DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed May 19, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC § 112 Claim Rejection for claim 5 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 20, 2026.
See Drawing Objection below for discussion of Drawing Objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 20, 2026.
See Specification Objection below for discussion of Specification Objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 20, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s double patenting arguments, pages 7-9, about the teachings of Banse, US 12516550 B2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The use of broadly claimed structure and their engagement allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question. The present application’s claimed coupling pin is satisfied by the structure of US 12516550 B2.
Col 7, line 41-col 8, line 3, discusses coupling element 18 being movably supported at the latch 12 and how actuation element 14 is selectively engaged with 18.
Regarding the argument that US 12516550 B2 requires an element not required of the present application, the present application’s use of the transitional phrase “comprising”, per MPEP 2111.03, does not exclude additional, unrecited elements.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments, pages 9-12, about the teachings of Lucid, GB 2200397 A, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lucid, page 3, line 30-page 4, line 16, discusses and Fig 2 depicts how the actuation element 12 selectively engages with latch actuator 32 via flat 36 of barrel 26, thereby satisfying the claimed coupling pin and actuation element selective engagement.
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 1-4, 6, 8-13, and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12516550 (hereinafter US12516550). The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent, US12516550, are compared in the table below and the write-up following the table. The table is structured with instant application and US12516550 claim limitations matched across the table columns. The differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding additional limitations and italicizing limitations that differ.
18/985,400
US12516550
Claim 1: A lock comprising:
a locking mechanism that has a latch that can be moved between a locking position, which is provided for securing a counter-piece movable relative to the locking mechanism, and an unlocking position provided for releasing the counter-piece;
an actuation element for manually moving the latch into the unlocking position; and
a coupling pin which is movably supported at the latch and with which the actuation element can be selectively brought into engagement.
Claim 1: A lock comprising:
a locking mechanism having a latch that is movable between a latched position, which is provided for securing a counter-piece movable relative to the locking mechanism, and an unlatched position provided for releasing the counter-piece;
an actuation element for manually moving the latch into the unlatched position; and
a coupling element that can be transferred between a coupled state, in which it is coupled to the latch, and a decoupled state, in which it is movable relative to the latch, and that can be moved from a passive position into an active position by means of the actuation element,
wherein the latch can be moved into the unlatched position by a movement of the coupling element, which is in the coupled state, from the passive position into the active position by the actuation element;
further comprising a control element for selectively transferring the coupling element into the coupled state or the decoupled state, the control element comprising first and second coupling sections;
wherein the latch and the coupling element are coupled by the control element in the coupled state;
wherein, in the coupled state, the second coupling section of the control element is in engagement with the latch and the coupling element coupling them to one another.
Independent claims 17 and 21 are similarly rejected under double patenting. See below.
Claim 2: The lock according to claim 1,
wherein the direction of movement of the actuation element is oriented at least substantially perpendicular to a direction of movement of the latch.
Claim 2: The lock in accordance with claim 1,
wherein the direction of movement of the actuation element is oriented at least substantially perpendicular to a direction of movement of the latch and/or of the coupling element.
Claim 3: The lock according to claim 1,
wherein the direction of movement of the coupling pin is oriented at least substantially perpendicular to a direction of movement of the latch and/or at least substantially perpendicular to a direction of movement of the actuation element.
Claim 2: The lock in accordance with claim 1,
wherein the direction of movement of the actuation element is oriented at least substantially perpendicular to a direction of movement of the latch and/or of the coupling element.
Claim 4: The lock according to claim 1,
wherein the latch has at least one recess for receiving the coupling pin.
Claim 6: The lock in accordance with claim 1,
wherein the coupling element and the latch each have at least one recess for receiving the control element.
Claim 6: The lock according to claim 1,
further comprising a control element for moving the coupling pin.
Claim 18: The lock in accordance with claim 17,
further comprising a control element for selectively transferring the coupling element into the coupled state or the decoupled state.
Claim 8: The lock according to claim 6,
further comprising at least one actuator for actuating the control element.
Claim 14: The lock in accordance with claim 1,
wherein the lock comprises at least one actuator for actuating the control element.
Claim 9: The lock according to claim 1,
wherein the latch can be brought from the locking position into the unlocking position against a return force of a spring.
Claim 10: The lock in accordance with claim 1,
wherein the latch can be brought from the latched position into the unlatched position against a return force of a spring.
Claim 10: The lock according to claim 1,
further comprising a blocking element that is adjustable between a blocking position, in which the latch is blocked in its locking position, and a release position in which the latch is movable into its unlocking position.
Claim 9: The lock in accordance with claim 1,
further comprising a blocking element that is adjustable between a blocking position, in which the latch is blocked in its latched position, and a release position in which the latch is movable into its unlatched position.
Claim 11: The lock according to claim 10,
wherein the blocking element is formed at the control element or is formed by the coupling pin.
Claim 21: A lock comprising:
a locking mechanism having a latch that is movable between a latched position, which is provided for securing a counter-piece movable relative to the locking mechanism, and an unlatched position provided for releasing the counter-piece;
an actuation element for manually moving the latch into the unlatched position; and a coupling element that can be transferred between a coupled state, in which it is coupled to the latch, and a decoupled state, in which it is movable relative to the latch, and that can be moved from a passive position into an active position by means of the actuation element,
wherein the latch can be moved into the unlatched position by a movement of the coupling element, which is in the coupled state, from the passive position into the active position by the actuation element;
further comprising a blocking element that is adjustable between a blocking position, in which the latch is blocked in its latched position, and a release position in which the latch is movable into its unlatched position;
further comprising a control element for selectively transferring the coupling element into the coupled state or the decoupled state, wherein the blocking element is formed at the control element.
Claim 12: The lock according to claim 10,
wherein the blocking element, in its blocking position, is in engagement with a component of the lock.
Claim 22: The lock in accordance with claim 21,
wherein in the blocking position of the blocking element, the blocking element is in engagement with a non-movable component of the lock.
Claim 13: The lock according to claim 12,
wherein the component of the lock is a non- movable component.
Claim 22: The lock in accordance with claim 21,
wherein in the blocking position of the blocking element, the blocking element is in engagement with a non-movable component of the lock.
Claim 15: The lock according to claim 1,
further comprising a detection device for detecting the adoption of the locking position by the latch.
Claim 15: The lock in accordance with claim 1,
further comprising an actuator configured for detecting the adoption of the latched position by the latch, wherein the actuator comprises an electric motor and a controller configured to control the electric motor and to detect power consumption of the electric motor, and the detecting of the adoption of the latched position is based on the detecting of the power consumption of the electric motor to determine an abutting contact of a blocking element with a housing wall or wherein the actuator is an electric stepper motor and the detecting of the adoption of the latched position is based on a detected degree of actuation of the electric stepper motor to determine how far the blocking element has moved.
Claim 16: The lock according to claim 15,
wherein the detection device comprises an actuator for adjusting a blocking element that is adjustable between a blocking position, in which the latch is blocked in its locking position, and a release position in which the latch is movable into its unlocking position.
Claim 13: The lock in accordance with claim 1,
wherein the lock comprises an actuator for transferring the coupling element between the coupled state and the decoupled state and/or for adjusting a blocking element, which is adjustable between a blocking position, in which the latch is blocked in its latched position, and a release position in which the latch is movable into its unlatched position, between its blocking position and its release position
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the coupling element of US12516550 would encompass the claimed coupling pin.
Regarding claim 1, claim 17 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the coupling element of US12516550 would encompass the claimed coupling pin.
Regarding claim 1, claim 21 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the coupling element of US12516550 would encompass the claimed coupling pin.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others.
Regarding claim 3; claim 2 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others.
Regarding claim 4; claim 6 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others.
Regarding claim 6; claim 18 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others.
Regarding claim 8; claim 14 of US12516550 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 9; claim 10 of US12516550 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 10; claim 9 of US12516550 recites all the limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the latched and unlatched positions of US12516550 would be the equivalent of the claimed locked and unlocked positions.
Regarding claim 11; claim 21 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others.
Regarding claim 12; claim 22 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others.
Regarding claim 13; claim 22 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the actuator configured for detecting of US12516550 would encompass the claimed detection device.
Regarding claim 16; claim 13 of US12516550 recites all the limitations and others.
Drawings
The drawings were objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 20, 2026. The Applicant’s arguments, pages 6-7, pointed out the claimed blocking element is also the claimed coupling pin. As a result, the drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “38” has been used to designate both the coupling pin and the blocking element.
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.
Specification
The disclosure was objected to in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 20, 2026. The Applicant’s arguments, pages 6-7, pointed out the claimed blocking element is also the claimed coupling pin. The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities:
The features blocking element and coupling pin are given the same reference character 38.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucid, GB 2200397 A.
Regarding claim 1, Lucid teaches a lock (push button lock depicted in Fig 1 and discussed in [Abstract]) comprising:
a locking mechanism (latch operating lever 44; latch mechanism discussed on page 2, lines 2-9; support 52; operating rod 56) that has a latch (44; latch mechanism; 56) that can be moved between a locking position (page 2, lines 5-9 and page 5, lines 1-9 discuss the locking position to be where 44 has not been pressed by 32 so the latch has not been operated), which is provided for securing a counter-piece movable relative to the locking mechanism (page 1, lines 1-3 discuss the use of the lock is on the boot lid or tailgate of a motor vehicle, therefore the counter-piece would be the strike which engages with the latch, the strike being movable relative to the latch with the movement of the boot lid or tailgate), and an unlocking position provided for releasing the counter-piece (page 2, lines 2-9 and page 5, lines 1-9 discuss the unlocking position to be where 44 has been pressed by 32 thereby operating the latch);
an actuation element (push button/lock assembly 12) for manually moving the latch into the unlocking position (page 4, lines 18-34 discuss 12 being able rotate 32 into a position where it can then be pressed axially into the housing 10 to 44 in order to move the latch into an unlocking position; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the instant application that the axial movement of 12 would also allow 44 to adopt the unlocking position as depicted in Fig 3); and
a coupling pin (latch actuator 32) which is movably supported at the latch (Figs 1;3 depict 32 to be movable supported in housing 10 positioned at and engageable with 44; page 5, lines 1-9) and with which the actuation element can be selectively brought into engagement (page 2, lines 5-9 and page 5, lines 1-9 discuss 32 being pivotable into engagement with 44 in order to operate the latch).
Regarding claim 2, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the direction of movement of the actuation element (12) is oriented at least substantially perpendicular to a direction of movement of the latch (Figs 1;3 depict the pivoting rotational movement of 32 moves 34 perpendicular to the movement of 44).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lucid
Regarding claim 3, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the direction of movement of the coupling pin (32) is oriented at least substantially perpendicular to a direction of movement of the latch (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required) and/or at least substantially perpendicular to a direction of movement of the actuation element (12; Figs 1;3 depict and page 2, lines 5-9 and page 5, lines 1-9 discuss the pivoting rotation of 34 of 32 to be substantially perpendicular to a direction of the axial movement of 12).
Regarding claim 4, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the latch (44; latch mechanism; 56) has at least one recess (Fig 3 depicts the recess to be the V-shaped formation formed on 44 which engages with 34 of 32) for receiving the coupling pin (32).
Regarding claim 5, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the actuation element (12), in particular a slanted control surface of the actuation element (see claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection of claim 5), and the coupling pin (32) form a ramp mechanism (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lucid depicts the ramp mechanism to be a sloping plane piece of machinery thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 for slope and definition 1a of mechanism and the broadest reasonable interpretations for the terms) for converting a movement of the actuation element into a movement of the latch (Fig 1 depicts and page 2, lines 5-9 and page 5, lines 1-9 discuss 12 and 32 forming a ramp mechanism to convert the axial movement of 12 into movement of 44 and the latch).
Regarding claim 6, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 1, further comprising a control element (rod 60) for moving the coupling pin (32; Fig 3 depicts and page 6, lines 5-15 discusses 56 structured to rotatively move 32).
Regarding claim 7, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 6, wherein the control element (60) for moving the coupling pin (32) is for selectively activating or deactivating a ramp mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lucid) comprising the actuation element (12) and the coupling pin (32; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lucid depicts the ramp mechanism to comprise 12 and 32).
Regarding claim 8, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 6, further comprising at least one actuator (actuator 62) for actuating the control element (60; page 6, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 9, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 1, wherein the latch (latch discussed on page 2, lines 2-9;) can be brought from the locking position (page 2, lines 5-9 and page 5, lines 1-9 discuss the locking position to be where 44 has not been pressed by 32 so the latch has not been operated) into the unlocking position (page 2, lines 2-9 and page 5, lines 1-9 discuss the unlocking position to be where 44 has been pressed by 32 thereby operating the latch) against a return force of a spring (over centre spring 46; page 5, lines 10-27 discusses how 46 biases 32 into both the locking and unlocking positions).
Regarding claim 10, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 1, further comprising a blocking element (operating tip 34) that is adjustable between a blocking position (the position of 34 where it is rotated counterclockwise from its position in Fig 3), in which the latch is blocked in its locking position (with 34 in the blocking position, the lock is stopped from being operated by 12 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1d of block and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and a release position (Fig 3 depicts the release position) in which the latch is movable into its unlocking position (with 34 in the Fig 3 position, the lock is capable of being operated and unlocked).
Regarding claim 11, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 10, wherein the blocking element (34) is formed at the control element (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required) or is formed by the coupling pin (Figs 1;3 depict 34 to be formed by 32).
Regarding claim 12, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 10, wherein the blocking element (34), in its blocking position (the position of 34 where it is rotated counterclockwise from its position in Fig 3), is in engagement with a component of the lock (Figs 1;3 depict 34, in its blocking position, to be engaged with cup 28, a component of the lock).
Regarding claim 13, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 12, wherein the component of the lock (28) is a non- movable component (Figs 1;3 depict 28 to be a non-movable component engaged with 10 which is mounted to 16; page 3, lines 7-17).
Regarding claim 14, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 12, wherein the component of the lock (push button lock depicted in Fig 1 and discussed in [Abstract]) is a housing of the lock (housing 10, see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Lucid).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucid, GB 2200397 A, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeh et al., US 20030209043 A1 (hereinafter Yeh).
Regarding claim 15, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 1.
While Lucid teaches an actuator (62) which could serve as a detection device as discussed in instant specification [0025-0026], Lucid does not explicitly teach further comprising a detection device for detecting the adoption of the locking position by the latch.
Yeh teaches it is known in the art for an electronically driven lock (1) to comprise inner and outer lock units (2; 5), a bolt assembly (3), a clutch unit (50), and a driving unit (60), further comprising sensors (73; 74) which detect the locked status of lock 1 [0028] such that Yeh teaches further comprising a detection device for detecting the adoption of the locking position by the latch.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale C, to modify the lock apparatus of Lucid with the lock status sensors of Yeh. The prior art contains a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” and a “comparable” device that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add sensors to the lock apparatus in order to support the expanded electronic controls requested in the market. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” in the same way to the “base” device with a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable, namely an electronic lock with manual and actuator operation with lock status sensing.
Regarding claim 16, Lucid teaches the lock according to claim 15, wherein the detection device (Yeh, 73; 74) comprises an actuator (Lucid, 62) for adjusting a blocking element (Lucid, 34) that is adjustable between a blocking position (the position of 34 where it is rotated counterclockwise from its position in Fig 3), in which the latch is blocked in its locking position (with 34 in the blocking position, the lock is stopped from being operated by 12 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1d of block and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and a release position (Fig 3 depicts the release position) in which the latch is movable into its unlocking position (with 34 in the Fig 3 position, the lock is capable of being operated and unlocked).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights