The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 5/15/2026 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 12-13, 16, 19-20 have been amended, claims 1-11, 22 have been canceled and new claims 23-32 have been added. Accordingly, claims 12-21, 23-32 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to amended claim(s) 12 have been fully considered. Claim 12 still recites “…shield the person…” which is incorrect and should instead be “…shield the floor…” (see applicant’s published disclosure, pars [0066, 0067]). Newly added independent claim 23 is different in scope than independent claim 12 and, as such, is rejected over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1). See rejections below for further analysis of the claims.
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 12-21, 23-32 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 12 and newly added claim 23 each recite “A walkable power transmitter, comprising…a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate and configured to shield the person from the at least a portion of the electromagnetic field.” There is no written description support for the walkable power transmitter’s shielding material to be configured to shield the person from at least a portion of the electromagnetic field. As stated in the previous office action, Applicant’s fig.11B and Applicant’s published spec, pars [0066-0068, 0136, 0138] state that “…the walkable power transmitter comprises a shielding material mounted at the carrier substrate, the shield material being configured to shield the floor from the transmitter and vice versa.” That is, the shielding material of the walkable power transmitter is configured to shield the floor from the transmitter and not the person as is currently presented in claims 12 and 23. The claim language’s “to shield the person” appears to be alluding to the shielding material (106.b) of the wearable wireless receiver shown in fig.11a (see pg-pub, par [0119]).
Claims 13-21, and 24-32 depend on claims 12 and 23, respectively, and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claims 12 and 23.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-21, 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 12 and 23 each recite “a walkable power transmitter comprising … a carrier substrate configured to adapt to a surface of a floor… a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate and configured to shield the person from at least a portion of the electromagnetic field.” It is unclear how a shielding material mounted on a carrier substrate adapted to a surface of a floor would be configured to shield the person. That is, for the shielding material to have such a configuration of shielding a person, it would have to be on a carrier substate of a wearable wireless receiver (see applicant’s pg-pub, pars [0038, 0119]), not of the walkable power transmitter. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood, namely that the shielding material is configured to shield the floor from at least a portion of the electromagnetic field, which is supported in applicant’s pg-pub, pars [0066, 0067, 0138].
Claim 31 recites “the at least one transmitter coil comprises a central coil and an array of coils, wherein the central coil is connected to the power source and the array of coils.” This implementation of the transmitter coil corresponds to applicant’s Fig.12A which is distinct and different from independent claim 23’s transmitter coil implementation corresponding to Applicant’s Fig.12G. It is unclear how the transmitter coil structure of claim 31 would be implemented in claim 23’s transmitter coil structure which has two different winding sections joined by a segment and creating two charging hotspots. It appears that claim 31 is a different embodiment of a transmitter coil that is incongruent with the transmitter coil embodiment of claim 23. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 13-21 depend on claim 12 and claims 24-30, 32 depend on claim 23 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claims 12 and 23, respectively.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 29 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 16, 29 each recite “…to generate an electromagnetic filed distribution…” This should instead be “electromagnetic field distribution”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites “the main plane”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 23-26, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1).
Regarding Claim 23,
Wu (figs.4, 8, 9) teaches a walkable power transmitter comprising:
a power source (440, par [20]);
a mat (410) configured to adapt to a surface of a floor that is walkable by a person (figs.4, 9, pars [20, 23] and related discussion; 410 is adapted to a surface of a floor…);
an electrically conductive material forming at least one transmitter coil (420, see figs.4, 9 pars [20, 23] and related discussion; see the electrically conductive material making up transmitter coil 420) configured to transmit an electromagnetic field for power at least one of a first wearable electronic device (abstract, pars [20, 23, 32] and related discussion; wearable electronic device read on by 1000 and/or 1000, 101. Note: the wearable electronic device is outside of the scope of the claim’s “walkable power transmitter”) or a second wearable electronic device (written in the alternative-not required to be read into the claim).
Wu does not explicitly disclose a carrier substrate, the electrically conductive material forming the at least one transmitter coil mounted on the carrier substrate, and a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate.
Riehl (figs.1-2, 4), however, teaches a carrier substrate (405, par [38] carrier substrate read on by “circuit board”), the electrically conductive material forming the at least one transmitter coil (230, pars [27, 38]) mounted on the carrier substrate (see fig.4, pars [27, 38]; 230 mounted on the top surface of 405), and a shielding material (440; par [38]; ferromagnetic shield) mounted on the carrier substrate (par [38]; 440 mounted on the opposite side of the substrate 405).
In the combination, Wu’s floor mat integrated with a transmitter coil would be modified to further include a carrier substrate on which the transmitter coil is mounted on the top surface of the substrate facing the person and a shielding material mounted on the bottom surface of the carrier substrate nearer to the surface of the floor and configured to shield the floor from at least a portion of the electromagnetic field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Wu to that of Riehl. The motivation would have been because the carrier substrate keeps the coil precisely positioned and prevents movement, which helps in maintaining consistent coupling with the receiver. The motivation for having a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate nearer to the surface of the floor is to reduce at least a portion of electromagnetic interference with other components below the substrate and to concentrate magnetic field near the transmitter coil. It is further noted that having the shielding material nearer to the surface of the floor shields components including the floor from magnetic field produced by the transmitter coil.
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one transmitter coil comprises a first winding section configured to generate a first charging hotspot, a second winding section configured to generate a second charging hotspot, and a segment joining the first winding section and the second winding section, wherein the first charging hotspot and the second charging hotspot are configured to generate two sections of electromagnetic field to at least one of a first electronic device.
Maniktala (figs.4, 9), however teaches it is known in the art for a transmitter coil to comprise a first winding section (403, pars [32-33]) configured to generate a first charging hotspot (pars [32-33]; current flowing through first winding section 403 generates a magnetic field represented by 423 and thus generates a “first charging hotspot” sufficient for charging a receiver positioned above it), a second winding section (405, pars [32-33]) configured to generate a second charging hotspot (pars [32-33] and related discussion; current flowing through second winding section 405 generates a magnetic field represented by 427 and thus generates a “second charging hotspot” sufficient for charging a receiver positioned above it), and a segment (item 407) joining the first winding section (403) and the second winding section (405), wherein the first charging hotspot and the second charging hotspot are configured to generate two sections of electromagnetic field (see figs.4, 9; first electromagnetic field section generated via 403 and a second electromagnetic field section generated via 405) to at least one of a first electronic device (see figs. 4, 9, par [61]; both sections are “configured to” generate a field for use by at least one “electronic device”).
Therefore, in the combination, Wu’s transmitter coil is modified to have a first winding section, a second winding section, and a segment that joins both winding sections in order to generate two sections of electromagnetic fields to the atleast one of the first wearable electronic device in modified Wu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination’s transmitter coil to have a first winding section, a second winding section, and a segment joining both winding sections as discussed within Maniktala. The motivation would have been to provide a larger effective charging area over which wireless power transfer can occur.
Alternatively, Riehl (figs.1-2, 4) teaches a power transmitter comprising: a power source (par [26]); a carrier substrate (405) configured to adapt to a surface (see figs.1, 4; pars [25-27, 38]; the substrate 405 is configured to adapt to a surface where casing 105 of the transmitter is located); an electrically conductive material mounted on the carrier substrate (405) and forming the at least one transmitter coil (230, see fig.4, pars [27, 38]; conductive material forming transmitter coil 230 mounted on the top surface of 405), configured to transmit an electromagnetic field for powering at least one of a first electronic device (110, pars [25, 27]); and a shielding material (440; par [38]; ferromagnetic shield) mounted on the carrier substrate (par [38]; 440 mounted on the opposite side of the substrate 405) that is nearer to the surface (see figs.1, 4; the shielding material 440 is on the bottom surface of the circuit board making it nearer to the surface in comparison to the transmitter coil 230 on the top surface of the circuit board) and configured to shield the surface from at least a portion of the electromagnetic field (par [38]; the shielding material 440 is configured to/capable of shielding the surface below the substrate 405 from at least a portion of the electromagnetic field).
Riehl does not explicitly disclose a power transmitter adapted to a surface of a floor that is walkable by a person, and the at least one electronic device is a wearable device.
Wu (figs.4, 9), however, teaches a power transmitter adapted to a surface of a floor that is walkable by a person (figs.4, 9, pars [20, 23] and related discussion; the wireless power transmitter 420 is adapted to a surface of a floor), and the at least one electronic device is a wearable device (abstract, pars [20, 23, 32] and related discussion; wearable electronic device read on by 1000 and/or 1000, 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Riehl’s wireless power transmitter to that of Wu so that Riehl’s wireless power transmitter is adapted to a surface of a floor, with the shielding material being nearer to the surface of the floor and configured to shield the floor from at least a portion of the electromagnetic field and for the electronic device to be a wearable electronic device. The motivation would have been to implement Riehl’s wireless power transmitter in a floor mat application for wireless charging of a virtual reality host system as discussed within Wu further noting that the location of the shielding material being nearer to the surface of the floor would configure the shielding material to shield components below the substrate including the floor from magnetic field produced by the transmitter coil.
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one transmitter coil comprises a first winding section configured to generate a first charging hotspot, a second winding section configured to generate a second charging hotspot, and a segment joining the first winding section and the second winding section, wherein the first charging hotspot and the second charging hotspot are configured to generate two sections of electromagnetic field to at least one of a first electronic device.
Maniktala (figs.4, 8-9), however teaches it is known in the art for a transmitter coil to comprise a first winding section (403, pars [32-33]) configured to generate a first charging hotspot (pars [32-33]; current flowing through first winding section 403 generates a magnetic field represented by 423 and thus generates a “first charging hotspot” sufficient for charging a receiver positioned above it), a second winding section (405, pars [32-33]) configured to generate a second charging hotspot (pars [32-33] and related discussion; current flowing through second winding section 405 generates a magnetic field represented by 427 and thus generates a “second charging hotspot” sufficient for charging a receiver positioned above it), and a segment (item 407) joining the first winding section (403) and the second winding section (405), wherein the first charging hotspot and the second charging hotspot are configured to generate two sections of electromagnetic field (see figs.4, 8-9; first electromagnetic field section generated via 403 and a second electromagnetic field section generated via 405) to at least one of a first electronic device (see figs. 4, 9; par [61]; both sections are “configured to” generate a field for use by at least one “electronic device”).
Therefore, in the combination, the transmitter coil is modified to have a first winding section, a second winding section, and a segment that joins both winding sections in order to be “configured to” generate two sections of electromagnetic field to atleast one of the first wearable electronic device in the combination of references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Maniktala. The motivation would have been to provide a larger effective charging area over which wireless power transfer can occur.
Regarding Claim 24,
Wu in view of Riehl, and Maniktala or Riehl in view of Wu and Maniktala teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23 and further teaches wherein the shielding material is further configured to shield the surface and the walkable power transmitter from each other (Wu, fig.9, pars [20, 23], Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38], Maniktala, see rejection of claim 23; in the combination, Wu’s mat 410 including transmitter 420 on the surface of the floor is modified, as taught by Riehl, so that the transmitter coil is on the top surface of the substrate facing the person and the shielding material is on the bottom surface of the substrate nearer to the surface of the floor as opposed to the transmitter coil on the top surface of the circuit board and would be “configured to”/capable of shielding the surface and the walkable power transmitter including the transmitter coil from each other. Note: this is the same configuration as shown in applicant’s fig.11b- the shielding material 508.b is at the bottom surface of the substrate 1104 nearer to the surface of the floor).
Regarding Claim 25,
Wu in view of Riehl and Maniktala or Riehl in view of Wu and Maniktala teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23 and further teaches wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to be embedded in a mat (Wu, figs.4, 9, pars [20, 23] and Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38], Maniktala, see rejection of claim 23; Wu teaches a floor mat embedded transmitter coil and Riehl teaches the transmitter coil would be mounted on the carrier substrate- thus, Wu would be modified to have its mat embedded with the transmitter coil mounted on the carrier substrate that would also be embedded in the mat).
Regarding Claim 26,
Wu in view of Riehl and Maniktala or Riehl in view of Wu and Maniktala teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23 and teaches wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to: extend over a first region of a first foot of the person (Wu, figs.4, 5, 9, pars [20, 23] and Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38], Maniktala, see rejection of claim 23; Wu teaches a first region where a person’s foot is on the floor mat that includes the transmitter coil. Riehl teaches the transmitter coil is mounted the carrier substrate. Maniktala teaches the transmitter coil as claimed in claim 23. Thus, in the combination, the carrier substrate that has the transmitter coil mounted on it would obviously extend over a first region of a first foot of the person that receives wireless power from the transmitter coil mounted on the substrate); and extend over a second region of a second foot of the person (Wu, figs.4, 5, 9, pars [20, 23] and Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38], Maniktala, see rejection of claim 23; Wu teaches a second region where a person’s foot is on the floor mat that includes the transmitter coil. Riehl teaches the transmitter coil is mounted the carrier substrate. Maniktala teaches the transmitter coil as claimed in claim 23. Thus, in the combination, the carrier substrate that has the transmitter coil mounted on it would obviously extend over a second region of a second foot of the person that receives wireless power from the transmitter coil mounted on the substrate).
Regarding Claim 29,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23 and the combination further teaches the at least one transmitter coil is configured to generate an electromagnetic field distribution in a direction perpendicular to the main plane (Maniktala, figs.4, 9, pars [32-33] and related discussion; Maniktala teaches current flowing through winding sections 403, 405 generates magnetic field represented by flux lines 423, 427 and fig.4 depicts the magnetic flux extending above and below 401 (i.e., perpendicular to the main plane containing the coils) and the flux lines combine to form flux lines 425, there by generating field distribution used for wireless power transfer. It is further noted that since Maniktala teaches the same claimed structure of the transmitter coil in claim 23, it is structurally configured to/capable of generating the electromagnetic field distribution in a perpendicular direction to the main plane)). Examiner Note: generating an electromagnetic field distribution in a direction perpendicular to a main plane is generally well-known in the art. See also, for example, Pais et al. (2018/0090968 A1), fig.7A, par [40]; a current through the coil can produce an electromagnetic field 710 including electromagnetic field lines 710 that are generally perpendicular to the plane of the coil.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) as applied to claim 23 and in further view of Yokoyama et al. (2023/0006480 A1).
Regarding Claim 28,
Wu in view of Riehl and Maniktala or Riehl in view of Wu and Maniktala teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23 and further teaches a mat comprising the carrier substrate (Wu, figs.4, 9, pars [20, 23] and Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38]; in the combination, Wu’s mat that includes a transmitter coil would be modified to include the carrier substrate of Riehl), wherein the power source is attached on an outside surface of the mat (Wu, see figs.4, 9; power source 440 is attached on an outside surface of the mat).
The combination teaches a mat. The combination does not explicitly teach the mat is a flexible mat configured to be rolled or folded.
Yokoyama, however, teaches it is known in the art for the mat to be a flexible mat (100) configured to be rolled or folded (par [52]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Yokoyama. The motivation would have been in order to make the mat portable and easier to carry.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) as applied to claim 23 and in further view of Kanakasabai et al. (2023/0291242 A1).
Regarding Claim 30,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23. The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising a user interface configured to display status of the power transmitter.
Kanakasabai, however, teaches it is known in the art to further have a user interface (610 and/or 612, par [76]) configured to display status of the power transmitter (pars [76-77]; user interface 610 and/or 612 may include LEDs or LCDs that display status of the transmitter read on by indicating whether wireless power is being transmitted to an associated device and when wireless power is being transmitted from the transmitter circuit thus displaying the transmitter’s operational status).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Kanakasabai. The motivation would have been to provide operational feedback to the user, thereby improving usability of the walkable power transmitter and facilitating monitoring of the wireless charging process.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) as applied to claim 23 and in further view of Bharadwaj et al. (2024/0178704 A1).
Regarding claim 31,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one transmitter coil comprises a central coil and an array of coils, wherein the central coil is connected to the power source and the array of coils.
Bharadwaj, however, teaches it is known in the art for the at least one transmitter coil to comprise a central coil (par [49]; chief central coil) and an array of coils (par [49]; array of coils surrounding the central coil), wherein the central coil is connected to the power source and the array of coils (pars [63, 65, 80]; the central coil is connected to the power source and connected in series with the array of coils in the second mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Bharadwaj. The motivation would have been to stabilize and improve power transfer efficiency by generating a widespread H-field to power a misaligned receiver coil using a well-known and well-desired implementation of a transmitter coil further noting the 112b rejection above and how claim 31 is incongruent with claim 23’s transmitter coil implementation.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in further view of Maniktala (2016/0285317 A1) as applied to claim 23 and in further view of Waffenschmidt et al. (2010/0328044 A1).
Regarding Claim 32,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to be embedded into the floor.
Waffenschmidt, however, teaches it is known for the carrier substrate to be either constructed within a floor mat or embedded into the floor (pars [65, 112]; the inductive power pad that includes the substrate the transmitter coil 120 is on is embedded within the floor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Waffenschmidt. The motivation would have been the obvious placement of the carrier substrate noting that Waffenschmidt teaches the obviousness of having the carrier substrate either within the floor mat or within the floor and one skilled in the art would have obviously selected the substrate to be embedded into the floor according to the intended design and use of the system.
Conclusion
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. In order to further expedite prosecution, Applicant is encouraged to amend the last paragraph of claim 12 to recite “a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate and configured to shield the floor from at least a portion of the electromagnetic field.”
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action (i.e., by amending “shield the person…” in base claim 23 to “shield the floor…”) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
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 RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights