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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The amendment filed 08 January 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The originally filed disclosure does not describe a running surface as being structurally distinct from the camshaft bearing surface, nor does it disclose any geometry, location or functional relationship that would support such a distinction. The proposed amendment would impermissibly introduce new descriptive content to support amended claim language and is therefore prohibited under 35 U.S.C. §132(a). The written description requirement of §112(a) must be satisfied by the disclosure as originally filed and cannot be cured by subsequent amendment.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 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. Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed does not describe a running surface that is structurally distinct from a cam bearing surface.
Compact Prosecution and New Matter
The Office requires examiners to practice compact prosecution and should the examiner determine that an amended claim term or phrase renders the claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the examiner should make a rejection based on the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as well as a rejection(s) in view of prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 that renders the prior art applicable on the examiner’s interpretation of the claim.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim term running surface is given its ordinary meaning as understood in view of the specification. The originally filed disclosure does not define running surface or describe any running surface that is structurally distinct from the camshaft bearing surface. The disclosure identifies only bearing/journal surfaces as surfaces that run in contact with another component during operation. Absent any disclosure or claim language specifying a different structure, running surface is reasonably interpreted as corresponding to the camshaft bearing surface, and a narrower interpretation is not supported by the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller (US 2010/0224145 A1).
Claim 1:
Mueller discloses a method for manufacturing cams for a camshaft, comprising: finish-forging a cam (1a) with a chamfer (4) disposed between a running surface (6) of the cam and a side surface of the cam, wherein the chamfer (4) is not reworked (figs. 1-4, [0036] and [0048]).
Claim 7:
Mueller discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the cam is cold forged (figs. 1-4, [0048]).
Claim 8:
Mueller discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the cam is finish-forged with the chamfer in a single forging step (figs. 1-4, [0048]).
Claim 9:
The recitation "a finished-forge chamfer that is not reworked" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam with a chamfer for a camshaft.
Mueller discloses a cam for a camshaft (abstract), comprising:
a cam body (1) having a cam bore (A) for receiving a shaft (2), the cam body (1) provided with two side surfaces and a running surface (6) disposed radially outwards of the two side surfaces relative to the cam bore (A) (figs. 1-5, [0035] and [0036]);
wherein the cam body (1) has at least one chamfer (4) the at least one chamfer (4) disposed between the running surface (6) and at least one of the two side surfaces (figs. 1-5, [0035] and [0036]).
Claim 11:
The recitation "the two side surfaces of the cam are ground" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam having two side surfaces.
Mueller discloses a cam for a camshaft (abstract), comprising:
a cam body (1) having a cam bore (A) for receiving a shaft (2), the cam body (1) provided with two side surfaces and a running surface (6) disposed radially outwards of the two side surfaces relative to the cam bore (A) (figs. 1-5, [0035] and [0036]);
Claim 17:
The recitation "a finished-forge chamfer that is not reworked" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam with a chamfer for a camshaft.
Mueller discloses a cam for a camshaft (abstract), comprising:
wherein the cam has at least one chamfer (4) disposed between the running surface (6) of the cam and a side surface of the cam (figs. 1-5, [0035] and [0036]).
Claim 18:
The recitation "the cam is cold-forged" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam with a chamfer for a camshaft.
Mueller discloses a cam (1a) with a chamfer (4) (fig. 1, [0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-5, 10, 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (US 2010/0224145 A1).
Claim 2:
Mueller discloses the method according to claim 1; wherein the cam is finish-forged; and, Mueller fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with the chamfer having an angle of 5° ≤ α ≤ 40° to a running surface disposed radially outwards of the side surface. Instead, Mueller discloses an angle, α, that is undefined to a running surface disposed radially outwards of the side surface (figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 5°
≤
α
≤
40° to a running surface disposed radially outwards of the side surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 2.
Claim 3:
Mueller discloses the method according to claim 1; and, Mueller fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with the chamfer at an angle of 8° ≤ α ≤ 37° to the running surface. Instead, Mueller discloses an angle, α, that is undefined relative to the running surface (figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 8° ≤ α ≤ 37° to relative to the running surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 3.
Claim 4:
Mueller discloses the method according to claim 1; and, Mueller fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with the chamfer having an angle of 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° to the running surface. Instead, Mueller discloses an angle, α, that is undefined relative to the running surface (figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° relative to the running surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 4.
Claim 5:
Mueller discloses the method according to claim 1; and, Mueller fails to disclose the chamfer is finish-forged at least in an area with a radius of R ≤ 2.0 mm. Instead, Mueller discloses the chamfer has a radius, R, of undefined size (figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller to provide a chamfer having a radius, R, within the claimed range of R
≤
2.0 mm in at least an area, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 5.
Claim 10:
Mueller discloses the cam according to claim 9; and, Mueller fails to disclose the at least one finished-forged chamfer has a radius of R ≤= 2.0 mm at least in an area. Instead, Mueller discloses the chamfer has a radius, R, of undefined size (figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller to provide a chamfer having a radius, R, within the claimed range of R
≤
2.0 mm in at least an area, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 10.
Claim 12:
Mueller renders obvious the cam according to claim 9, wherein the at least one finish-forged chamfer has an area with a linear chamfer surface in cross-section (figs. 1-4, [0037]).
Claim 13:
Mueller renders obvious the cam according to claim 9, wherein the at least one finished-forged chamfer has an area with a curved chamfer surface in cross-section (figs. 1-4, [0037]).
Claim 14:
Mueller discloses the cam of claim 9; and Mueller fails to disclose the at least one finish-forged chamfer has an angle of 5°
≤
α
≤
40° to the running surface. Instead, Mueller discloses an angle, α, that is undefined relative to the running surface (figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 5°
≤
α
≤
40° relative to the running surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 14.
Claim 19:
Mueller discloses the cam of claim 17; and, Mueller fails to disclose the chamfer has an angle of 5°
≤
α
≤
40° to the running surface. Instead, Mueller discloses an angle, α, that is undefined relative to the running surface (figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 5°
≤
α
≤
40° relative to the running surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 19.
Claim 20:
Mueller discloses the cam of claim 17; and, Mueller fails to disclose the chamfer has a radius of R ≤ 2.0 mm at least in an area. Instead, Mueller discloses the chamfer has a radius, R, of undefined size (figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller to provide a chamfer having a radius, R within the claimed range of R
≤
2.0 mm in at least an area, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 20.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vogel et al. (US 2008/0173128 A1).
Claim 6:
Mueller discloses the method according to claim 1; and, Mueller fails to disclose grinding the side surface of the cam. Instead, Mueller discloses the orifice A (which includes the chamfer) may be produced by rough turning, drilling, sintering or even forging without any finishing work (figs. 1-4, [0036]).
Vogel discloses a method of producing a cam (abstract, [0017]) comprising forging a cam (3) with an orifice (60), wherein the orifice is finish formed by turning (figs. 1-3, [0047]); wherein the side surfaces of the cam are formed by grinding (figs. 1-3, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to grind the side surfaces of the cam as taught by Vogel in order to manufacture the cam to the final dimension. (Vogel, [0047]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both prior art references are drawn to manufacturing a cam and the base reference discloses a cam orifice may be produced by turning, drilling sintering or forging (Mueller, [0036]).
In an alternative, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Vogel et al. (US 2008/0173128 A1).
Claim 11:
Mueller renders obvious the cam according to claim 9; and, Mueller fails to disclose grinding side surfaces of the cam. Instead, Mueller discloses the orifice A (which includes the chamfer) may be produced by rough turning, drilling, sintering or even forging without any finishing work (figs. 1-4, [0036]).
Vogel discloses a method of producing a cam (abstract, [0017]) comprising forging a cam (3) with an orifice (60), wherein the orifice is finish formed by turning (figs. 1-3, [0047]); wherein the side surfaces of the cam are formed by grinding (figs. 1-3, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to grind the side surfaces of the cam as taught by Vogel in order to manufacture the cam to the final dimension (Vogel, [0047]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both prior art references are drawn to manufacturing a cam and the base reference discloses a cam orifice may be produced by turning, drilling sintering or forging (Mueller, [0036]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thielenhaus et al. (US 3,548,546).
Claim 15:
Mueller renders obvious the method according to claim 1; and, Mueller fails to disclose grinding the side surface of the cam and a second side surface of a second cam simultaneously. Instead, Mueller teaches the cam may be formed by rough turning, drilling or sintering (figs. 1-4, [0036]).
Thielenhaus discloses a method and apparatus for machining a toroidal surface (col. 1, lines 27-30); further comprising grinding a side surface of a cam (4, 13) and a second side surface of a second cam (4, 13) (figs. 1-4, col. 2, lines 50-51 and col. 3, lines 24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Mueller by using the grinding apparatus of Thielenhaus in order to simultaneously grind the side surfaces of the cams as further taught by Thielenhaus (Thielenhaus, figs. 1-4, col. 1, lines 59-62, col. 2, lines 50-51 and col. 3, lines 24-28). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karlsrud (US 5,274,960).
Claim 16:
Mueller renders obvious the method according to claim 1, further comprising forming a cam bore without pre-machining (finish-forged cam bore); and, Mueller fails to disclose simultaneously grinding the side surfaces. Karlsrud discloses a machine for simultaneously finishing two sides of a workpiece (abstract) further comprising simultaneously grinding two sides of a workpiece (col. 6, lines 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method for manufacturing cams for a camshaft of Mueller by simultaneously grinding the side surfaces of the cam as taught by Karlsrud in order to provide uniform stock removal at all points on the side surfaces of the cam (col. 6, lines 50-59). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, applicant argues applicant’s proposed amendment to the specification is proper because of a mistranslation. Examiner disagrees. Applicant is attempting to retroactively introduce or clarify structural meaning for the term “running surface” by amending the specification after filing, in order to support claim amendments and distinctions over the prior art. The originally filed specification did not describe or define a “running surface” as a structure distinct from a camshaft bearing surface. The proposed amendment would add descriptive content that was not present in the original disclosure. The amendment would therefore constitute new matter, which is prohibited under 35 U.S.C. §132(a) and §112(a). Therefore, Applicant’s proposed amendment to the specification is not permitted because the amendment would create written-description support after the filing of the original disclosure.
On page 8 bridging page 9, Applicant argues examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections are improper because the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest finish-forging a cam with a chamfer disposed between a running surface of the cam and a side surface of the cam as required of independent claim 1. Examiner disagrees. As recited above, Mueller, under examiner’s interpretation of applicant’s amended claims teaches a chamfer disposed between a running surface of the cam and a side surface of the cam.
On page 9, Applicant further argues examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections are improper because the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest a cam body having a cam bore for receiving a shaft, the cam body provided with two side surfaces and a running surface disposed radially outwards of the two side surfaces relative to the cam bore and the cam body has at least one finish-forged chamfer that is not reworked, the at least one finish-forged chamfer disposed between the running surface and the at least one of the two side surfaces as required of independent claim 9. Examiner disagrees. As recited above, Mueller, under examiner’s interpretation of applicant’s amended claims teaches a cam body having a cam bore for receiving a shaft, the cam body provided with two side surfaces and a running surface disposed radially outwards of the two side surfaces relative to the cam bore and the cam body has at least one finish-forged chamfer that is not reworked, the at least one finish-forged chamfer disposed between the running surface and the at least one of the two side surfaces.
On page 10, Applicant further argues examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections are improper because the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the finished-forged chamfer is disposed between a running surface of the cam and a side surface of the cam as required of independent claim 17. Examiner disagrees. As recited above, Mueller, under examiner’s interpretation of applicant’s amended claims, teaches the finished-forged chamfer is disposed between a running surface of the cam and a side surface of the cam.
On pages 10-11, Applicant further argues examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections of claims 2-4, 14 and 19 are improper because the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest a chamfer having an angle of 5° ≤ α ≤ 40° or 8° ≤ α ≤ 37° or 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° to a running surface. Applicant further argues the Office Action improperly relies on obviousness as merely relative claimed dimension because the disclosure explains that the claimed angle results in a lower tendance for burr formation when grinding the running surface. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments indicate that the recited angular features are selected to achieve a desired manufacturing result, namely reducing burr formation. Such arguments demonstrate that the recited angles represent an optimization of a variable that affects a predictable result of machining operations. Selections of particular angular values to improve manufacturability constitutes optimization of a result-effective variable and would have been within the ordinary skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Thielenhaus (US 3,548,546).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Karlsrud (US 5,274,960).+
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Muster (US 2008/0276888 A1) discloses cams for camshafts. Curlic (DE 10 2016 123 557 A1) discloses a method for producing cams for camshafts.
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 Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights