DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 19/005,936, filed 12/30/2024, which claims priority to Chinese applications CN202410489004.4, filed 4/22/2024, CN202420833456.5, filed 4/22/2024, CN202420632084.X, filed 3/29/2024, and CN202410381476.8, filed 3/29/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments, the prior art rejections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0222988 A1: This reference teaches a photovoltaic module frame with edge protrusions (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0000544 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, West teaches a photovoltaic module (Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0085]-[0090]).
The module of West comprises a laminate 110 and a frame 112 (Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0085]-[0087]).
The inset of Fig. 3 below teaches that the frame 112 includes a clamping part, a first support part, and a second support part.
The inset of Fig. 3 below teaches that a first edge of the laminate is located in a space defined by the clamping part.
The inset of Fig. 3 below teaches that the first support part and the second support part are arranged on a first side of the laminate (i.e. a bottom side) opposite to a second side of the laminate (i.e. a top side) configured to face sunlight during operation of the photovoltaic module.
The inset of Fig. 3 below teaches that the first support part and the second support part are spaced apart in a first direction with a gap defined between the first support part and the second support part.
The inset below teaches that the first support part is located on a side of the second support part close to the first edge.
The inset below teaches that the clamping part includes a first part, located on the second side of the laminate, the first part includes a first end (indicated in the inset below) located on a side of the first part away from the first edge in the first direction, the first end being a portion of the first part farthest from the first edge in the first direction.
The inset below teaches that the first end is aligned with the first support part in a thickness direction of the laminate (as indicated in the inset below).
PNG
media_image1.png
603
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 2, the inset below teaches that the frame includes a first snap-fit portion extending in the thickness direction of the laminate, the first snap-fit portion is connected to the clamping part.
The inset below teaches that the first snap-fit portion is located on a side of the first support part facing away from the second support part in the first direction.
West teaches that the first snap-fit portion is configured to be in snap-fit with a pressing block (Figs. 11-14, paragraphs [0090] and [0106]-[0109]).
Further, it is the Examiner’s position that, because the first snap-fit portion of West has the same structure as a snap-fit portion of the instant invention (see, e.g. Fig. 5 of the instant specification), the first snap-fit portion is configured to be in snap-fit with a pressing block (i.e. structurally capable of being in snap-fit with a pressing block).
PNG
media_image2.png
498
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
In reference to Claim 3, the inset below teaches that the first snap-fit portion is located on the first side of the laminate.
The inset below further teaches that, the first snap-fit portion, the clamping part, and the first support part define a first accommodating groove, corresponding to region 118.
West teaches that the first accommodating groove is configured to accommodate a part of the pressing block (Figs. 11-14, paragraphs [0090] and [0106]-[0109]).
Further, because the first accommodating groove as indicated in the inset below has a similar structure to that of the accommodating groove of the instant invention (see, e.g. Fig. 6 of the instant specification), it is the Examiner’s position that the first accommodating groove of West is configured to accommodate a part of the pressing block (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating a part of the pressing block).
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
PNG
media_image3.png
568
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 4, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above appears to teach that a size D1 of the first accommodating groove in the first direction and a distance D2 between the first support part and the second support part in the first direction satisfy 0.75 ≤ D2/D1 ≤ 4.
In reference to Claim 5, West teaches that the frame further includes a second snap-fit portion, indicated in the inset below.
The inset below teaches that the second snap-fit portion is connected to a side of the clamping part facing away from the laminate.
The inset below teaches that the second snap-fit portion extends in a direction facing away from the laminate.
The inset below teaches that the first snap-fit portion is arranged on a side of the second snap-fit portion away from the clamping part, i.e. below the clamping part.
The inset below teaches that the first snap-fit portion extends in the thickness direction of the laminate from the second snap- fit portion.
The inset below teaches that the first snap-fit portion, the second snap-fit portion, and the clamping part define a first accommodating groove.
West teaches that the first accommodating groove is configured to accommodate a part of the pressing block (Figs. 11-14, paragraphs [0090] and [0106]-[0109]).
Further, because the first accommodating groove as indicated in the inset below has a similar structure to that of the accommodating groove of the instant invention (see, e.g. Fig. 6 of the instant specification), it is the Examiner’s position that the first accommodating groove of Tsujimoto is configured to accommodate a part of the pressing block (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating a part of the pressing block.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
PNG
media_image4.png
568
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 7, the inset below teaches that the frame further includes a third support part, and the third support part is located on sides of the first support part and the second support part away from the clamping part in the thickness direction of the laminate (i.e. at lower sides of the first and second support parts).
The inset below teaches that the frame further includes a first snap-fit portion extending in the thickness direction of the laminate, the first snap-fit portion is connected to the third support part, the first snap-fit portion is located on a side of the third support part facing away from the second support part in the first direction, and the first snap-fit portion is located on a side of the third support part facing the clamping part in the thickness direction of the laminate.
West teaches that the first snap-fit portion is configured to be in snap-fit with a pressing block (Figs. 11-14, paragraphs [0090] and [0106]-[0109]).
Further, it is the Examiner’s position that, because the first snap-fit portion of West has the same structure as a snap-fit portion of the instant invention (see, e.g. Fig. 5 of the instant specification), the first snap-fit portion is configured to be in snap-fit with a pressing block (i.e. structurally capable of being in snap-fit with a pressing block).
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
PNG
media_image5.png
533
615
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 10, West teaches that the pressing block includes an insertion portion connected to the first snap-fit portion, and a fixing portion connected to the insertion portion, wherein the fixing portion is configured to fix a target body (Figs. 11-14, paragraphs [0090] and [0106]-[0109]).
Alternatively, the limitations of Claim 10 only further limit the “pressing block” of Claim 2, which is part of an intended use limitation of the claim.
It is the Examiner’s position that, because the first snap-fit portion of West has the same structure as a snap-fit portion of the instant invention (see, e.g. Fig. 5 of the instant specification), the first snap-fit portion is configured to be in snap-fit with a pressing block having the structural limitations recited in Claim 10 (i.e. structurally capable of being in snap-fit with a pressing block having the structural limitations of Claim 10).
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0000544 A1), in view of Sharlack, et al. (U.S. Patent 4,239,555).
In reference to Claim 6, West is silent regarding the thickness dimension of the first snap-fit portion in the first direction.
Therefore, he does not teach the limitations of Claim 6.
However, he teaches that the frames of his invention are made of extruded aluminum (paragraph [0085]).
To solve the same problem of providing extruded aluminum frames for photovoltaic modules, Sharlack teaches that such frames may be suitably made from extruded aluminum having a thickness of 0.79 mm (column 3, lines 44-46).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the extruded aluminum frames of West to have a thickness of 0.79 mm, based on the disclosure of Sharlack.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein a thickness dimension L2 of the first snap-fit portion in the first direction satisfies 0.5 mm< L2 < 1.5 mm.
Claims 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0000544 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, the inset below teaches that the frame further includes a second snap-fit portion extending in the first direction.
The inset below teaches that the second snap-fit portion is located on a side of the first snap-fit portion facing away from the third support part in the thickness direction of the laminate.
The inset below teaches that the second snap-fit portion, the first snap-fit portion, and the third support part define a first accommodating groove.
West teaches that the first accommodating groove is configured to accommodate a part of the pressing block (Figs. 11-14, paragraphs [0090] and [0106]-[0109]).
Further, it is the Examiner’s position that, because the groove of West has substantially the same structure as that of the instant invention (see, e.g. Fig. 5 of the instant specification), the second accommodating groove is configured to accommodate a part of the pressing block (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating a portion of a pressing block).
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
West teaches that the accommodating groove has a dimension “n” of 0.50” (i.e. 12.7 mm) (paragraph [0089], Fig. 4), but is also taught to be variable (paragraph [0089]).
Therefore, West does not teach that a size of the first accommodating groove in the thickness direction of the laminate is 0.5-3 mm.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that West renders obvious the limitations of Claim 8, wherein a size of the second accommodating groove in the thickness direction of the laminate ranges from 0.5 mm to 3 mm.
It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to optimize the accommodating groove in the frame of West, based on his disclosure that it can be variable (paragraph [0089]) and that it’s sized to fit a support structure (Figs. 11-14, paragraphs [0090] and [0106]-[0109]).
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the dimensions recited in Claim 8, without undue experimentation.
PNG
media_image6.png
584
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 9, the inset below teaches that the frame further includes a third snap-fit portion, arranged at an end of the second snap-fit portion away from the first snap-fit portion and extending in the thickness direction of the laminate.
PNG
media_image7.png
584
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 13, West does not teach that the photovoltaic module necessarily comprises a junction box.
However, he teaches that the module of his invention may be suitably modified to contain an accessory coupling 198 mounted to the frame, under the PV module, and that this accessory coupling may suitably hold a junction box (Fig. 28, paragraph [0152]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the frame of West to comprise an accessory coupling 198 mounted to the frame, under the PV module, and holding a junction box.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the photovoltaic module further comprises a junction box.
Because West teaches that the junction box is mounted to a frame member, and because the frame members are disposed on both the long and short sides of the module (Fig. 1), this disclosure further teaches that the junction box is located on a side on which a long side of the laminate is located, or the junction box is located on a side on which a short side of the laminate is located.
Because West teaches that the module comprises a single junction box (paragraph [0152]), this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the junction box is an integrated junction box, and the integrated junction box is separately connected to a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the laminate.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0000544 A1), in view of Oldenkamp (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0017338 A1).
In reference to Claim 11, West is silent regarding the frame dimensions in the first direction and thickness direction of the laminate.
Therefore, he does not teach the limitations of Claim 11.
To solve the same problem of providing a framed solar cell, Oldenkamp teaches a solar module frame having a size in the first direction (i.e. dimension d in Fig. 4) of 3-50 mm (paragraph [0017]) and a size in the thickness direction of the laminate (i.e. dimension h in Fig. 4) of 25-40 mm (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the frame of West to have the dimensions of the frame taught by Oldenkamp, based on Oldenkamp’s disclosure that these are suitable dimensions for a frame for a solar module.
Forming the frame of West to have the dimensions of the frame taught by Oldenkamp teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein a size of the frame in the first direction ranges from 20 mm to 35 mm (i.e. 3-50 mm); and a size of the frame in the thickness direction of the laminate ranges from 30 mm to 50 mm (i.e. 25-40 mm).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “20-35 mm” within the taught range of 3-50 mm, and the claimed range of 30 mm to 50 mm overlaps with the taught range of 25-40 mm.
In reference to Claim 14, West does not teach that the photovoltaic module necessarily comprises a junction box and an inverter arranged in the first direction.
However, he teaches that the module of his invention may be suitably modified to contain an accessory coupling 198 mounted to the frame, under the PV module, and that this accessory coupling may suitably hold an inverter and a junction box (Fig. 28, paragraph [0152]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the frame of West to comprise an accessory coupling 198 mounted to the frame, under the PV module, and holding an inverter and a junction box.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the photovoltaic module further comprises a junction box and an inverter arranged in a first direction (i.e. each of which extending in the first direction).
West is silent regarding the distances between the inverter and the edges of the module. Therefore, he does not teach the recited distances in Claim 14.
To solve the same problem of providing a framed photovoltaic module, wherein the frame comprises inverters and junction boxes mounted to the frame (Oldenkamp, Fig, 7, paragraphs [0020] and [0022]), Oldenkamp teaches that increasing the depth of accommodating grooves in photovoltaic frame members (which accommodate inverters and junction boxes), provides the benefits of reducing mechanical stress on the module (paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have tuned the depth of the junction box/inverter accommodating structures in the module of modified West, and the location of the junction box/inverter within these grooves, in order to optimize the stress on the module.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure meeting the limitations of Claim 14, without undue experimentation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0000544 A1), in view of Tsujimoto, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0213458 A1).
In reference to Claim 12, West is silent about the structure of the laminate of his invention.
Therefore, he does not teach the limitations of Claim 12.
To solve the same problem of providing a framed solar cell, Tsujimoto teaches a framed laminate, in which the laminate includes a first cover plate 12, a first adhesive film (i.e. the portion of layer 14 between cover plate 12 and the cells), a cell string, a second adhesive film (i.e. the portion of layer 14 between rear cover 13 and the cells), and a second cover plate 14 (Figs. 1-3, paragraph [0008]).
Fig. 3 of Tsujimoto teaches that the first cover plate 12 and the second cover plate 13 are respectively located on two sides of the cell string in the thickness direction of the laminate.
Fig. 3 of Tsujimoto teaches that the first adhesive film (i.e. the portion of layer 14 between cover plate 12 and the cells) is located between the first cover plate 12 and the cell string, and the second adhesive film (i.e. the portion of layer 14 between rear plate 13 and the cells) is located between the second cover plate and the cell string (paragraph [0008]).
Fig. 1 of Tsujimoto teaches that the cell string includes a plurality of solar cells, adjacent solar cells are connected in series or in parallel.
Tsujimoto further teaches that the solar cell is a heterojunction with intrinsic thin-film cell (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the laminate of West to have the form of the laminate of Tsujimoto, based on Tsujimoto’s disclosure that this is a suitable configuration for framed solar laminates.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0000544 A1), in view of Takenaka (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0234379 A1).
In reference to Claim 15, West teaches that the clamping part includes a second part, and the first part and the second part are arranged on two sides of the laminate in the thickness direction of the laminate, as shown in the inset below.
The inset below teaches that the third support part, the first support part, the second part, and the second support part are sequentially connected to define a cavity 114.
West teaches that the photovoltaic module further includes a corner brace, with one end of the corner brace inserted into a hollow portion of one frame and another end of the corner brace inserted into a hollow portion of an adjacent frame (paragraph [0086]).
This disclosure teaches that the corner brace includes two connection portions connected in an L shape, and wherein the corner brace comprises portions inserted into the cavity.
West is silent regarding the further structure of the corner brace. Therefore, he does not teach the additional limitations of Claim 15 directed toward the structure of the corner brace.
To solve the same problem of providing corner braces for photovoltaic frames, Takenaka teaches a corner brace 30 (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
The corner brace of Takenaka comprises two connection portions connected in an L shape, each connection portion includes a first connection sub-plate 31 and a second connection sub-plate 31 that are parallel to each other, and a clearance groove is formed between the first connection sub-plate and the second connection sub-plate.
Takenaka further teaches that the corner braces of his invention provide the benefit of securely fastening the frames together by engaging with protrusions on the inner surface of a frame member, like those in the frame members of Tsujimoto (Takenaka, paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the corner braces of West to have the form of the corner braces of 30 of Takenaka, based on Takenaka’s disclosure that the corner braces of his invention provide the benefit of securely connecting adjacent photovoltaic frame members.
Forming the corner braces of West to have the form of the corner braces of 30 of Takenaka teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the second connection sub-plate is located in the cavity and the first support part is located in the clearance groove (i.e. has a protrusion engaging with the clearance groove).
PNG
media_image8.png
550
673
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 16, Fig. 6 of Takenaka teaches that a width of the clearance groove is less than or equal to a thickness of the/a first support part, i.e. a thickness of the entire width and/or length of the first support part.
In reference to Claim 17, Fig. 6 of Takenaka teaches that a surface of the first connection sub-plate facing the clearance groove and/or a surface of the second connection sub-plate facing the clearance groove have a snap-fit structure (i.e. hook structure).
In reference to Claim 18, the insert below teaches that the clamping part is provided with a plurality of adhesive overflow grooves on an inner wall of the clamping part facing the laminate (i.e. grooves that are structurally capable of accommodating adhesive overflow).
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
PNG
media_image9.png
414
615
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 19, the inset below teaches that either or both of the second part and the third support part is provided with a reinforcing rib (i.e. protrusion), and the reinforcing rib is located in the cavity.
PNG
media_image10.png
550
682
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 20, the inset below teaches that at least one reinforcing part parallel to the third support part is arranged in the cavity.
PNG
media_image11.png
550
700
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections presented in the non-final office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of West and modified West.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm 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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights