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 Amendment
The amendment filed 3/23/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 17 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claim is directed to a species that was restricted in the 10/28/2025 office action, and was specifically not elected in the 12/22/2025 response.
Newly submitted claim 18 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claim is directed to a species that was restricted in the 10/28/2025 office action, and was specifically not elected in the 12/22/2025 response.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 10 recites “the shafts”. Claims 4, 2, and 1 recite only a single shaft, therefore the phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0278493 to Shibahara of record), and further in view of US 9,916,779 to Parnell.
Regarding claims 1-4, and 10-12, Shibahara teaches a photovoltaic power supply device 100C (Fig. 8) comprising
A base 20 removably attached to an electronic device 10 and including a base surface (bottom surface of 20 obscured in Figs. 1, 8) on an outer surface on one side in an thickness direction z1 of the base (¶0028)
A solar cell panel 40 electrically connected to the base 20 and including a light receiving surface (visible in Fig. 8) on an outer surface on at least one side in a thickness direction of the solar cell panel (¶0071-0076), wherein
The photovoltaic power supply device 100C is configured such that power generated by the solar cell panel 40 is supplied to the electronic device via the base 20 (Fig. 9, ¶0079-0081)
The solar cell panel 46 is supported by the base 20 with a shaft 22 (not labeled in Fig. 8; Figs. 5-7, ¶0058-0070, 0081)
A position of the solar cell panel 40 with respect to the base 20 is variable, and the position includes
A retracted position (best seen in top of Fig. 2) in which the entirety of the solar cell panel 40 overlaps with the base surface 20 from the outside of the base (¶0040-0043)
A use position in which the solar cell panel 40 does not overlap with the base surface outside the base and is tiltable about the shaft (see bottom positions shown in Fig. 2).
The embodiment of Fig. 14 shows that it is preferable to be able to fix the angle using an interference between elements. While it is not explicitly taught that the solar cell panel 40 is configured to maintain a tilt angle by friction generated between the solar cell panel and the base 20, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the device such that friction allows such adjustability, because using friction to maintain angular positioning between two elements is conventional (C5/L55-61). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Per claim 2, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The base 20 is provided with the shaft 22, and the solar cell panel 40 is provided with a shaft receiving portion including a shaft receiving hole 44 (¶0028, 0029, 0035, 0036). The shaft 22 is removably inserted into the shaft receiving hole 44 by relative movement of the base and the solar cell panel 40 (the reference does not seem to describe how the shaft is inserted into the shaft receiving hole, but a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that it necessarily requires moving one of the base 20 or panel 40 to overlap the other of 40 or 20). The base 20 is provided with a connectable portion 52/53 (Fig. 9), and the solar cell panel 40 is provided with a connection portion 51 (¶0080, 0081). The connection portion 51 is connected to the connectable portion 52/53 by relative movement of the base 20 and the solar cell panel 40 such that the connection portion and the connectable portion can be electrically disconnected (when 51 and 52/53 are not in electrical contact).
Regarding claim 3, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 2. In an embodiment, the shaft 22 and the shaft receiving hole 44 extend along a first axis 22r (in-out direction of page in Fig. 3, left-right direction on left side of Fig. 11), the connectable portion 52/53 and the connection portion 51 include a combination of a connection hole (51, 52/53 have a similar shape to 44, as shown in Fig. 10) and a terminal portion 51 that extend along a second axis that is positioned on a same line as the first axis (the first axis 22r is movable along the y2 direction shown in Fig. 10; the left side of Fig. 11 shows that at every position of 22r, the portions 51, 52/53 have the same configurational relationship). The terminal portion 51 is inserted into the connection hole 52/53 as the shaft 22 is inserted into the shaft receiving hole 44 (¶0090). In a state in which the terminal portion 51 is inserted into the connection hole 52/53, the terminal portion is supported by an inner wall surface of the connection hole 44 (the left side of Fig. 11 shows that an inner wall surface of 44 has a shape of a C, the terminal portion 51, supported itself by 22, is supported by either the top or bottom surface of the C) so as to rotate about the second axis 22r while being in contact with the inner wall surface.
While Shibahara does not explicitly teach that the terminal portion is removably inserted into the connection hole, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the terminal portion and connection hole separable, as it is a known design choice. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 2. The shaft 22 is fixed to the base 20 (Figs. 5-8). The shaft 22 is received into the shaft receiving hole 44 (Ibid.). In some embodiments, it is desirable that an angle of the solar cell panel 40 with respect to the base 20 is adjustable (Figs. 2, 14, ¶0040, 0041, 0099, 0100).
The limitation that the shaft is press-fitted into the shaft receiving hole is a product by process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Further, while it is not explicitly taught that friction generated by the shaft 22 and the inner wall surface of the shaft receiving hole 44 when the shaft is press-fitted into the shaft receiving hole is set to such a magnitude that an angle of the solar cell panel 40 with respect to the base 20 is adjustable, the embodiment of Fig. 14 shows that it is preferable to be able to fix the angle using an interference between elements. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the device such that friction allows such adjustability, because using friction to maintain angular positioning between two elements is conventional (C5/L55-61). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
A skilled artisan would understand that, for the photovoltaic power supply device taught by the combination of Shibahara and Parnell, the tilt angle of the solar cell panel 40 with respect to the base 20 is configured to be adjusted by varying the magnitude of the external force applied to the solar cell panel (the motion between elements 40 and 20 is enabled by the application of external force, the lack of external force results in the elements staying stationary), and the solar cell panel is configured to be maintained at the adjusted tilt angle from the friction being set large enough between the shaft and the inner wall surface (Shibahara teaches that an angle between elements 40 and 20 is to remain fixed unless acted upon; Parnell teaches that friction within a hinge, readable on Shibahara’s shaft and inner wall surface, allows for rotatable elements to be locked into place).
Per claim 11, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The shaft 22 comprises a rotary shaft (the solar cell panel rotates about shaft 22, as seen in Figs. 8, 14) with a cylindrical shape (at least in some embodiments, such as Figs. 4, 10, 12, the head-on view of the shaft 22 is circular; therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage a shaft such as shown in the embodiments of Figs. 8, 14 in which at least a portion 23 and/or 21 of shaft 22 is cylindrical; MPEP 2131.02.III, §2125), the rotary shaft is configured to be inserted in a receiving hole 44 in the base 40.
While the shape of the receiving hole is not illustrated as being cylindrical, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the receiving hole to have a cylindrical shape as it would have merely required a change in shape of the hole. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Per claim 12, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The shaft 22 comprises a rotary shaft (the solar cell panel rotates about shaft 22, as seen in Figs. 8, 14), the rotary shaft is configured to be inserted in a shaft receiving hole in the base 40 (see Marked-up Fig. 11 below), and the device further comprises a terminal portion 52 that is inserted into a connection hole of the base in line with the shaft being inserted into the shaft receiving hole.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connection hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shaft receiving hole)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
322
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Shibahara does not explicitly teach that the terminal portion is removably inserted into the connection hole, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the terminal portion and connection hole separable, as it is a known design choice. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claims 13-16, 19, and 20, Shibahara teaches a photovoltaic power supply device 100C (Fig. 8) comprising
A base 20 removably attached to an electronic device 10 and including a base surface (bottom surface of 20 obscured in Figs. 1, 8) on an outer surface on one side in an thickness direction z1 of the base (¶0028)
A solar cell panel 40 electrically connected to the base 20 and including a light receiving surface (visible in Fig. 8) on an outer surface on at least one side in a thickness direction of the solar cell panel (¶0071-0076), wherein
The photovoltaic power supply device 100C is configured such that power generated by the solar cell panel 40 is supplied to the electronic device via the base 20 (Fig. 9, ¶0079-0081)
The solar cell panel 46 is supported by the base 20 with a shaft 22 (not labeled in Fig. 8; Figs. 5-7, ¶0058-0070, 0081)
A position of the solar cell panel 40 with respect to the base 20 is variable, and the position includes
A retracted position (best seen in top of Fig. 2) in which the entirety of the solar cell panel 40 overlaps with the base surface 20 from the outside of the base (¶0040-0043)
A use position in which the solar cell panel 40 does not overlap with the base surface outside the base and is tiltable about the shaft (see bottom positions shown in Fig. 2).
The embodiment of Fig. 14 shows that it is preferable to be able to fix the angle using an interference between elements. While it is not explicitly taught that the solar cell panel 40 is configured to maintain a tilt angle by friction set large enough in the retracted position, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the device such that friction allows such adjustability, because using friction to maintain angular positioning between two elements is conventional (C5/L55-61). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Per claim 14, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 13. The base 20 is provided with the shaft 22, and the solar cell panel 40 is provided with a shaft receiving portion including a shaft receiving hole 44 (¶0028, 0029, 0035, 0036). The shaft 22 is removably inserted into the shaft receiving hole 44 by relative movement of the base and the solar cell panel 40 (the reference does not seem to describe how the shaft is inserted into the shaft receiving hole, but a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that it necessarily requires moving one of the base 20 or panel 40 to overlap the other of 40 or 20). The base 20 is provided with a connectable portion 52/53 (Fig. 9), and the solar cell panel 40 is provided with a connection portion 51 (¶0080, 0081). The connection portion 51 is connected to the connectable portion 52/53 by relative movement of the base 20 and the solar cell panel 40 such that the connection portion and the connectable portion can be electrically disconnected (when 51 and 52/53 are not in electrical contact).
Regarding claim 15, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 14. In an embodiment, the shaft 22 and the shaft receiving hole 44 extend along a first axis 22r (in-out direction of page in Fig. 3, left-right direction on left side of Fig. 11), the connectable portion 52/53 and the connection portion 51 include a combination of a connection hole (51, 52/53 have a similar shape to 44, as shown in Fig. 10) and a terminal portion 51 that extend along a second axis that is positioned on a same line as the first axis (the first axis 22r is movable along the y2 direction shown in Fig. 10; the left side of Fig. 11 shows that at every position of 22r, the portions 51, 52/53 have the same configurational relationship). The terminal portion 51 is inserted into the connection hole 52/53 as the shaft 22 is inserted into the shaft receiving hole 44 (¶0090). In a state in which the terminal portion 51 is inserted into the connection hole 52/53, the terminal portion is supported by an inner wall surface of the connection hole 44 (the left side of Fig. 11 shows that an inner wall surface of 44 has a shape of a C, the terminal portion 51, supported itself by 22, is supported by either the top or bottom surface of the C) so as to rotate about the second axis 22r while being in contact with the inner wall surface.
While Shibahara does not explicitly teach that the terminal portion is removably inserted into the connection hole, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the terminal portion and connection hole separable, as it is a known design choice. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 16, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 14. The shaft 22 is fixed to the base 20 (Figs. 5-8). The shaft 22 is received into the shaft receiving hole 44 (Ibid.). In some embodiments, it is desirable that an angle of the solar cell panel 40 with respect to the base 20 is adjustable (Figs. 2, 14, ¶0040, 0041, 0099, 0100).
The limitation that the shaft is press-fitted into the shaft receiving hole is a product by process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Further, while it is not explicitly taught that friction generated by the shaft 22 and the inner wall surface of the shaft receiving hole 44 when the shaft is press-fitted into the shaft receiving hole is set to such a magnitude that an angle of the solar cell panel 40 with respect to the base 20 is adjustable, the embodiment of Fig. 14 shows that it is preferable to be able to fix the angle using an interference between elements. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the device such that friction allows such adjustability, because using friction to maintain angular positioning between two elements is conventional (C5/L55-61). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
A skilled artisan would understand that, for the photovoltaic power supply device taught by the combination of Shibahara and Parnell, the tilt angle of the solar cell panel 40 with respect to the base 20 is configured to be adjusted by varying the magnitude of the external force applied to the solar cell panel (the motion between elements 40 and 20 is enabled by the application of external force, the lack of external force results in the elements staying stationary), and the solar cell panel is configured to be maintained at the adjusted tilt angle from the friction being set large enough between the shaft and the inner wall surface (Shibahara teaches that an angle between elements 40 and 20 is to remain fixed unless acted upon; Parnell teaches that friction within a hinge, readable on Shibahara’s shaft and inner wall surface, allows for rotatable elements to be locked into place).
Per claim 19, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 13. The shaft 22 comprises a rotary shaft (the solar cell panel rotates about shaft 22, as seen in Figs. 8, 14) with a cylindrical shape (at least in some embodiments, such as Figs. 4, 10, 12, the head-on view of the shaft 22 is circular; therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage a shaft such as shown in the embodiments of Figs. 8, 14 in which at least a portion 23 and/or 21 of shaft 22 is cylindrical; MPEP 2131.02.III, §2125), the rotary shaft is configured to be inserted in a receiving hole 44 in the base 40.
Per claim 20, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 13. The shaft 22 comprises a rotary shaft (the solar cell panel rotates about shaft 22, as seen in Figs. 8, 14), the rotary shaft is configured to be inserted in a shaft receiving hole in the base 40 (see Marked-up Fig. 11 above). The device further comprises a terminal portion 52 that is inserted into a connection hole of the base in line with the shaft being inserted into the shaft receiving hole.
While Shibahara does not explicitly teach that the terminal portion is removably inserted into the connection hole, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the terminal portion and connection hole separable, as it is a known design choice. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibahara and Parnell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0186112 to Aernouts (of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 1. Shibahara teaches that the solar cell panel 46 of that invention includes organic cells in some embodiments (¶0078), but does not detail such a cell. Aernouts teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form an organic solar cell panel of that invention because it converts more of the solar spectrum to electricity (¶0177). Particularly, Aernouts teaches that this benefit can be achieved by a solar cell panel that includes a thin film solar cell (¶0002), in which portions on both sides in a thickness direction (up-down of Fig. 7) of the thin film solar cell are formed by two base members (103, 104, ¶0213), between those two base members being a power generation layer that performs photoelectric conversion (136, 135 of Fig. 7 are “active layers”, which each include layers which convert light to electricity, ¶0138, 0145-0148), a hole transport layer and an electron transport layer (one of 14, 15 exemplified in Fig. 1(b)) that are disposed on opposite sides of the power generation layer in a thickness direction of the power generation layer (¶0152-0157), a positive electrode (one of 11, 12) that is connected to the hole transport layer and a negative electrode (the other of 12, 11) that is connected to the electron transport layer (¶0141-0144), such that surfaces on opposite sides in the thickness direction of the thin-film solar cell form the light receiving surfaces (electrodes 11, 12 can be light transparent in an embodiment, ¶0115, 0141), and each base member and a member located between each base member and the power generation layer are made of a material that is transmissive to light (¶0123-0125, 0139, 0147, 0154, 0176, 0196, 0197).
Regarding claim 8, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 1. Shibahara teaches that the solar cell panel 46 of that invention includes organic cells in some embodiments (¶0078), but does not detail such a cell. Aernouts teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form an organic solar cell panel of that invention because it converts more of the solar spectrum to electricity (¶0177). Particularly, Aernouts teaches that the solar cell panel includes two thin-film solar cells (Fig. 7, ¶0002) each having a surface on one outer side in a thickness direction (up-down in Fig. 7) of the thin-film solar cell as the light receiving surface (electrodes 11, 12 can be light transparent in an embodiment, ¶0115, 0141), and the two thin-film solar cells are disposed back to back such that the light receiving surfaces form surfaces on opposite sides in the thickness direction of the solar panel (¶0123-0125, 0139, 0147, 0154, 0176, 0196, 0197).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibahara and Parnell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0036267 to Yang and US 9,698,523 to Adams (both of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified-Shibahara teaches the limitations of claim 1. That reference teaches a power storage unit that stores power generated by the solar cell panel 40, and a power transmitting unit that transmits power stored in the power storage unit to the electronic device 10 (¶0084). Shibahara does not specifically teach that the power storage unit is included in the base. Yang teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include such a power storage unit in a base, in order to control a thickness of elements (¶0035).
Shibahara does not teach that the power transmitting unit transmits power through a contactless power supply. Adams teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a contactless power supply to transmit power, as it is conventionally used in addition to or as a supplement for wired power transmission (C4/L34-C5/L15). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-16, 19, and 20 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.
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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights