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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-13 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.
Amended claim 1 recites the BF solar panels “move from a first tilt position to a second tilt position at a predefined afternoon time to thereby increase an incident angle of sunlight on the BF solar panels, and to move from the second tilt position to the first tilt position at a predefined morning time to thereby increase an incident angle of sunlight on the BF solar panels” and in claim 5 that the “predefined morning time is dawn” and “the predefined afternoon time is selected as a time when energy conversion of sunlight incident upon a substantially western facing surface of the BF solar panels in the second tilt position is determined to exceed energy conversion of sunlight incident upon a substantially eastern facing surface of the BF solar panels in the first tilt position.” Applicant has not provided a statement as to where support can be found for the amendment and has only stated the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) rejection has been addressed by the amendment.
First of all, it is noted that “dawn” is an ambiguous time depending on the season and time of the year, where sunrise is at a later time during the winter and at an earlier time during the summer, such that nowhere does the claim clarifies whether this constraint is taken into consideration. Looking at the instant specification, the specification has only mentioned in paragraph [0030] anything related to dawn and time of the year as “summertime dawn/dusk.”
Second of all, paragraph [0034] states “the tilt positions (e.g., AM and PM) may be selected based upon calculations of position of the sun and expected maximum energy conversion of sunlight (i.e., optimizing positions for maximum energy over the course of a morning via a first side of a BF panel, and over the course of an afternoon via a second side of the BF panel).” However, it does not state anything regarding a predefined afternoon time or predefined morning time but rather the tilt positions are selected based on calculations of the expected position of the sun, which is irrelevant of the time.
Finally, paragraph [0042] states “[t]he BF solar panels may be positioned in the first tilt position prior to dawn and positioned in the second tilt position at a time when energy conversion of sunlight incident upon the second face of the BF solar panels in the second tilt position is determined to exceed energy conversion of sunlight incident upon the first face of the BF solar panels in the first tilt position,” but there is no mentioning of any predefined times the BF solar panels would be positioned into a first tilt position and a second tilt position.
To summarize, the instant specification has only stated positioning the BF solar panels based on calculations of the position of the sun and expected maximum energy conversion of sunlight at an ambiguous AM and PM time as an example, but not limited to the two positions, as previously stated in the prior Office Action, where the positions are optimized for maximum energy conversion. This means there may be more than one AM position and more than one PM position, as when the sun moves, the maximum energy conversion angle would change, as evidenced by Teruel Hernandez in Figure 4. Applicant appears to be arguing there is only one position for AM and one position for PM, which contradicts the purpose stated in the instant specification in which “maximum energy conversion of sunlight” is desired for the calculated position of the sun. The BF solar panels may be positioned in the first tilt position at the start of the day before dawn, whenever that may be without specifying the time of the year. Nowhere does the instant specification state the BF solar panels specifically move to a second tilt position from a first tilt position at a predefined afternoon time to increase an incident angle of sunlight on the BF solar panels, where the BF solar panels move from the second tilt position to the first tilt position at a predefined time at dawn.
Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Krujatz et al. (DE 102022118730; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Krujatz discloses a tiltable near-vertical bifacial (TNVBF) solar panel assembly (see Figures 1 and 3), comprising:
one or more bifacial (BF) solar panels (3; it is disclosed the solar modules can be bifacial solar panels; [0013]) pivotally attached to a common mount (joint 4) rotatably controlled by a motor (rotary drive; [0025]) so as to cause the BF solar panels to move from a first tilt position to a second tilt position at a predefined afternoon time to thereby increase an incident angle of sunlight on the BF solar panels, and to move from the second tilt position to the first tilt position at a predefined morning time to thereby increase an incident angle of sunlight on the BF solar panels (see Figures 1 and 2) (it is disclosed the PV module rotates from east to west over the course of the day after a certain time window or information conveyed via sensors in order to produce electrical energy as efficiently as possible and that the photovoltaic module is aligned towards the sun for maximum light incidence; [0009] and [0025]).
Regarding claim 5, Krujatz discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the predefined morning time is dawn, and the predefined afternoon time is selected as a time when energy conversion of sunlight incident upon a substantially western facing surface of the BF solar panels in the second tilt position is determined to exceed energy conversion of sunlight incident upon a substantially eastern facing surface of the BF solar panels in the first tilt position (as set forth above, the first surface 3a and the sun-facing side follows the sun’s path, where the photovoltaic module is aligned towards the sun for maximum light incidence, such that the photovoltaic module would move to a first tilt position as described during dawn and another position in the afternoon as recited above).
Regarding claim 6, Krujatz discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the tiltable near-vertical bifacial (TNVBF) solar panel assembly is disposed above a vertical bifacial (VBF) assembly to form thereby a hybrid assembly (see Figure 3, where there are two rows of photovoltaic modules that are independently positioned).
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Teruel Hernandez (EP 4002685).
Regarding claim 1, Teruel Hernandez discloses a tiltable near-vertical bifacial (TNVBF) solar panel assembly (see Figure 1), comprising:
one or more bifacial (BF) solar panels (1) pivotally attached to a common mount (torque tube 2) rotatably controlled by a motor (4) so as to cause the BF solar panels to move from a first tilt position (first position from the left in Figure 4) to a second tilt position (second position from the right in Figure 4) at a predefined afternoon time to thereby increase an incident angle of sunlight on the BF solar panels, and to move from the second tilt position to the first tilt position at a predefined morning time to thereby increase an incident angle of sunlight on the BF solar panels (it is disclosed the rotation can be based on the time of the day in such a way that either face of the bifacial photovoltaic module is facing the sun (abstract), where it can be seen that there is at least a position for sunrise, midday and sunset in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the predefined morning time is dawn, and the predefined afternoon time is selected as a time when energy conversion of sunlight incident upon a substantially western facing surface of the BF solar panels in the second tilt position is determined to exceed energy conversion of sunlight incident upon a substantially eastern facing surface of the BF solar panels in the first tilt position (as set forth above and in Figure 4).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 9, and 12is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Boguess (US 2023/0139726).
Regarding claim 1, Boguess discloses a tiltable near-vertical bifacial (TNVBF) solar panel assembly (see Figure 11F), comprising:
one or more bifacial (BF) solar panels (90; [0104]) pivotally attached to a common mount (12) rotatably controlled by a motor so as to cause the BF solar panels to move from a first tilt position to a second tilt position at a predefined afternoon time to thereby increase an incident angle of sunlight on the BF solar panels, and to move from the second tilt position to the first tilt position at a predefined morning time to thereby increase an incident angle of sunlight on the BF solar panels (it is disclosed the plurality of solar panels are pivotable to adjust the incline by using a motorized actuator that automatically adjust the incline angle based on the time of day; [0093]), wherein the system has east and west facing functionality ([0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Boguess discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the predefined morning time is dawn, and the predefined afternoon time is selected as a time when energy conversion of sunlight incident upon a substantially western facing surface of the BF solar panels in the second tilt position is determined to exceed energy conversion of sunlight incident upon a substantially eastern facing surface of the BF solar panels in the first tilt position (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 8, Boguess discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses at least one reflector (reflective membrane 40) positioned to extend outward from a base region of the BF solar panel at an acute angle with respect to the BF solar panel (see Figures 17A and 17B).
Regarding claim 9, Boguess discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one reflector comprises a reflector having a substantially planar surface (see Figures 17A and 17B).
Regarding claim 12, Boguess discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one reflector is pivotally attached to the same common mount as the one or more BF solar panels (see Figure 17A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teruel Hernandez (EP 4002685) in view of Hegedus (US 2021/0083619).
Regarding claim 3, Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the angle range of the orientation of the solar panel is limited to 120 from the vertical ([0026]), where from noon to sunset, the panel shifts from close to 90 degrees to close to 0 degrees from the vertical and from dawn to noon, the panel shifts from close to -90 degrees to close to 0 degrees from the vertical ([0025]), and that high wind loads are a concern (abstract and [0002]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the first and second tilt positions are approximately 15 degrees from vertical.
Hegedus discloses a tiltable near vertical bifacial panel (100) comprising one or more bifacial (BF) solar panels (101; [0010] and [0025]) pivotally attached to a common mount (torque beam 102) rotatably controlled by a motor (110) so as to cause the BF solar panels to move between a first tilt position and a second tilt position (see Figure 5A; [0040]), wherein the first and second tilt positions are approximately 15 degrees from vertical (as shown in Figure 6, the angle of the tilt position is between 0 and 15 degrees; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected tilt positions approximately 15 degrees from the vertical in the device of Teruel, as taught by Hegedus, so that the panel is resistive to prevailing wind ([0042]) to minimize wind loading during high wind conditions ([0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the angle range of the orientation of the solar panel is limited to 120 from the vertical ([0026]), where from noon to sunset, the panel shifts from close to 90 degrees to close to 0 degrees from the vertical and from dawn to noon, the panel shifts from close to -90 degrees to close to 0 degrees from the vertical ([0025]), and that high wind loads are a concern (abstract and [0002]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the first and second tilt positions are within approximately 25 degrees from vertical.
