is connected via a line (Fig. 1, second coupling part also includes an end for connecting to flexible hose).
Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere do not expressly disclose the lines are for transferring fluid between a container and a tank of a tank truck.
In the related field of pipe couplers, Prymych teaches pipe fittings used for transferring fluid between a container and a tank of a tank truck (Fig. 4, pipe fittings near 10 which allows transfer of fluid between a container 50 to a tank of a tank truck at 52) in order to have at least the advantage of reliably transferring fluid between a container to a tank of a tank truck.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement of Gill in view of Rothe and Laverdiere to include a container and a tank of a tank truck with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of reliably allowing fluid transfer between a container and a tank of a tank truck as taught by Prymych. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably apply the pipe coupler of Gill in view of Rothe and Laverdiere for transferring between two locations such as between a container to a tank of a tank truck which in view of Prymych suggests a need for pipe couplers in order to allow reliable transfer of fluid between a container and a tank of a tank truck.
Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is a pipe fitting shown in applicant’s drawings in Figs. 2 and 3, and not to a container and a tank of a tank truck. The container and a tank of a tank truck is the intended use of the pipe fitting shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Therefore, the criticality of applicant’s invention is the pipe fitting shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
In regard to claim 10, Gill, Rothe, Laverdiere, and Prymych disclose the arrangement according to claim 8, and Gill further discloses wherein the line is formed as a hose (See claim 8 above, the coupling parts are for coupling to a flexible hose).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that drawing do not need to be provided because valves are analogous to a bolt which does not require further limitation regard thread, size or length, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because a bolt at least inherently has a thread, size or length while all valves do not inherently have the same structures such as ball valves, butterfly valves, gate valves, and check valves. For example, a butterfly valve would not have the ball structure of a ball valve. Claim 1 now includes “a mechanical actuating mechanism” which lacks any proper structural details in applicant’s specification further adds to the confusion of what type of valve is being used in applicant’s invention to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably practice the invention. If it is a novel and new kind of valve then it must be shown and if it is not, then one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably need to know what type of standard valve is used. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that neither Gill nor Rothe nor Laverdiere by themselves nor in combination teach “wherein the first coupling part…of the screw connection” of claim 1, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree for the reasons above in the updated rejection. Gill in view of Rothe and Laverdiere discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above in the updated rejection. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that it is evident in Figs. 1-3 that the first coupling part 10 and the second coupling part 11 each include a valve, wherein the valves are open when the coupling connection is formed and the valves are closed when the coupling connection is not formed and an opening and closing of the valves is positively guided by a mechanical actuating mechanism, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Figs. 1-3 do not show any valves and do not show any mechanical actuating mechanism. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Gill nor Laverdiere by themselves nor in combination teach the feature “the mechanical actuating mechanism closes the valves within the one third of the revolution of the screw connection”, however, such feature is neither taught or disclosed by applicant’s original disclosure. This limitation is considered new matter and also unclear absent details of the mechanical actuating mechanism and absent any details of closing the valves within one third of revolution. Therefore, the limitation is new matter and unclear and interpreted differently for examination purposes. See the updated rejection above. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments to claims 2-5 and 8-10, the applicant relied upon the same argument for claim 1. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons above in response to the arguments to claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights