DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 07/03/2025 and 12/18/2025 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
a. Claim 6: the “cooperative interface” and the “capture head of the spacecraft”.
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.
Specification
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of indefinite language used. For example, “complicated function”, “high-precision”, and “the like” should be removed. Furthermore, the examiner suggests removing all symbols and numbers such as “1”, “S” and “C” for the purpose of clarity. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
5. INDENTATION (claim 1-4 and 6-7)
where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75. Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 1, line 5: the term “the system” should be entered prior to the term “comprising” such that claim conforms with current U.S. practice as well as clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 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.
9. Claim 1 indicates that “the cooperative interface remains affixed to the non-cooperative space object when the spacecraft disengages so as to provide a standardized cooperative target for sensing, rendezvous, docking, servicing, or debris removal” (emphasis added), however this is not supported by the original disclosure. In particular, there is no implicit or explicit discussion regarding “a standardized cooperative target” in the applicant’s original disclosure.
10. Claim 7 indicates that “and thereafter disengaging the spacecraft while leaving the cooperative interface affixed to the non-cooperative space object to provide a standardized cooperative target for subsequent sensing, rendezvous, docking, servicing or debris removal” (emphasis added), however this is not supported by the original disclosure. In particular, there is no implicit or explicit discussion regarding “a standardized cooperative target” in the applicant’s original disclosure.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency form a rejected base claim.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 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.
13. Claim 1, lines 1-4, recites the preamble/limitation “a system for making an objective cooperative that renders, into a cooperative object, a non-cooperative space object in outer space” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what the claimed invention is considered to be. The preamble contains both redundance and circular phrasing. For example, “making an object cooperative” and “renders… into a cooperative objection” is reciting the same thing which contributes to the scope being unclear. Furthermore, the use of the term “that renders” implies that instead of the system, the non-cooperative object is making the object cooperative. The examiner suggests the following preamble “A system for rendering a non-cooperative space object in outer space into a cooperative object” or the like in order obviate such indefinitess.
14. The term “standardized cooperative target” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standardized cooperative target” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There are no known standards for cooperative targets, thus it is unclear as to exactly what is considered to be a standardized cooperative target. Furthermore, as indicated above, the term is not supported by the original disclosure. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required. Similarly, claim 7 is unclear for the same reasons.
15. Claim 1, lines 5-7, recites the limitation “a hardware cooperative interface that is separate and distinct from any gripping, capture, or manipulator device of the spacecraft” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to whether the “any gripping, capture, or manipulator device of the spacecraft” are being positively claimed and are therefore considered to be part of the claimed invention. Furthermore, per the MPEP 2173.05(i), “The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.”. Similarly claim 7 is unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
16. Claim 3, lines 2-8, recites the limitation “wherein a surface of the plate member has an affixing force, wherein the spacecraft has a grip portion configured to grip the plate member, and wherein a surface, of the plate member gripped by the grip portion, is pressed against the surface of the non-cooperative space object so that the surface of the plate member is affixed to the surface of the non-cooperative space object” which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to exactly which surface is being pressed against the surface of the non-cooperative space object. Per the applicant’s disclosure, the same surface having the affixing force is pressed against the space object, however, as it is currently recited a surface other than surface having the affixing force is being claimed as being pressed against the target. As such, the claimed structural configuration is in contradiction with the originally disclosed structural configuration. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
17. Claim 4, lines 2-5, recites the limitation “wherein the surface of the plate member has the affixing force using adhesive textile, micro constructed dry adhesive, hook-and-loop fastener, and/or cold welding” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which of the surfaces is being referenced. Per claim 3, the plate member includes two distinct surfaces as currently recited. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
18. Claim 6, lines 4-9, recites the limitation “wherein the grip mechanism is configured to hold and position a cooperative interface that is separate from the grip mechanism, to grip the non-cooperative space object so that the cooperative interface attaches thereto, and to be separated from the robot arm together with the cooperative interface, with the cooperative interface remaining affixed to the non-cooperative space object after separation” which renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what is being claimed. For example, what exactly is being separated from robot arm? Are both the grip mechanism and the cooperative interface being separated from the robot arm, together? Furthermore, claim 1 currently requires a cooperative interface. Is that the same as or different from the cooperative interface as recited in this claim? It appears that the cooperative interface is being claimed in a duplicate manner as it is currently recited and there being no disclosure regarding multiple cooperative interfaces.
19. Claim 6, lines 9-11, recites the limitation the cooperative interface not comprising the grip mechanism or a capture head of the spacecraft” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to whether a capture head of the spacecraft is part of the claimed invention. Furthermore, as discussed above, regarding claim 1, per the MPEP, “The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.”. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
20. Claim 7, lines 1-5, recites the preamble/limitation “a method for making an object cooperative for rendering, into a cooperative object, a non-cooperative space objection in outer space, the method for making an object cooperative comprising” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what the claimed invention is considered to be. The preamble contains both redundant and circular phrasing. For example, “making an object cooperative” and “renders… into a cooperative objection” is reciting the same thing which contributes to the scope being unclear. Further, the use of the term “that renders” implies that instead of the system, the non-cooperative object is making the object cooperative. Furthermore, in lines 4-5 indicates a different preamble “the method for making an object cooperative”. What exactly is the intended claimed invention? Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
21. Claim 7, lines 5-12, recites the limitation “a step of attaching a cooperative interface that is separate from any gripping, capture, or manipulator device of the spacecraft to a surface of the non-cooperative space object by a spacecraft configured to move in outer space; and thereafter disengaging the spacecraft while leaving the cooperative interface affixed to the non-cooperative space object to provide a standardized cooperative target for subsequent sensing, rendezvous, docking, servicing, or debris removal” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to whether the “any gripping, capture, or manipulator device of the spacecraft” is a part of the claimed invention. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the spacecraft is lines 7 and 8 are considered to be the same or different spacecrafts, and exactly which spacecraft is being referenced in line 9. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
22. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
23. Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oqab et al. (US 2022/0169404 A1), hereinafter “Oqab”, cited on the IDS filed on 12/18/2025.
24. Regarding Claim 1, Oqab discloses a system for making an objective cooperative that renders, into a cooperative object, a non-cooperative space object in outer space (Oqab Abstract and para. [0018]; system 100 for controlling target satellite 102 in space as seen in FIG. 1), comprising:
a spacecraft configured to move in outer space (para. [0018]; satellite control spacecraft 110 as seen in FIG. 1); and
a hardware cooperative interface that is separate and distinct from any gripping, capture, or manipulator device of the spacecraft, attached to a surface of the non-cooperative space object by the spacecraft (paras. [0021]-[0022], [0024] and [0028]; satellite capture subsystem 114 configured to selectively capture and release satellite 102, subsystem 114 includes a control medium applicator configured to apply a control medium 116 to satellite 102, the control medium 116 includes a supplementary module 117 that is configured to adhere to satellite 102, furthermore the control medium 116 and module 117 are clearly distinct from the one or more capture components, such as, one or more robotic arms, claws, tethers of the subsystem 114 as seen in FIGS. 2-4),
wherein, after attachment, the cooperative interface remains affixed to the non-cooperative space object when the spacecraft disengages so as to provide a standardized cooperative target for sensing, rendezvous, docking, servicing, or debris removal (paras. [0028] and [0031]; once module 117 is adhered to satellite via adhesives, subsystem 114 is configured to release satellite 102 together with control medium 116, accordingly medium 16 and module 117 remain affixed to satellite 102 when spacecraft 110 disengages and renders the satellite 102 as a standardized cooperative target for debris removal).
25. Regarding Claim 7, Oqab discloses a method for making an object cooperative for rendering, into a cooperative object, a non-cooperative space objection in outer space, the method for making an object cooperative (Oqab Abstract and paras. [0017]-[0018]; a method 900 for controlling target satellite 102 in space using system 100 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 9-10) comprising:
a step of attaching a cooperative interface that is separate from any gripping, capture, or manipulator device of the spacecraft to a surface of the non-cooperative space object by a spacecraft configured to move in outer space (paras. [0021]-[0022], [0024], [0028] and [0041]-[0043]); and
thereafter disengaging the spacecraft while leaving the cooperative interface affixed to the non-cooperative space object to provide a standardized cooperative target for subsequent sensing, rendezvous, docking, servicing, or debris removal (para. [0044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
26. 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.
27. Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oqab et al. (US 2022/0169404 A1), in view of Okada (US 2017/0341783 A1), cited on the IDS filed on 07/03/2025.
28. Regarding Claim 2, Oqab discloses the system for making a objective cooperative according to claim 1, wherein the cooperative interface is a plate member (module 117 in the form of a plate member as seen in FIGS. 1-3).
Oqab is silent regarding an optical marker.
Okada discloses a system for making an objective cooperative that renders, into a cooperative object, a non-cooperative space object in outer space (Okada Abstract and paras. [0033] and [0053]-[0054]; a capture system for capturing an on-orbit device 2, including capturing device 100 attached to space vehicle and capturing plate 1 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 6) wherein the cooperative interface comprising a plate member that has an optical marker comprising a retroreflective material (paras. [0035]-[0037] and [0041]; capture plate 1 including base 10 having a surface-treated layer 11 which is configured to reflect light, accordingly layer 11 by definition comprises a retroreflective material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oqab as taught by Okada such that a plate member has an optical marker comprising a retroreflective material in order to allow the location of the cooperative target to be efficiently and quickly identified when disengaged from the spacecraft.
29. Regarding Claim 3, modified Oqab discloses (see Oqab) the system for making an object cooperative according to claim 2, wherein a surface of the plate member has an affixing force (paras. [0024] and [0028]), wherein the spacecraft has a grip portion configured to grip the plate member, and wherein a surface, of the plate member gripped by the grip portion, is pressed against the surface of the non-cooperative space object so that the surface of the plate member is affixed to the surface of the non-cooperative space object, attaching the plate member to the non-cooperative space object (paras. [0022] and [0024]; subsystem 114 includes a control medium applicator configured to apply control medium 116 to satellite 102, the applicator such as a robotic arm applies the module 117 to satellite 102, accordingly the applicator is structurally capable of gripping module 117 and pressing it against a surface of satellite 102 so that the module 117 is affixed to the surface of satellite 102).
30. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oqab et al. (US 2022/0169404 A1) and Okada (US 2017/0341783 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Goff et al. (US 2012/0076629 A1).
31. Regarding Claim 4, modified Oqab discloses (see Oqab) the system for making an object cooperative accordingly to claim 3, wherein the surface of the plate member has the affixing force using adhesive (para. [0028]).
Modified Oqab is silent regarding adhesive textile, micro constructed dry adhesive, hook-and-loop fastener, and/or cold welding.
Goff discloses a system for making an objective cooperative that renders, into a cooperative object, a non-cooperative space object in outer space (Goff Abstract and para. [0031]; space debris orbit descent system as seen in FIGS. 1 and 5) wherein the surface of the plate member has the affixing force using adhesive textile, micro constructed dry adhesive, hook-and-loop fastener, and/or cold welding paras. [0064], and [0068]-[0069]; non-cooperative capture device conformal surface of pads 334 include gecko adhesion or forms of Velcro, gecko adhesion is by definition micro constructed dry adhesive, and Velcro is by definition a hook and loop fastener).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Oqab as taught by Goff such that the surface of the plate member has the affixing force using adhesive textile, micro constructed dry adhesive, hook-and-loop fastener, and/or cold welding in order to utilize affixing means that provide a reliable, strong, and residue-free adhesion and/or connection.
Double Patenting
32. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07€ and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
41. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/838,997 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending application is being anticipated by the copending application.
Claim 1 of the pending application is encompassed by each of claims 1-2 of the copending application. Further, claim 2 of the pending application is encompassed by claim 3 of the copending application. Further, claim 3 of the pending application is encompassed by claim 4 of the copending application. Further, claim 4 of the pending application is encompassed by claim 5 of the copending application. Further, claim 6 of the pending application is encompassed by claim 7 of the copending application. Furthermore, claim 7 of the pending application is encompassed by each of claims 8-9 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as overcoming drawing objections, claim objections, 112(a)/112(b) rejections, and the non-statutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 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.
With regard to arguments pertaining to claim 4, the applicant asserts that “Goff places such adhesion on the manipulator pads of the capture head, not on a separate cooperative interface plate that remains on the target after disengagement as now required by amended claim 1. Moreover, claim 4 expressly includes options such as cold welding for the surface of the plate member, a modality not taught in Goff for any separate, left-behind interface. Even assuming arguendo that Goff suggests certain adhesive modalities, the combination still fails to teach or suggest applying those modalities to a distinct plate member that is gripped, affixed, and left on the non-cooperative object as a standardized cooperative target.” on pp. 22 of the remarks filed on 09/29/2025. These arguments are not considered to be persuasive for the following reasons:
Claim 4 merely indicates that “wherein the surface of the plate member has the affixing force using adhesive textile, micro constructed dry adhesive, hook-and-loop fastener, and/or cold welding”. As discussed above, regarding claim 1-4, the examiner is no longer replying upon the disclosure of Goff for the rejections of claims 1-3. However, the examiner is relying upon Goff’s disclosure as relates to the known affixing force of the plate member as discussed above, regarding claim 4.
The options included in the claims are merely recited as alternatives, each of the alternatives are not required per the claimed invention and as disclosed in the original disclosure. As discussed above, Goff is merely being utilized for disclosing a number of the alternatives of the affixing force that are encompassed by the plate member.
With regard to arguments pertaining to the Double patenting rejection, the applicant asserts that a terminal disclaimer has been filed on pp. 20-21 of the remarks. These arguments are not considered to be persuasive as no terminal disclaimer has been made of record to date. Furthermore, as it is evident on the “ELECTRONIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEPIT”, there is no indication of a terminal disclaimer being filed and there are no fees found in association with a terminal disclaimer. Accordingly, the double patenting rejections as discussed above is currently being maintained.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642