DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
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(e) 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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/908,052. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference in claim 1 from the instant application and claim 1 from 18/908,052 is that the word “coupled” is replaced with the word “connected”. This difference does not patently distinguish the claims from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riggs (US 2012/0060419) in view of Woodruff (US 1,917,415).
Regarding claim 1, Riggs discloses a sliding security door system comprising: a door extending between an upper track (element 22 including at least element 62); a motive assembly (considered at least elements 68, 70, 74) located in the upper track for driving a carriage assembly connected to the door, wherein the motive assembly comprises a motive effector (elements 70, 74) operably connected to a rack (element 68) connected to a carriage (element 46); a locking assembly (considered at least elements 80, 84, 86, 94) at least partially located in the upper track for preventing movement of the door, wherein the locking assembly comprises a locking effector (considered at least elements 92, 94, 112, 114) operably connected to a locking bar (considered at least element 84); and a control assembly (element 72) operably connected to the motive assembly and the locking assembly, [wherein the control assembly is capable of separately activating the motive effector and the locking effector]*. Examiner notes that the control assembly is capable of driving the door for at least a portion of its operation without operation of the locking assembly (i.e. separately activating). Riggs does not explicitly disclose a lower track. Woodruff, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding security door system that includes a door extending between an upper track (considered at least element 5) and a lower track (considered at least element 14); a motive assembly (considered at least element 27) for driving a carriage assembly connected to the door, wherein the motive assembly comprises a motive effector (element 27) operably connected to a rack connected to a carriage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sliding security door system of Riggs such that it includes both and upper and lower track, since a lower track in combination with an upper track would obviously enhance stability and alignment for the sliding door, and improve the overall security of the system by enforcing and guiding the lower end of the sliding door, which would function as intended for the purpose of Riggs. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a sliding security door system, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the sliding security door system disclosed by Riggs is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Riggs discloses a reinforcing bar at a longitudinal edge of the door, wherein the door comprises an increased sectional density at the longitudinal edge (See Figure 1, considered right most side of door as shown. Examiner notes that the above limitation is considered to be extremely broad, and the area of the reinforcing bar includes an “increased sectional density” with respect to the bars (b1-b6) since this portion of the door includes areas with no material).
Regarding claim 5, Riggs discloses a door seal plate (considered end portion of sliding door). Riggs does not explicitly disclose a door seal plate having a tapered bilaterally symmetrical cross-section mounted to a trailing lateral edge of the door. Although this particular feature may not necessarily be explicitly shown in Riggs, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the art in this way, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well.
Regarding claim 6, Riggs discloses a plurality of upper track stops located at a first end and a second end of the upper track (considered end of track (i.e. fully open or fully closed position)).
Regarding claim 7, Riggs discloses wherein the motive effector is operably connected to the rack by a carriage gear drive (element 70).
Regarding claim 8, Riggs discloses at least one wheel assembly (at least elements 52, 54, 56) connected to the carriage for interacting with a guide rod (element 62) mounted in the upper track.
Regarding claim 13, Riggs discloses a lock receiving plate (element 92) mounted to the door, the lock receiving plate having a locked-open notch (See Figure 8A, considered top most, middle portion of element 94) for receiving the locking bar in an unlocked configuration and a locked-closed notch (See Figure 8C, left most portion of element 94) for receiving the locking bar in a locked configuration.
Regarding claim 14, Riggs discloses wherein the locking effector is connected to the locking bar by a locking plate (element 92) having an angled cam slot (element 94), and the locking bar is connected to a locking follower (element 112) traveling along the cam slot as the locking plate moves parallel to the upper track.
Regarding claim 15, Riggs discloses wherein the cam slot is angled such that a sliding movement of the locking plate in a first direction causes the locking follower to rise and a sliding movement of the locking plate in a second direction opposite the first direction causes the locking follower to descend (See at least Figures 8A-8C).
Regarding claim 18, Riggs discloses wherein the locking effector is connected to the upper track by a locking effector mounting plate (element 92).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riggs (US 2012/0060419) in view of Woodruff (US 1,917,415) and further in view of Wray et al. (US 2018/0266172) (hereinafter Wray).
Regarding claim 9, Riggs does not explicitly disclose wherein a wheel of the wheel assembly comprises a first material softer than a second material forming the guide rod. Examiner notes, however, that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Additionally, Wray teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding door that features rollers that roll along a track, and wherein the rollers are manufactured from a variety of materials (paragraph [0017], “The rollers can include a material selected from among nylon, plastic, wood and metal”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the door system of Riggs such that the wheel of the wheel assembly comprises a first material (i.e. nylon or plastic, as taught by Wray) softer than a second material forming the guide rod, since selecting materials in this manner would be logical and obvious for the purpose of Riggs, and since using wheels/rollers constructed from nylon or plastic, as taught by Wray would also provide improved sound dampening, which would be desirable to various consumers. Further, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the door system of Riggs such that the wheel of the wheel assembly comprises a first material softer than a second material forming the guide rod, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and the selection of manufacturing materials for a wheel and guide rod would be considered selection from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gayhart (US 2012/0255232) in view of Woodruff (US 1,917,415).
Regarding claim 1, Gayhart discloses a sliding security door system comprising: a door extending between an upper track (at least element 22 and enclosing structure); a motive assembly (at least elements 28, 30, 52, 54) located in the upper track for driving a carriage assembly connected to the door, wherein the motive assembly comprises a motive effector (element 30) operably connected to a rack (element 50, See paragraph [0047]) connected to a carriage (element 24); a locking assembly (at least elements 180, 180p, 66, 88, 82) at least partially located in the upper track for preventing movement of the door, wherein the locking assembly comprises a locking effector (elements 88 and 66) operably connected to a locking bar (element 82); and a control assembly (at least element 34) operably connected to the motive assembly and the locking assembly, [wherein the control assembly is capable of separately activating the motive effector and the locking effector]*.
Gayhart discloses use of a “bottom door guide” (paragraph [0004], “All of these prior art devices deadlock the sliding door at the location of both the carriage and the bottom door guide”). Although Gayhart does not illustrate this “bottom door guide” (i.e. lower track) in explicit detail, Examiner notes that Woodruff teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding security door system that includes a door extending between an upper track (considered at least element 5) and a lower track (considered at least element 14); a motive assembly (considered at least element 27) for driving a carriage assembly connected to the door, wherein the motive assembly comprises a motive effector (element 27) operably connected to a rack connected to a carriage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sliding security door system of Gayhart such that it includes both and upper and lower track, since a lower track in combination with an upper track would obviously enhance stability and alignment for the sliding door, and improve the overall security of the system by enforcing and guiding the lower end of the sliding door, which would function as intended for the purpose of Gayhart. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a sliding security door system, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the sliding security door system disclosed by Gayhart is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 5, Gayhart discloses a door seal plate (considered area of element 104 which is received by element 102, see paragraph [0059]). Gayhart does not explicitly disclose a door seal plate having a tapered bilaterally symmetrical cross-section mounted to a trailing lateral edge of the door. Although this particular feature may not necessarily be explicitly shown in Gayhart, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the art in this way, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well.
Regarding claim 6, Gayhart discloses a plurality of upper track stops (element 182) located at a first end and a second end of the upper track.
Regarding claim 7, Gayhart discloses wherein the motive effector is operably connected to the rack by a carriage gear drive (element 54).
Regarding claim 8, Gayhart discloses wherein the carriage assembly further comprises at least one wheel assembly (considered at least element 26) connected to the carriage for interacting with a guide rod mounted in the upper track.
Regarding claim 12, Gayhart discloses wherein the carriage assembly further comprises a carriage sensor (element 36) operably coupled to the carriage assembly and transmitting sensor data to the control assembly.
Regarding claim 13, Gayhart discloses a lock receiving plate mounted to the door, the lock receiving plate having a locked-open notch (element 92 or 96) for receiving the locking bar in an unlocked configuration and a locked-closed notch (element 94 or 98) for receiving the locking bar in a locked configuration.
Regarding claim 14, Gayhart discloses wherein the locking effector is connected to the locking bar by a locking plate having an angled cam slot (element 66), and the locking bar is connected to a locking follower (element 88) traveling along the cam slot as the locking plate moves parallel to the upper track.
Regarding claim 15, Gayhart discloses wherein the cam slot is angled such that a sliding movement of the locking plate in a first direction causes the locking follower to rise and a sliding movement of the locking plate in a second direction opposite the first direction causes the locking follower to descend.
Regarding claim 17, Gayhart discloses a locking housing (element 114, paragraph [0056]) extending between the upper track and the lower track, wherein the locking bar slidably extends through and parallel to the locking housing.
Regarding claim 18, Gayhart discloses wherein the locking effector is connected to the upper track by a locking effector mounting plate (element 52).
Regarding claim 20, Gayhart discloses wherein the motive effector and the locking effector are selected from the group consisting of: an electric motor, a pneumatic or hydraulic motor or cylinder, a linear electric actuator, a bidirectional effector, and any combination thereof.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gayhart (US 2012/0255232) in view of Woodruff (US 1,917,415) and further in view of Gosling et al. (US 2021/0047880) (hereinafter Gosling)
Regarding claim 4, Gayhart does not explicitly disclose an upper fire seal assembly comprising a horizontal fire seal connected to a mount bar. Gosling, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding door assembly such that it includes numerous seals positioned around the sliding door, including an upper fire seal assembly (at least elements 240, 245, 260, 265. Examiner notes that the term “fire seal” is considered to be extremely broad) directly mounted to an upper track assembly, comprising a horizontal fire seal (Figure 2, element 245) connected to a mount bar (element 240). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding door system of Gayhart such that it includes an upper fire seal assembly, such as that taught by Gosling, as this would provide enhanced sealing for the sliding door of Gayhart, which would be desirable for numerous purposes (improved temperature control, acoustic mitigation, etc.) Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gayhart (US 2012/0255232) in view of Woodruff (US 1,917,415) and further in view of Wray et al. (US 2018/0266172) (hereinafter Wray)
Regarding claim 9, Gayhart does not explicitly disclose wherein a wheel of the wheel assembly comprises a first material softer than a second material forming the guide rod. Examiner notes, however, that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Additionally, Wray teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding door that features rollers that roll along a track, and wherein the rollers are manufactured from a variety of materials (paragraph [0017], “The rollers can include a material selected from among nylon, plastic, wood and metal”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the door system of Gayhart such that the wheel of the wheel assembly comprises a first material (i.e. nylon or plastic, as taught by Wray) softer than a second material forming the guide rod, since selecting materials in this manner would be logical and obvious for the purpose of Gayhart, and since using wheels/rollers constructed from nylon or plastic, as taught by Wray would also provide improved sound dampening, which would be desirable to various consumers. Further, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the door system of Gayhart such that the wheel of the wheel assembly comprises a first material softer than a second material forming the guide rod, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and the selection of manufacturing materials for a wheel and guide rod would be considered selection from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gayhart (US 2012/0255232) in view of Woodruff (US 1,917,415) and further in view of Burgess, III et al. (US 8,046,872) (hereinafter Burgess)
Regarding claim 10, Gayhart does not explicitly disclose wherein a wheel of the wheel assembly is supported within the carriage by at least one support bearing. Burgess, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a carriage for a sliding door (See Figure 2) that includes a wheel assembly (element 5) and a wheel (considered elements 17 and 18 combined or element 18 alone) supported by at least one support bearing (element 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the wheels of Gayhart such that they include an internal bearing assembly, since bearings are well known in the art for improving the rolling characteristics of wheels and rollers, and since providing a support bearing within the wheel of Gayhart would improve the longevity and reliability of the system. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 11, Gayhart does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one friction-reducing bearing is located between an interior surface of the carriage and an exterior surface of a wheel. Burgess, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a carriage for a sliding door (See Figure 2) that includes a wheel assembly (element 5) and a wheel, and wherein a friction-reducing bearing (considered either of element 17 or element 19) is located between an interior surface of the carriage and an exterior surface of a wheel (Examiner notes that element 19 is a “metal ring” or thrust bearing that functions as a spacer to ensure proper functionality of the wheel. Additionally, the carriage assembly is a complex three-dimensional object and a support bearing (element 17), as taught by Burgess would be configured such that it is positioned between a point on the interior surface of the carriage and a point on an exterior surface of a wheel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “With respect to the rejection utilizing Riggs, the Office states that Riggs teaches a control assembly (electric motor 72) operably connected to the motive assembly and the locking assembly, wherein the control assembly is capable of separately activating the motive effector and the locking effector. However, the electric motor 72 is not capable of activating the locking effector (cam plate 92, cam track 94, cam follower 112, cam pin 114) separately from the motive effector (pinion gear 70, transmission 74)”. Examiner disagrees, and notes that the “motive effector” can be activated without also activating the “locking effector”, since the “locking effector” is not “activated” until the door has reached and end position and the door is locked. In other words, the door cannot be locked at a midpoint of travel, and therefore the “locking effector” cannot be “activated”, but the “motive effector” is necessarily “activated” as the door is in motion.
Regarding the argument “With respect to the rejection utilizing Gayhart, the Office states that Gayhart teaches wherein the locking assembly comprises a locking effector (cam slot 66, cam follower 88) operably connected to a locking bar (vertical lock bar 82) and a control assembly (controller 34) operably connected to the motive assembly and the locking assembly. However, the controller 34 is only connected to the solenoids 180 and 180p (see Gayhart para 0074); the mechanism for controlling cam slot 66, cam follower 88, and vertical lock bar 82 is the drive mechanism 28 for opening and closing movement of door 14”. Examiner disagrees and notes that the controller of Gayhart is not “only connected to the solenoids 180 and 180p”. See paragraphs [0047] “bi-directional effector 30 can have various embodiments such as a hydraulic motor 38, a hydraulic cylinder 40, a pneumatic motor 42, a pneumatic cylinder 44, or an electric motor 190. In one embodiment, as seen in FIGS. 1-6, bi-directional effector 30 is a hydraulic motor 38 and includes an electrically-driven hydraulic pump 48 secured with respect to frame 20”, and [0060] “Controller 34 receives the desired command and controls the movement of door 14 in the proper direction until a desired, predetermined position is achieved”, and [0064] “Controller 34 enables electric motor 46 to drive hydraulic pump 48 in either direction, which in turn drives hydraulic motor 38 one way or the other to open or close door 14”. Examiner notes that the controller of Gayhart is clearly and explicitly “operably connected to the motive assembly and the locking assembly” as claimed. Examiner additionally notes that the term “operably connected” is considered to be extremely broad. Examiner notes that the all elements of the sliding security door system of Gayhart are considered to be “operably connected”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 16, and 19 are 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634