Hegedus discloses a tiltable near vertical bifacial panel (100) comprising one or more bifacial (BF) solar panels (101; [0010] and [0025]) pivotally attached to a common mount (torque beam 102) rotatably controlled by a motor (110) so as to cause the BF solar panels to move between a first tilt position and a second tilt position (see Figure 5A; [0040]), wherein the first and second tilt positions are approximately 15 degrees from vertical (as shown in Figure 6, the angle of the tilt position is between 0 and 15 degrees; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected tilt positions within approximately 25 degrees from the vertical in the device of Teruel, as taught by Hegedus, so that the panel is resistive to prevailing wind ([0042]) to minimize wind loading during high wind conditions ([0009]).
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teruel Hernandez (EP 4002685) in view of Goetzberger (WO 9605622; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose a pair of reflectors positioned to extend outward from each side of a base region of the BF solar panel at acute angles with bifacial respect to the BF solar panel.
Goetzberger discloses a pivotable vertical bifacial solar panel (7) comprising a pair of reflectors (21 or 23) positioned to extend outward from each side of a base region of the BF solar panel at acute angles with bifacial respect to the BF solar panel (see Figures 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pair of reflectors positioned to extend outward from each side of a base region of the BF solar panel at acute angles with bifacial respect to the BF solar panel in the device of Teruel Hernandez, as taught by Goetzberger, so that the effective surface of the solar panel is enlarged and increases the conversion efficiency ([0038] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 8, Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose at least one reflector positioned to extend outward from a base region of the BF solar panel at an acute angle with respect to the BF solar panel.
Goetzberger discloses a pivotable vertical bifacial solar panel (7) comprising at least one reflector (21 or 23) positioned to extend outward from a base region of the BF solar panel at an acute angle with bifacial respect to the BF solar panel (see Figures 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated at least one reflector positioned to extend outward from a base region of the BF solar panel at an acute angle with respect to the BF solar panel in the device of Teruel Hernandez, as taught by Goetzberger, so that the effective surface of the solar panel is enlarged and increases the conversion efficiency ([0038] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Goetzberger further discloses a reflector having a substantially planar surface (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, modified Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Goetzberger further discloses the at least one reflector comprises a reflector having a substantially concave surface (inner surface is concave; see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, modified Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Goetzberger further discloses the at least one reflector comprises a reflector having a substantially convex surface (outer surface is convex; see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, modified Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Goetzberger further discloses the at least one reflector is pivotally attached to the same common mount as the one or more BF solar panels (see Figures 4 and 5, where the at least one reflector is attached to the bottom of the solar panel, such that it would be the location of the common mount of Teruel).
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teruel Hernandez (EP 4002685) in view of Harp et al. (WO 2021/108636).
Regarding claim 8, Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose at least one reflector positioned to extend outward from a base region of the BF solar panel at an acute angle with respect to the BF solar panel.
Harp discloses a solar tracker system (10) comprising at least one reflector (30) positioned to extend outward from a base region of the BF solar panel at an acute angle with respect to the BF solar panel (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated at least one reflector positioned to extend outward from a base region of the BF solar panel at an acute angle with respect to the BF solar panel in the device of Teruel, as taught by Harp, so the amount of solar energy received by the bottom sides of the BF solar panel can be enhanced and to optimize the amount of power output produced by the bottom photovoltaic sides ([0037]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Teruel Hernandez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Harp discloses the at least one reflector is pivotally attached to a second common mount (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boguess (US 2023/0139726) in view of Yosef (WO 2021/130755).
Regarding claim 3, Boguess discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the first and second tilt positions are approximately 15 degrees from vertical.
Yosef discloses fixed PV arrays in which the tilt angle with respect to zenith varies depending on the latitude in which the panel is installed (see Table 1 on page 10), such that for latitudes 10o to 20 o, the title angle with respect to the zenith is around 15 o. The recommended tilt angle with respect to zenith is selected to provide optimal energy collection throughout a year, where actual recommended tilt angles may vary from Table 1 by a range of 5-10 degrees in each direction (page 9).
Therefore, as Boguess is not limited to any specific examples of tilt positions and as tilt positions being approximately 15 degrees from vertical for solar panel assemblies installed in latitudes around 10o to 20 o were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Yosef above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable tilt position to be fixed for installation, including one that is at an angle approximately 15 degrees from vertical in the device of Boguess for solar panel assemblies installed in latitudes around 10o to 20 o. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 4, Boguess discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the first and second tilt positions are within approximately 25 degrees from vertical.
Yosef discloses fixed PV arrays in which the tilt angle with respect to zenith varies depending on the latitude in which the panel is installed (see Table 1 on page 10), such that for latitudes 25o to 35 o, the title angle with respect to the zenith is around 25 o. The recommended tilt angle with respect to zenith is selected to provide optimal energy collection throughout a year, where actual recommended tilt angles may vary from Table 1 by a range of 5-10 degrees in each direction (page 9).
Therefore, as Boguess is not limited to any specific examples of tilt positions and as tilt positions being approximately 25 degrees from vertical for solar panel assemblies installed in latitudes around 25o to 35 o were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Yosef above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable tilt position to be fixed for installation, including one that is at an angle approximately 25 degrees from vertical in the device of Boguess for solar panel assemblies installed in latitudes around 25o to 35 o. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the drive action in Krujatz is a “solar tracker” which would normally be moving gradually through the day and tracking as close as possible to the sun as it follows its path during the day, where the claimed invention uses a motor to effect a tilt to either of two positions at predefined times during the day.
However, contrary to Applicant’s belief, the claimed invention still does not distinguish from any “solar tracker” because it has only required the solar panels to tilt to either of first and second tilt positions at predefined times during the day, such that Krujatz discloses the PV module rotates from east to west over the course of the day after a certain time window or information conveyed via sensors in order to produce electrical energy as efficiently as possible ([0025]), and there are at least two tilt positions including one in the morning at “dawn” and at least one in the afternoon. The claim does not require only a first tilt position and a second tilt position, where it has already been stated in the previous Office Action that assertion by Applicant is not supported by the instant specification, as set forth below. It is noted once again that any “solar tracking” device would inherently possess the first tilt position and second tilt position as recited in the claim because it has only required a position at a morning time and at an afternoon time, in which any tracking device would have a position at the designated times.
It is noted that while Applicant asserts they do not have a “solar tracker”, the instant specification states in paragraph [0027] that “The TNVBF panel assemblies provide a specific limited motion tilt similar to tracking of the panels during the day so as to achieve better annual energy yield. That is, small but well considered changes in the positioning or angle of TNVBF panels with respect to the sun at different portions of the day are provided so as to improve energy yield of the TNVBF solar arrays. These small angle variations allow improved energy yield without additional compromising farming equipment access”, which appears to recite a “solar tracker” that moves along with the sun throughout the day. Additionally, Figure 6 even states the invention to be a “hybrid fixed and tracking” type. Paragraph [0029] further states “a motorized tracking program that can be added to enhance the sunlight capture during these midday time periods while still keep the main VBF advantages”. The instant specification goes on to state in paragraph [0034] that “the tilt positions (e.g., AM and PM) may be selected based upon calculations of position of the sun and expected maximum energy conversion of sunlight.” Further, paragraph [0037] states “the amount of tilt may be defined in terms of several tilt positions; namely, AM and PM (optionally, protection or storm storage position), such as described herein with respect to the various figures. However, in various other embodiments, the amount of tilt may be defined in terms of multiple tilt positions or by specific angles and the like”, such that it appears there are more than two tilt positions that Applicant asserts the invention to have.
Additionally, as set forth above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, Applicant does not possess a claimed invention that tilts to either of two positions at respective first and second predefined times during the day as asserted. Further, generally speaking, all tracking devices would tilt the solar panel to two positions at “predefined times during the day” with one being a morning position and the other being an afternoon position in order to follow the sun for maximum exposure, which is an inherent feature as repeatedly explained to Applicant.
Applicant’s further argument that Krujatz has a different purpose because it does not state using the solar tracker in agricultural land was not found to be persuasive because it is not directed to the invention as claimed. Additionally, it is merely intended use, which does not have patentable weight unless it imparts difference in structure to the claimed invention, which Applicant has not demonstrated nor provided any evidence.
Applicant argues that Teruel Hernandez fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention based on the same reasoning as Krujatz that it discloses solar panels that follow the sun.
However, as stated above, Teruel Hernandez teaches the claimed invention because the claimed invention does not differentiate from what Applicant is arguing to be the novelty.
Applicant further argues Boguess does not disclose or suggest one or more bifacial solar panels as claimed.
However, Boguess clearly discloses a bifacial solar panel pivotally attached to a common mount as recited. Applicant has not pointed to Boguess at all with any citations with respect to the arguments directed at Boguess, such that they are unpersuasive without any reasoning provided.
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
