DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the December 15, 2025.
Status of claims: claim 7 is cancelled; claims 1-6 and 8-21 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: “the leaf extends at its underside in sections below the uppermost point of the running rail,” recited in claim 4, isn’t illustrated in the figures. Also, why aren’t the first and second projections recited in the claims illustrated in FIGS. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b?
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 8-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18941497 in view of US 10077594 to Fingerle.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18941497 claims a door, wherein the door comprises: a) a sill with a running rail; b) a leaf configured to be displaced in parallel with the running rail; c) a carriage via which the leaf is supported downward on the running rail; wherein the carriage comprises a roller part with a running roller rolling on the running rail and a control cam running at least in sections at an angle to the main plane of the leaf, wherein the roller part is designed to be movable transversely to the main plane of the leaf; and the leaf comprises a driving bar with a control pin which is arranged or formed on the driving bar and protrudes into the control cam wherein a movement of the driving bar in the direction of its longitudinal axis causes a movement of the roller part transverse to the main plane of the leaf in order to move the leaf transversely to the running rail.
Application No. 18941497 fails to claim wherein the sill comprises recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm, wherein the recesses at their upmost point are delimited by jump lines extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein the jump lines lie in a virtual plane that is horizontally disposed.
However, Fingerle teaches of recesses at their uppermost point are delimited by jump lines extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein the jump lines lie in a virtual plane that is horizontally disposed. (see annotated FIG. 10 under the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 below)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Application No. 18941497 to claim the recesses at their uppermost point are delimited by jump lines extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein the jump lines lie in a virtual plane that is horizontally disposed, as taught by Fingerle, for aesthetic reasons, to facilitate assembly of the door as well as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10077594 to Fingerle.
Fingerle discloses a door, wherein the door comprises:
a) a sill 52 with a running rail; (see FIG. 10)
b) a leaf 50 configured to be displaced in parallel with the running rail;
c) a carriage 12 on a which the leaf is supported downward on the running rail; wherein the carriage comprises a roller part with a running roller 25,26 rolling on the running rail and a control cam 10 (see FIGS. 2,7) running at least in sections at an angle to a main plane of the leaf, wherein the roller part is designed to be movable transversely to the main plane of the leaf; (see FIG. 2)
and the leaf comprises a driving bar 2 with a control pin 9 which is arranged or formed on the driving bar and protrudes into the control cam wherein a movement of the driving bar in the direction of its longitudinal axis causes a movement of the roller part transverse to the main plane of the leaf in order to move the leaf transversely to the running rail; (see FIG. 2)
wherein the sill comprises recesses on the upper side, (see annotated FIG. 10 below)
wherein the recesses at their uppermost point are delimited by jump lines extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein the jump lines lie in a virtual plane that is horizontally disposed. (see annotated FIG. 10 below)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the sill comprises recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 1)
[AltContent: textbox (Uppermost points of the recesses – claim 1)][AltContent: textbox (Leaf recess – claim 2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recesses – claim 1)][AltContent: textbox (Sections of the underside of the leaf)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Virtual plane)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
492
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
108
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fingerle further discloses where the leaf at its underside dips in sections into a leaf recess of the sill wherein the leaf extends in sections below the upper side of the sill. (see annotated FIG. 10 above) (claim 2)
Fingerle further discloses wherein the leaf recess and/or the leaf comprises a sealing strip 55 which extends in parallel with the running rail and via which the leaf in its closed position in the leaf recess bears against the sill in a sealing manner. (see FIG. 10 above) (claim 3)
Fingerle further discloses wherein the leaf comprises an extension part extending down. (see one of the “sections of the underside of the lead” annotated in FIG. 10 above) (claim 6)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fingerle, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 11098513 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”)
Fingerle further discloses wherein the leaf extends at its underside in sections near the uppermost point of the running rail, but fails to disclose the leaf extends at its underside in sections below the uppermost point of the running rail.
Liu teaches the leaf 11 extends at its underside in sections below the uppermost point of the running rail. (see annotated Fig. 5 below)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Running rail)][AltContent: textbox (Sections of underside)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
430
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the Fingerle leaf sections below the uppermost point of the running rail, as taught by Liu, in order to minimize dirt and debris from passing under the leaf and to minimize drafts and unwanted airflow below the leaf. (claim 4)
Fingerle fails to disclose the running rail is formed on a pivotable rail.
Liu teaches of the running rail that is formed on a pivotable rail. (see FIG. 5 above of Liu. Note the running rail is attached to a larger body rail, wherein the larger body rail is detachable and pivotable about element 21.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the running rail disclosed in Fingerle with the running rail taught in Liu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with assembly of the door, particularly with placement of the leaf on the sill as well as to assist with maintenance of the sill since if an issue with the running rail were to arise, only the running rail and the entire sill would require replacement. (claim 5)
Claims 8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015010925 to Fingerle, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of CN 20150595052.
Fingerle further discloses wherein the sill comprises a first guide groove extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein a first projection 13 of the carriage into the first guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the first projection on the side wall of the first guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to an extension of the running rail. (see annotated FIG. 10 below)
Fingerle fails to disclose the first projection extends down beyond the runner roller.
CN 20150595052 teaches of several projections 162, including a first projection 162, that extends down beyond a running rail 342. (see FIGS. 1 and 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the Fingerle first projection with the projections that extends down beyond the runner rail as taught in CN 20150595052 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further secure the leaf along the running rail since extending the projection beyond the runner roller would increase contact between the first projection and running rail and sill. (claim 8)
PNG
media_image4.png
414
616
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the roller part comprises a second projection which extends down beyond the running roller into the first guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the second projection on a side wall of the first guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail. (see FIGS. 1 and 2 of CN 20150595052) (claim 11)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first projection and the second projection are formed identically. (claim 12)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sill comprises a second guide groove extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein the running rail is arranged or formed between the first guide groove and the second guide groove when viewed horizontally, and wherein a further projection 162 of the carriage (see FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052 and FIG. 10 above) extends down beyond the running roller into the second guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the further projection on the side wall of the second guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail. (claim 13)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first projection and the further projection are formed identically. (claim 14)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sill comprises a first guide groove extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein a first projection of the carriage extends down beyond the running roller into the first guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the first projection on the side wall of the first guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail, wherein the roller part comprises an attachment 164 with the first projection, which is fastened to a roller part body 146, (see FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052) and wherein the attachment is formed mirror-symmetrically to a virtual plane extending vertically and in the longitudinal direction of the running rail in the middle of the running rail. (claim 15)
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fingerle, as applied to claim 1 above.
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 16)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 17)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 18)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 19)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 20)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 21)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the applicant’s response filed 12/15/2025, the applicant claims to have filed replacement figures. No replacement figures were received. Therefore, the prior drawing objections remain.
On page 7 of the applicant’s response filed 12/15/2025, the applicant notes, but fails to contest, the double patenting rejection. Thus, for at least this reason the double patenting rejection remains.
Applicant’s response filed 12/15/2025 with regard to the amendments to claim 1 and the cited prior art is moot on new grounds of rejection.
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 communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8-5 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634