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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration filed on 29 July 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorson (US 2022/0371172 A1) in view of Dey (US 10 295 990 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Thorson discloses a power tool (10, fig. 1) adapted to impart axial impacts to a tool bit, the power tool comprising:
a housing (14, fig. 1);
an electric motor (18, fig. 2) supported in the housing;
an input device ([0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the trigger as the claimed, “an input device”);
a reciprocation drive assembly (22, fig. 2) coupled to the electric motor and configured to convert torque from the electric motor to reciprocating motion of a drive piston (50, fig. 2) for reciprocation along a reciprocation axis (74, fig. 2) ([0028]);
a striker (78, fig. 2) that reciprocates in response to reciprocation of the drive piston ([0030]);
an anvil (86, fig. 2) positioned between the striker and the tool bit (30, fig. 2) (As shown in figure 2), the anvil configured to transmit axial impacts from the striker to the tool bit ([0030]), and
an electronic controller ([0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the top-level or master controller as the claimed, “an electronic controller”) operably coupled to the electric motor and the input device ([0027], ll. 12 – 16 describes the controller operatively connected to a switch of the trigger and a motor) to impart the axial impacts to the tool bit.
Thorson does not disclose the electronic controller being operable to receive a first signal from the input device, the first signal indicating a first constant speed of the electric motor, in response to the first signal, set an operational speed of the electric motor to the first constant speed, receive a second signal from the input device, the second signal indicating a second constant speed of the electric motor that is greater than the first constant speed, and in response to the second signal, set the operational speed of the electric motor to the second constant speed, and adjust power provided to the electric motor in response to a load on the electric motor to maintain the first constant speed or the second constant speed.
Dey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a power tool (600, fig. 16. Col. 27, ll. 15 – 17 describes a hammer drill/driver 600 wherein the hammer drill is a known power tool adapted to impart axial impacts on a tool bit) adapted to impart axial impacts to a tool bit having an electric motor (214, fig. 3A); an input device (208, figs. 3A and 4; and 602, 604, 606, fig. 16); an electronic controller (226, fig. 3A) operably coupled to the electric motor and the input device (As shown in fig. 3A), the electronic controller being operable to receive a first signal from the input device, the first signal indicating a first constant speed of the electric motor, in response to the first signal, set an operational speed of the electric motor to the first constant speed (Col. 24, ll. 24 – 29 describes a controller 226 operable to decode different mode profiles and control the power tool according to the features and parameters specified by that mode profile wherein col. 6, ll. 28 – 33 describes that controlling the power tool includes controlling a speed of a motor 214. Col. 27, ll. 41 – 47 describes a user can then elect whether the hammer drill/driver is in the low-speed setting or high-speed setting based on the position of the high-low speed selector 606. Col. 27, ll. 41 – 47 further describes a mode profile called a trigger speed control map feature that allows a user to separately specify a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and the high-speed setting. Thus, in the case the user specifies a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and a maximum speed for the high-speed setting such that the maximum speed for the high-speed setting is greater than the maximum speed for the low-speed setting, when the high-low speed selector 606 is positioned in the low-speed setting, a controller 226 receives this first signal, decodes the maximum speed parameter from the user specified low-speed setting of the trigger speed control map feature, and sets a maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the low-speed setting. Please note, when the trigger is fully pulled, the motor 214 is driven steadily or at a constant rate at this maximum operational speed), receive a second signal from the input device, the second signal indicating a second constant speed of the electric motor that is greater than the first constant speed, in response to the second signal, set the operational speed of the electric motor to the second constant speed (In the case the user specifies a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and a maximum speed for the high-speed setting such that the maximum speed for the high-speed setting is greater than the maximum speed for the low-speed setting, when the high-low speed selector 606 is positioned in the high-speed setting, the controller 226 receives this second signal, decodes the maximum speed parameter from the user specified high-speed setting of the trigger speed control map feature, and sets a maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the high-speed setting – which is greater than the maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the low-speed setting. Please note, when the trigger is fully pulled, the motor 214 is driven steadily or at a constant rate at this maximum operational speed), and adjust power provided to the electric motor in response to a load on the electric motor to maintain the first constant speed or the second constant speed (Col. 6, ll. 49 – 62 describes the controller 226 adjusting power via a switching network 216 and using closed-loop feedback to control the speed of the motor 214 to be at a desired level. Additionally, col. 28, ll. 42 – 58 describes that this closed-loop feedback is available where the user specifies a maximum speed for the motor 214 as described above in the trigger speed control map feature. It is well known in the art that a motor speed of an electric motor is affected by a load on the electric motor (i.e., when the load increases, the electric motor slows down and when the load decreases the electric motor speeds up). Therefore, when the load increases and the electric motor slows down or when the load decreases and electric motor speeds up, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that this closed-loop feedback would increase or decrease the PWM signal duty cycle in response to these loads on the electric motor to achieve and maintain the desired motor speed – as required by the claim).
Dey is evidence that having the electronic controller being operable to receive the first signal from the input device, the first signal indicating the first constant speed of the electric motor, in response to the first signal, set the operational speed of the electric motor to the first constant speed, receive the second signal from the input device, the second signal indicating the second constant speed of the electric motor that is greater than the first constant speed, and in response to the second signal, set the operational speed of the electric motor to the second constant speed, and adjust power provided to the electric motor in response to a load on the electric motor to maintain the first constant speed or the second constant speed was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the power tool of Thorson with the input devices and the functions of the electric controller of Dey. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the power tool of Thorson with the input devices and the functions of the electric controller of Dey with the motivation to allow the user to specify the maximum speed for the low-speed setting and the high-speed setting according to the needs of the fasteners used, the workpieces being worked upon, and/or the operation being performed. Moreover, the maximum speed for the low-speed setting and the high-speed setting is maintained at these settings via closed-loop feedback to ensure consistent performance of the power tool.
Regarding claim 2, Thorson, as modified by Dey, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Thorson does not explicitly disclose a speed sensor configured to detect the operational speed of the electric motor, wherein the electronic controller is operable to receive an input from the speed sensor, and in response to the input, adjust the operational speed to maintain the first constant speed..
However, Dey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a speed sensor (218, fig. 3A) configured to detect the operational speed of the electric motor (126, fig. 3A) (Col. 7, ll. 55 – 59 describes sensors 218 capable of detecting the motor speed and other parameters of the motor), wherein the electronic controller is operable to receive an input from the speed sensor, and in response to the input, adjust the operational speed to maintain the first constant speed (Col. 6, ll. 49 – 63 describes motor feedback information from sensors 218 used by a controller 226 to provide closed-loop feedback to control the speed of a motor 214 to a desired level).
Dey is evidence that having the speed sensor configured to detect the operational speed of the electric motor, wherein the electronic controller is operable to receive the input from the speed sensor, and in response to the input, adjust the operational speed to maintain the first constant speed was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the power tool of Thorson with the speed sensor and the functions of the electric controller of Dey. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the power tool of Thorson with the speed sensor and the functions of the electric controller of Dey with the motivation to ensure the speed of the motor is regulated and corresponds to the pull of the trigger or to the specification of the user regardless of load or other variations that may vary the motor speed.
Regarding claim 3, Thorson, as modified by Dey, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Thorson discloses the input device comprises a trigger ([0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the trigger as the claimed, “an input device”. Please note, the term, “comprises”, denotes an open-ended list of elements that make up the input device wherein the trigger is just one element in that list) supported by the housing (14, fig. 1) (As shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Thorson, as modified by Dey, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Thorson discloses the input device (Thorson – [0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the trigger as the claimed, “an input device”; and Dey – 208, figs. 3A and 4; and 602, 604, 606, fig. 16) comprises a mode selector (Dey – 208, figs. 3A and 4) supported by the housing (Thorson – 14, fig. 1), and wherein the power tool further comprises a trigger (Thorson – [0027], ll. 12 – 16 wherein the examiner deems the trigger as the claimed, “an input device”) supported by the housing (Thorson – As shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Thorson, as modified by Dey, discloses the invention as recited in claim 4.
The modified Thorson discloses in response to a start signal from the trigger (Thorson – [0027], ll. 12 – 16, “trigger”), the electronic controller (Thorson – [0027], ll. 12 – 16, “top-level or master controller”) is configured to operate the electric motor (Thorson – 18, fig. 2) at the first constant speed in accordance with receiving the first signal (Dey – Col. 24, ll. 24 – 29 describes a controller 226 operable to decode different mode profiles and control the power tool according to the features and parameters specified by that mode profile wherein col. 6, ll. 28 – 33 describes that controlling the power tool includes controlling a speed of a motor 214. Col. 27, ll. 41 – 47 describes a user can then elect whether the hammer drill/driver is in the low-speed setting or high-speed setting based on the position of the high-low speed selector 606 wherein col. 27, ll. 41 – 47 further describes a mode profile called a trigger speed control map feature that allows a user to separately specify a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and the high-speed setting. Thus, in the case the user specifies a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and a maximum speed for the high-speed setting such that the maximum speed for the high-speed setting is greater than the maximum speed for the low-speed setting, when the high-low speed selector 606 is positioned in the low-speed setting, a controller 226 receives this first signal, decodes the maximum speed parameter from the user specified low-speed setting of the trigger speed control map feature, and sets a maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the low-speed setting. Please note, when the trigger is fully pulled, the motor 214 is driven steadily or at a constant rate at this maximum operational speed) and at the second constant speed in accordance with receiving the second signal (Dey – In the case the user specifies a maximum speed for the low-speed setting and a maximum speed for the high-speed setting such that the maximum speed for the high-speed setting is greater than the maximum speed for the low-speed setting, when the high-low speed selector 606 is positioned in the high-speed setting, the controller 226 receives this second signal, decodes the maximum speed parameter from the user specified high-speed setting of the trigger speed control map feature, and sets a maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the high-speed setting – which is greater than the maximum operational speed for the motor 214 at the low-speed setting. Please note, when the trigger is fully pulled, the motor 214 is driven steadily or at a constant rate at this maximum operational speed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 7 and independent claim 8, the subject matter of the power tool is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 9 – 14 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 8.
Claims 7 and 8 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claims 7 – 8, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claims 7 – 8 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
the electronic controller being operable to:
receive a first acceleration selection from the mode selector, the first acceleration selection indicating a first acceleration rate of the electric motor corresponding to a first impact time for impact energy to be delivered,
in response to the first acceleration selection, set an operational acceleration rate of the electric motor to the first acceleration rate, the operational acceleration rate corresponding to a time period during which the electric motor is accelerated from a stopped state to a desired constant speed,
receive a second acceleration selection from the mode selector, the second acceleration selection indicating a second acceleration rate of the electric motor that is greater than the first acceleration rate corresponding to a second impact time for impact energy to be delivered that is less than the first impact time, and
in response to the second acceleration selection, set the operational acceleration rate of the electric motor to the second acceleration rate.
The closest prior art is Thorson (US 2022/0371172 A1) in view of Dey (US 10 295 990 B2). Dey teaches an electronic controller being operable to receive a first acceleration selection from the mode selector wherein the first acceleration selection indicating a first acceleration rate of the electric motor and to receive a second acceleration selection from the mode selector wherein the second acceleration selection indicating a second acceleration rate of the electric motor that is greater than the first acceleration rate. However, Dey does not disclose that the first acceleration rate of the electric motor corresponds to a first impact time for impact energy to be delivered or that the second acceleration rate of the electric motor corresponds to a second impact time for impact energy to be delivered that is less than the first impact time – as required by the claim. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the above-cited limitations. Thus, it is examiner' s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Regarding dependent claim 6 and independent claim 15, the subject matter of the power tool is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 16 – 20 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 15.
Claims 6 and 15 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claims 6 and 15, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claims 6 and 15 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
the electronic controller being operable to:
receive a second mode selection from the mode selector, and
according to the second mode selection, repeatedly cycle a motor speed of the electric motor between the constant speed and a stopped state in response to the start signal from the trigger
The closest prior art is Thorson (US 2022/0371172 A1) in view of Dey (US 10 295 990 B2). Dey teaches an electronic controller. However, Dey does not disclose receiving the second mode selection from the mode selector, and according to the second mode selection, repeatedly cycle the motor speed of the electric motor between the constant speed and the stopped state where the electric motor is not moving in response to the start signal from the trigger – as required by the claim. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the above-cited limitations. Thus, it is examiner' s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 29 July 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Thorson and Dey, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest an electronic controller that is operable to adjust power provided to the electric motor in response to a load on the electric motor to maintain a first constant speed or a second constant speed. To support a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an examiner must establish "a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference." MPEP § 2143(A) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). To overcome the rejection, Applicant need only identify a single limitation that is not arranged or combined in the prior art in the same way as recited in the claim.
The Office admits that Thorson does not teach an electronic controller operable to set an operational speed of an electric motor to either of a first constant speed or second constant speed in response to a first signal and second signal, respectively. Office Action, p. 4. The Office then relies on Dey to cure this deficiency, alleging that Dey teaches a power tool (e.g., hammer drill/driver 600) having an electric controller (e.g., controller 226) and an electric motor (e.g., motor 214) that operate under various mode profiles. Id., p. 7. In particular, the Office relies on Dey's "trigger speed control map feature" for a hammer drill where trigger 212 and high-low speed selector 606 can switch operation of hammer drill/driver 600 between a low-speed and high-speed setting having distinct user-specified maximum speeds. See id., p. 5-6. The Office equates the user- specified maximum speeds to the claimed first and second constant speeds. See id.
But Dey does not account for the effect of loading on the operational speed of the motor 214. Rather, when setting the maximum operational speed, Dey teaches generating a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal with a fixed duty cycle to drive the motor 214 at the maximum speed. Specifically, Dey states that:
a user may indicate via a control screen of a tool profile 314 a maximum and/or minimum speed parameter value (see, e.g., FIG. 8A). These selected parameter values are provided to the tool as part of a mode profile 300, and they map to a particular pulse width modulated (PWM) duty cycle. Accordingly, if a user depresses the trigger 212 by a first (minimum) amount, the controller 226 generates a PWM signal with a first (lower) duty cycle for driving the FET switching 216 and driving the motor 214 the minimum speed. If the user fully depresses the trigger 212 by a second (maximum) amount, the controller 226 generates a PWM signal with a second (higher) duty cycle for driving the FET switching 216 and driving the motor 214 the maximum speed. Dey, 28:19-41 (emphasis added).
Since the PWM signal remains at a particular PWM duty cycle, the operational speed of the motor 214 will actually decrease under load (e.g., when a tool bit impacts a workpiece). Thus, Dey does not teach adjusting power provided to the electric motor in response to a load on the electric motor to maintain the first constant speed or the second constant speed.
The Office attempts to cure this deficiency by relying on Dey's general disclosure of closed-loop feedback. Specifically, the Office alleges that controller 226 can provide closed-loop feedback to control the speed of motor 214 to be at a desired level. See Office Action, p. 14 (citing Dey 6:49-62). But this is generic, background-level disclosure that is entirely unrelated to the trigger speed control map feature, which is the feature the Office relies upon to teach the claimed first and second constant speeds.
An obviousness rejection must be supported by a factual finding grounded in the reference itself, not by speculation as to what the reference might imply. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("rejections 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"). Indeed, in response to Applicant's prior remarks, the Office conceded that "Dey does not specifically disclose this adjustment is in response to a load on the electric motor," but nonetheless asserted that "Dey implies any changes in the motor speed would be adjusted via the closed-loop feedback." Office Action, p. 14-15. This concession confirms that Dey does not expressly teach adjusting power provided to the electric motor in response to a load on the electric motor to maintain a first constant speed or a second constant speed, and that the rejection rests on an unsupported inference rather than on a factual finding drawn from Dey's actual teaching.
To the extent the Office is relying on inherency, that theory also falls short. "The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic." MPEP 2112(IV) (citing In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). "In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Exparte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis original).
But here, Dey actually rebuts the Examiner's position, providing instead that the trigger speed control map feature "uses an open-loop control technique." Dey, 28:40-41. Where a reference specifically and expressly describes how a particular feature operates, that specific disclosure controls over a generic, unanchored statement elsewhere in the reference describing a different, unspecified instance. Because Dey's own specific description of the trigger speed control map feature confirms that this feature does not use closed-loop feedback, the Office's generic citation to closed-loop feedback occurring "in some instances" cannot establish that the trigger speed control map feature adjusts power to the motor in response to load to maintain a constant speed.
In response to applicant’s argument that Dey does not teach the limitation, “adjust power provided to the electric motor in response to a load on the electric motor to maintain the first constant speed or the second constant speed”, Dey discloses that the controller 226 provides closed-loop feedback to control the speed of the motor 214 to be maintained at a desired level. See Dey 6:49 – 62. While applicant correctly cites that the controller 226 of Dey “generates a PWM signal with a second (higher) duty cycle for driving the FET switching 216 and driving the motor 214 the maximum speed”, this closed-loop feedback would be adjusted to maintain this maximum speed in cases where the motor speed becomes higher or lower than this maximum speed.
Applicant argues, citing col. 28, ll. 19 – 41, that Dey operates using open-loop control and by generating a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal with a fixed duty cycle to drive the motor at the maximum speed and that the Office attempts to cure this deficiency by citing a generic, background-level disclosure that is entirely unrelated to the trigger speed control map feature. However, Dey states:
Closed loop variable speed control is another available feature where the user can specify a maximum and/or minimum speed for the motor 214. The closed loop variable speed feature is similar to the trigger speed control map feature, except that the controller 226 monitors Hall sensor output form the sensors 218 to determine the actual speed of the motor 214 to provide closed loop feedback. The controller 226, in turn, will increase or decrease the PWM signal duty cycle to the FET switching 216 to achieve the desired motor speed. (col. 28, ll. 42 – 51)
This paragraph describes the closed-loop feedback increasing or decreasing the PWM signal duty cycle to achieve and maintain the desired motor speed and working directly with the trigger speed control map feature that the Office relies upon to teach the claimed first and second constant speeds. Thus, applicant’s arguments that Dey only operates using open-loop control and by generating a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal with a fixed duty cycle and that the teachings of the closed-loop feedback are entirely unrelated to the trigger speed control map feature are incorrect.
Applicant further argues that since Dey does not expressly or explicitly disclose adjusting power provided to the electric motor in response to a load on the electric motor to maintain a first constant speed or a second constant speed, Dey does not disclose the feature. However, it is well known in the art that a motor speed of an electric motor is affected by a load on the electric motor (i.e., when the load increases, the electric motor slows down and when the load decreases the electric motor speeds up). For example, Chromy (GB 2 025 830 A) and Kato (US 2021/0094163 A1) respectively states,
Usually an electric motor or internal-combustion engine serves to provide the drive of the hammer drill. A characteristic of both these 20 kinds of motor is that the speed thereof is load-dependent, i.e. a decrease in the load results in an increase in the speed of the motor. (Chromy – pg. 1, ll. 17 – 22)
Then, when a load is applied to the motor 21 due to tightening of a screw or the like, the motor speed decreases in accordance with the load. When hammering occurs after the motor speed decreases in accordance with the load, the load applied to the motor 21 temporarily decreases. Thus, the motor speed fluctuates. (Kato – [0122])
Dey discloses that while using the closed-loop feedback, the controller will increase or decrease the PWM signal duty cycle to achieve and maintain the desired motor speed – in this case, the maximum motor speed. Thus, when the load increases and the electric motor slows down or when the load decreases and electric motor speeds up, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that this closed-loop feedback would increase or decrease the PWM signal duty cycle in response to these loads on the electric motor to achieve and maintain the desired motor speed – as required by the claim.
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 replying 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 DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
3 September 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights