Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
Election/Restriction
The examiner acknowledges that Applicant filed a preliminary amendment a day before the non-final Office action was mailed. However, since the preliminary amendment was filed after the non-final Office action was completed by examiner and scheduled to be mailed, the preliminary amendment was not entered (see MPEP 714.01(e)(IV)).
Newly submitted claims 15-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 15-20 are directed to a process of making (wherein original claim 1 was directed to a product). The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product claims can be made by a process that does not include the overlapping step after the side frame is prepared (or before the side frame is prepared). For example, the overlapping and preparing can be the same step. In addition, the product claims can be made by a process that does not include positioning the side frame at a side end portion of the frame (for example, the side frame can be made as a one-piece with the rest of the frame).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of an informality: “surrounded area” should be changed to “surrounded region” in each of the second to last and fourth to last lines. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 3, 7, and 11-13 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 7 each recite at least one of the first end portion of the first side frame piece and the first end portion of the second side frame piece extend from the surrounded area toward a middle of the frame in the seat width direction, and wherein the second end portion extends from the surrounded area toward a middle of the frame in the seat width direction.
Applicant’s originally filed disclosure teaches two surrounded regions so that a first end portion of at least one side frame piece extends from one surrounded region and a second end portion of one side frame pieces extends from the other surrounded region. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not support a first end portion and a second end portion each extending from the same surrounded region.
Claims 11-13 are rejected for depending from claim 3.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 7 each recite the second end portion in the second to last line. It is unclear which second end portion this is referring to since each side frame piece has a second end portion.
Claims 4, 8, and 11 each recite in a state where the second side frame piece is disposed closer … . The word “state” is confusing as it makes it sound like the side frame pieces can move relative to each other. The examiner suggests changing “in a state” to “in a location”.
Claims 4, 8, and 11 also recite the end portion of the second end portion. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the end portion”.
Claims 5, 9, 12, and 14 each recite the connecting frame partially overlaps one side frame pieces as one of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece of the side frame in the seat width direction. This limitation is awkwardly written so as to be confusing. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret this limitation as: “the connecting frame partially overlaps one of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece of the side frame in the seat width direction”.
Claims 6, 10, and 13 each recite a seat back frame. In light of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear if the seat back frame is referring to the frame introduced in claim 1. If not, what is the difference between the frame and seat back frame?
Claim 11 recites a first end portion, a second end portion, and a direction in lines 2-3. It is unclear if these are referring to the first end portion, the second end portion, and the direction introduced in claim 3.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2015/0283970 (“Line”) in view of USPGPub No. 2017/0341554 (“Mizobata”).
Claim 1 recites a conveyance seat (10) (figs. 1-2, para. [0028]), comprising: a frame (212) (figs. 6 & 13, para. [0034]), wherein the frame comprises a side frame (216 or 220) that is positioned at a side end of the frame, extends in a predetermined direction (fig. 6, para. [0034]), and has a first side frame piece and a second side frame piece … overlapping each other in a direction of extension of the side frame, wherein the side frame has an overlapping part where the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece overlap each other, wherein, at the overlapping part, the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece overlap each other in a state where a surrounded region surrounded by the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece are formed in a cross section of the overlapping part intersecting with the direction of extension (see figure 13 which illustrates first and second side frame pieces that form two surrounded/closed regions in cross section).
Line fails to explicitly teach the first and second side frame pieces only partially overlapping each other in a direction of extension of the side frame. However, this would have also been obvious in view of Mizobata.
Mizobata is also directed to a vehicle seat having a frame with a cushion thereon (fig. 1, para. [0002]). Similarly to Line, Mizobata teaches that the frame has side frames connected by a top connecting frame (fig. 1, para. [0016]). Mizobata teaches the side frame 11 being partially hollow so that the frame comprises a right/first portion 11a and a left/second portion 11b (figs. 2-3). As illustrated in figure 2 of Mizobata, the inner side 11b does not extend as high as the outer side 11a so that the outer side 11a can be connected to the top connecting frame (i.e. the first and second portions only partially overlap in the direction of extension).
In this case, each of Line and Mizobata are directed to a vehicle seat having a frame, wherein the frame has side frames connected by a top connecting frame. While Line is silent as to how much the first and second side frame pieces overlap each other in the direction of extension, Mizobata teaches one of skill in the art that it is known and predictable to adequately secure a side frame to an upper connecting frame via an outer side frame portion so that the inner side frame portion does not extend as high as the outer side frame portion. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Line so that the outer side frame piece extends higher than the second side frame in order to connect to the top connecting frame.
Claim 1 also recites the overlapping part includes a rear overlapping part formed on a rear surface side of the side frame and a front overlapping part formed in front of the rear overlapping part, the side frame includes a rear contact portion in the rear overlapping part at which the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece are in contact with each other, and a front contact portion in the front overlapping part at which the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece are in contact with each other, wherein the rear contact portion and the front contact portion respectively extend in a direction intersecting with a front to back direction of the conveyance seat in the cross section of the overlapping part intersecting with the direction of extension, and wherein a width of the rear contact portion in the direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat is greater than a width of the front contact portion in the direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat. As illustrated in annotated figure 13, below, the first and second side frame pieces have a rear overlapping part with a rear contact portion behind the surrounded region, and a front overlapping part with a front contact portion in front of the rear overlapping part and the surrounded region.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated above, each of the rear and front contact portions extend at least partially in the direction since the contact portions extend obliquely to the illustrated direction. As further illustrated, the width of the rear contact portion along the illustrated direction (which intersects the front to back direction of the seat) is greater than a width of the front contact portion since the front contact portion extends entirely along a seat width direction while the rear contact portion partially extends parallel to the illustrated direction.
Claim 2 recites a length of a rear end of the surrounded region is longer than a length of a front end of the surrounded region in a seat width direction. As illustrated in figure 13 of Line, the front of the rear surrounded region narrows so that the front end has a length less than a length of the rear end of the rear surrounded region with respect to the seat width direction.
Claims 4 and 8 each recite each of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece has a first end portion and a second end portion in a direction intersecting each of the extension direction and a seat width direction, wherein the second side frame piece overlaps the first side frame piece in a state where the second side frame piece is disposed closer to a middle of the frame than the first side frame piece in the seat width direction, and wherein the end portion of the second end portion of the second side frame piece is provided with a rear flange portion extending forward in the front to back direction of the conveyance seat toward the first end portion of the second side frame piece. As illustrated in figure 13 of Line, each of the first and second side frame pieces have first and second ends in the front to back direction. As further illustrated below, the second end portion of the second side frame piece has a rear flange portion extending forward toward the first ends portions.
PNG
media_image2.png
721
1093
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This flange portion is also disposed closer to the middle of the seat with respect to the first side frame piece and overlaps the first side frame in the seat width direction.
Claims 5 and 9 each recite each of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece has a first end portion and a second end portion in a direction intersecting each of the extension direction and a seat width direction. As illustrated in figure 13 of Line, each of the first and second side frame pieces have first and second ends in the front to back direction. Line further teaches the frame has a pair of the side frames (216 & 220) separated from each other in the seat width direction and a connecting frame (224) interconnecting the side frames in the seat width direction (fig. 6, para. [0034]).
Claims 5 and 9 further recite the connecting frame partially overlaps one side frame pieces as one of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece of the side frame in the seat width direction, and wherein the connecting frame overlaps both the first end portion and the second end portion of the one of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece of the side frame. As illustrated in fig. 6 of Line, the first and second ends (in the front/back direction) of the first or second side frame piece wrap around sides of the connecting frame 224. Thus, the connecting frame 224 overlaps both the first and second ends in the seat width direction.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Line teaches a seat back (as illustrated in figs. 1-4, paras. [0028]-[0030]), a seat cushion (88) and a headrest (130) (paras. [0028], [0030] & [0033]), wherein a seat back frame (212) is disposed inside the seatback (fig. 6, para. [0034]), wherein the seat back has a pad material (204) disposed in front of the seat back frame (fig. 13, para. [0033]), wherein the pad material is covered with a skin material (208) (fig. 13, para. [0033]), and wherein the seat back frame has a pair of the side frames (216 & 220) separated from each other in a seat width direction and a connecting frame (224) interconnecting the side frames in the seat width direction (fig. 6, para. [0034]).
Claim 14 recites limitations found in claim 5. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 5, above.
Alternatively, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Line in view of Mizobata.
As detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above, Line in view of Mizobata teach all the limitations. Assuming arguendo, that “a direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat” is interpreted as the width direction of the seat, Line et al. fail to explicitly teach a width of the rear contact portion in the direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat is greater than a width of the front contact portion in the direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, the lengths (with respect to the width direction) of the front and rear contact portions appear to be relatively close to each other (it is unclear which one is larger or if they are the same). Merely increasing the contact width of the rear contact portion, and/or decreasing the contact width of the front contact portion, would not make the seat of Line perform any differently. Thus, this limitation does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from Line et al.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 14 are rejected for the same reasons detailed in the previous rejections of these claims above.
Alternatively, claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Line in view of Mizobata.
Claims 5 and 9 each recite each of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece has a first end portion and a second end portion in a direction intersecting each of the extension direction and a seat width direction. As illustrated in figure 13 of Line, each of the first and second side frame pieces have first and second ends in the front to back direction. Line further teaches the frame has a pair of the side frames (216 & 220) separated from each other in the seat width direction and a connecting frame (224) interconnecting the side frames in the seat width direction (fig. 6, para. [0034]).
Assuming arguendo that Line fails to explicitly teach the connecting frame partially overlaps one side frame pieces as one of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece of the side frame in the seat width direction, and wherein the connecting frame overlaps both the first end portion and the second end portion of the one of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece of the side frame, this would be obvious in view of Mizobata.
Mizobata is also directed to a seat back frame having a right side frame 11, a left side frame 12, and an upper frame 13 connecting the two (figs. 1 & 2). The upper frame is placed over the upper ends of the left and right frames 11 & 12 so that the connecting frame 13 overlaps with both the front and rear wall of the frame (figs. 1-2, para. [0037]).
In this case, both Mizobata and Line teach a seat back frame having a right side frame, a left side frame, and a connecting frame connecting the two. Mizobata teaches a predictable way to attach the connecting frame, i.e. sliding the connecting frame over the upper ends of the two side frames so that the connecting frame overlaps both a front and rear wall of the side frames. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Line so that the connecting frame connects to the side frames by being slid over the upper end of at least one of the side frames so that the connecting frame overlaps both a front and rear wall of the side frame.
Claim 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2015/0321614 (“the ‘614 reference”) in view of USPGPub No. 2012/0306250 (“the “250 reference”).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘614 reference teaches a conveyance seat (10) (figs. 1-2, para. [0024]-[0026]), comprising: a frame (150) (figs. 3 & 10, para. [0034]), wherein the frame comprises a side frame (154 or 158) that is positioned at a side end of the frame, extends in a predetermined direction (fig. 3, para. [0028]), and has a first side frame piece and a second side frame piece … overlapping each other in a direction of extension of the side frame, wherein the side frame has an overlapping part where the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece overlap each other, wherein, at the overlapping part, the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece overlap each other in a state where a surrounded region surrounded by the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece are formed in a cross section of the overlapping part intersecting with the direction of extension (see figure 10 which illustrates first and second side frame pieces that form two surrounded/closed regions in cross section).
The ‘614 reference fails to explicitly teach the first and second side frame pieces only partially overlapping each other in a direction of extension of the side frame. However, this would have also been obvious in view of the ‘250 reference.
The ‘250 reference is also directed to a vehicle seat having a frame with a cushion thereon, wherein the frame is very similar in structure to that of the ‘614 reference (fig. 4-5 & 8D). The ‘250 reference teaches the side frames having the a similar structure to that of the outer side frame piece of the ‘614 reference (see figs. 4-5 & 8D). The ‘250 reference teaches that this side frame piece can attach to the connecting frame as illustrated in figs. 5-7, including two attachment flanges 64 & 66 extending in the seat width direction.
In this case, each of the ‘614 reference and the ‘250 reference are directed to similar vehicle seats having a similar frame, wherein the side frame of the ‘250 reference is nearly identical to the outer side frame piece of the ‘614 reference. While the ‘614 reference is silent as to how much the first and second side frame pieces overlap each other in the direction of extension, the ‘250 reference teaches one of skill in the art that it is known and predictable to adequately secure the outer side frame piece of the ‘614 reference an upper connecting frame as taught above. Thus, it would be obvious to modify the ‘614 reference so that the outer side frame piece extends higher than the inner side frame in order to connect the side frames to the top connecting frame.
Claim 1 also recites the overlapping part includes a rear overlapping part formed on a rear surface side of the side frame and a front overlapping part formed in front of the rear overlapping part, the side frame includes a rear contact portion in the rear overlapping part at which the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece are in contact with each other, and a front contact portion in the front overlapping part at which the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece are in contact with each other, wherein the rear contact portion and the front contact portion respectively extend in a direction intersecting with a front to back direction of the conveyance seat in the cross section of the overlapping part intersecting with the direction of extension, and wherein a width of the rear contact portion in the direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat is greater than a width of the front contact portion in the direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat. As illustrated in annotated figure 10, below, the first and second side frame pieces have a rear overlapping part with a rear contact portion behind the surrounded region, and a front overlapping part with a front contact portion in front of the rear overlapping part and the surrounded region.
PNG
media_image3.png
538
987
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As illustrated above, each of the rear and front contact portions extend at least partially in the direction since the contact portions extend obliquely to the illustrated direction. As further illustrated, the width of the rear contact portion along the illustrated direction (which intersects the front to back direction of the seat) is greater than a width of the front contact portion since the front contact portion extends entirely along a seat width direction while the rear contact portion partially extends parallel to the illustrated direction.
Assuming arguendo, that “a direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat” is interpreted as the width direction of the seat, the ‘614 reference fails to explicitly teach a width of the rear contact portion in the direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat is greater than a width of the front contact portion in the direction intersecting with the front to back direction of the conveyance seat. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, the lengths (with respect to the width direction) of the front and rear contact portions appear to be relatively close to each other (it is unclear which one is larger or if they are the same). Merely increasing the contact width of the rear contact portion, and/or decreasing the contact width of the front contact portion, would not make the seat of the ‘614 reference perform any differently. Thus, this limitation does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the ‘614 reference et al.
Claim 2 recites a length of a rear end of the surrounded region is longer than a length of a front end of the surrounded region in a seat width direction. As illustrated in figure 10 of the ‘614 reference, the front of the rear surrounded region narrows so that the front end has a length less than a length of the rear end of the rear surrounded region with respect to the seat width direction.
Claims 4 and 8 each recite each of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece has a first end portion and a second end portion in a direction intersecting each of the extension direction and a seat width direction, wherein the second side frame piece overlaps the first side frame piece in a state where the second side frame piece is disposed closer to a middle of the frame than the first side frame piece in the seat width direction, and wherein the end portion of the second end portion of the second side frame piece is provided with a rear flange portion extending forward in the front to back direction of the conveyance seat toward the first end portion of the second side frame piece. As illustrated in figure 10 of the ‘614 reference, each of the first and second side frame pieces have first and second ends in the front to back direction. In addition, the second end portion of the outer/second side frame piece has a rear flange portion extending forward toward the first ends portions. This flange portion is also disposed closer to the middle of the seat with respect to the first side frame piece and overlaps the first side frame in the seat width direction.
Claims 5 and 9 each recite each of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece has a first end portion and a second end portion in a direction intersecting each of the extension direction and a seat width direction. As illustrated in figure 10 of the ‘614 reference, each of the first and second side frame pieces have first and second ends in the front to back direction. The ‘614 reference further teaches the frame has a pair of the side frames (154 & 158) separated from each other in the seat width direction and a connecting frame (162) interconnecting the side frames in the seat width direction (fig. 3, para. [0028]).
Claims 5 and 9 further recite the connecting frame partially overlaps one side frame pieces as one of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece of the side frame in the seat width direction, and wherein the connecting frame overlaps both the first end portion and the second end portion of the one of the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece of the side frame. As illustrated in figs. 4-7 of the ‘250 reference, the first and second ends (in the front/back direction) of the first or second side frame piece wrap around sides of the connecting frame (see also para. [0032] of the ‘250 reference). Thus, the connecting frame overlaps both the first and second ends in the seat width direction.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the ‘614 reference teaches a seat back (as illustrated in figs. 1-3, paras. [0024]-[0027]), a seat cushion (64) and a headrest (102) (paras. [0026] & [0028]), wherein a seat back frame (150) is disposed inside the seatback (fig. 3, para. [0028]), wherein the seat back has a pad material disposed in front of the seat back frame, wherein the pad material is covered with a skin material (110) (fig. 10, para. [0033], wherein element 110 illustrates a padding material covered by a skin material), and wherein the seat back frame has a pair of the side frames (154 & 158) separated from each other in a seat width direction and a connecting frame (162) interconnecting the side frames in the seat width direction (fig. 3, para. [0028]).
Claim 14 recites limitations found in claim 5. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 5, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 3, 2025 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the interpretation of Line used in the previous Office action. However, as detailed above, different interpretations of Line are used.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Sunil Singh (571-272-3460). 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”