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 .
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues with regard to the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection that the examiner’s interpretation presented on page 6 of the remarks is improper. First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is mapped to the art. An interpretation of the art is not made or required as what is disclosed by the art is simply what is disclosed. The claim language is interpreted and applied or mapped onto the structures disclosed by the art. Therefore, no hindsight is being applied. The concept of hindsight is not relevant to anticipation (only to obviousness).
The applicant argues that the arbitrary delineation of the top rails in Scalzo and Morrison is contrary to the case of In re Dennison, Appeal 2009-004110, App. No. 10/158/362, Tech Center 3700, January 19, 2010. First, the case law is not precedential and is not included in the MPEP. The facts of the case are also substantially different in that two different claimed elements were being mapped to a single structure by the examiner in the cited case. This is fundamentally different than interpreting a portion of something as a claimed structure. Therefore, the analysis is entirely different in the two cases.
The applicant further argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “top rail … extending therefrom to terminate at a position between 60% and 80% of a length of the top of each of the parallel sidewalls” does not include full length top rails. The examiner disagrees for the rationale provided previously in the rejection below in that the structure claimed may also have additional related structures due to the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” used by the claims. In arguing that the examiner’s interpretation is not consistent with the specification, the applicant is improperly “importing claim limitations from the specification”, see MPEP 2111.01 II.
The applicant lastly argues the examiner’s interpretation vitiates the explicit language of a “top rail terminates between 60% to 80% of the length of the parallel side walls”. Although the specific wording / concept of the limitation does not differentiate from the prior art, this does not mean it has not been given proper weight. The claim language requires the top rail to extend from the first end wall to terminate at between 60% and 80 of the length of the parallel side walls. This limitation would not be met by top rails that only extended for example 30% of the length of parallel side from the first end wall. Therefore, the examiner disagrees that the language is vitiated by the examiner’s interpretation.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections for substantially the same reasons as discussed above and is rebutted in the same manner.
Based on the above the rejections are maintained and made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the substantially rectangular cover plate has elasticity sufficient for the rectangular cover plate to flex so as to permit insertion into the cover plate retention slot.” This claim refers to a function of the rectangular cover plate of being flexible to the point that it permits its insertion into the cover plate retention slot, see MPEP 2173.05(g). Additionally, it is a product by process as the claim refers to a step of inserting the cover plate into a slot, see MPEP 2113. The product by process claim only restricts the product implied by the step. It is unclear how the functional limitation of the cover plate having the ability to flex to permit insertion limits the claim as no insertion is actually required to be performed. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted broadly.
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 1-2, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scalzo et al. (U.S Patent 3,529,903) hereinafter Scalzo.
Regarding claim 1, Scalzo discloses:
A cover plate retention system for a gaspath component of a turbine engine {Figure 1 (22) is a gaspath component with cover plate retention},
the gaspath component having a hot side configured for exposure to a hot gaspath of the turbine engine and an opposing non-gaspath side {Figure 1 (22) is exposed to the gaspath on the radially inner side adjacent (16)}, comprising:
a cavity having an opening disposed on the non-gaspath side of the gaspath component {Figure 1 (22) has a cavity (28) formed on the radially outer side of (22)},
the opening having a pair of parallel side walls, a first end wall, and a second end wall {Figures 1-3 (44) are the parallel side walls and the two instances (46) are the first and second end walls};
a top rail disposed at a top of the first end wall and extending therefrom to terminate at a position between 60% and 80% of a length of the top of each of the parallel side walls {Figure 2 (50) on the left and right has top rails that form the slot (58). The rails extend for substantially the entire length of the parallel side walls as shown in Figures 3 / 4, but what is considered the top rail for mapping to the claim is only a portion of this rail that is 60% to 80% of the length. The claim uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”; see MPEP 2111.03 I. A top rail that extends along 100% of the parallel side walls comprises a top rail that terminates between 60% and 80% of the length of the parallel side walls. Therefore, the disclosure satisfies the limitation}; and
a bottom rail disposed a specified distance below the top rail on the first end wall and extending therefrom along at least the major portion of each of the parallel side walls to form a cover plate retention slot {Figure 2 (50) on the left and right has bottom rails that form the slot (58) at a distance from the top rail of (50). The bottom and top rails extend for substantially the entire length of the parallel side walls as shown in Figure 4}.
Regarding claim 2, Scalzo teaches:
wherein the opening is substantially rectangular {Figures 1-3, the opening covered by (60) is rectangular}, the system further comprising:
a substantially rectangular cover plate dimensioned to slidably engage the cover plate retention slot {Figures 1-3, cover plate (60) is substantially rectangular cover plate that slidably engages the retention slot (58); Scalzo Column 4 lines 6-33}.
Regarding claim 11, Scalzo discloses:
A cover plate retention method for a gaspath component of a turbine engine {Figure 1 (22) is a gaspath component with cover plate retention},
the gaspath component having a hot side configured for exposure to a hot gaspath of the turbine engine and an opposing non-gaspath side {Figure 1 (22) is exposed to the gaspath on the radially inner side adjacent (16)}, comprising:
the method comprising:
forming a cavity having an opening disposed on the non-gaspath side of the gaspath component {Figure 1 (22) has a cavity (28) formed on the radially outer side of (22)},
the opening having a pair of parallel side walls, a first end wall, and a second end wall {Figures 1-3 (44) are the parallel side walls and the two instances (46) are the first and second end walls};
forming a top rail disposed at a top of the first end wall and extending therefrom to terminate at a position between 60% and 80% of a length of the top of each of the parallel side walls {Figure 2 (50) on the left and right has top rails that form the slot (58). The rails extend for substantially the entire length of the parallel side walls as shown in Figures 3 / 4, but what is considered the top rail for mapping to the claim is only a portion of this rail that is 60% to 80% of the length. The claim uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”; see MPEP 2111.03 I. A top rail that extends along 100% of the parallel side walls comprises a top rail that terminates between 60% and 80% of the length of the parallel side walls. Therefore, the disclosure satisfies the limitation}; and
a forming bottom rail disposed a fixed or specified distance below the top rail on the first end wall and extending therefrom along at least the major portion of each of the parallel side walls to form a cover plate retention slot {Figure 2 (50) on the left and right has bottom rails that form the slot (58) at a distance from the top rail of (50). The bottom and top rails extend for substantially the entire length of the parallel side walls as shown in Figure 4}.
Regarding claim 13, Scalzo teaches:
wherein the opening is substantially rectangular {Figures 1-3, the opening covered by (60) is rectangular}, the method further comprising:
sliding a substantially rectangular cover plate into the cover plate retention slot {Figures 1-3, cover plate (60) is substantially rectangular cover plate that slidably engages the retention slot (58); Scalzo Column 4 lines 6-33}.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20040047726) hereinafter Morrison in view of Scalzo et al. (U.S Patent 3,529,903) hereinafter Scalzo.
PNG
media_image1.png
600
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Morrison discloses:
A cover plate retention system for a gaspath component of a turbine engine {Figure 1 (32) and (34) are a gaspath component and cover plate of a turbine engine},
the gaspath component having a hot side configured for exposure to a hot gaspath of the turbine engine and an opposing non-gaspath side {Figure 1, the gaspath component (32)/(38) has a hot gaspath side facing (12) and a non-gaspath side facing (42)}, comprising:
a cavity having an opening disposed on the non-gaspath side of the gaspath component {Figure 1, the interior of (32) which includes (50)/(52) defines a cavity inside which includes the volume (42); this cavity formed by (32) is open at the radially outer side when (34) is not present; the opening is on the non-gaspath side of (32) which is the radially outer side},
the opening having a pair of parallel side walls, a first end wall, and a second end wall {Annotated Figure 1, the opening is formed at the radially outer side of the parallel side walls (Ia) and (Ib); first end wall (IIa), and a second end wall opposite the first end wall that is not shown due to the perspective and only a portion being shown};
a top rail disposed at a top of the first end wall and extending therefrom to terminate at a position between 60% and 80% of a length of the top of each of the parallel side walls {Annotated Figure 1, (52) and (50) are disposed at the top of (IIa) and extend along the entire shown portion of the parallel side walls (Ia) and (Ib) and also implicitly extend essentially along the entire top of each of the parallel side walls. See MPEP 2144.01. What is considered the top rail for mapping to the claim is only be a portion of this rail that is 60% to 80% of the length. The claim uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”; see MPEP 2111.03 I. A top rail that extends along 100% of the parallel side walls comprises a top rail that terminates between 60% and 80% of the length of the parallel side walls. Therefore the disclosure satisfies the limitation although the structure exceeds the claimed range}.
Morrison does not disclose:
a bottom rail disposed a specified distance below the top rail on the first end wall and extending therefrom along at least the major portion of each of the parallel side walls to form a cover plate retention slot.
Scalzo pertains to gas turbine gaspath structure components and cover plates. Scalzo teaches:
a bottom rail disposed a specified distance below the top rail on the first end wall and extending therefrom along at least the major portion of each of the parallel side walls to form a cover plate retention slot {Figure 2 (50) on the left and right has a bottom rails that form the slot (58) at a distance from the top rail of (50). The bottom and top rails extend for substantially the entire length of the parallel side walls as shown in Figure 4}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally used a bottom rail as taught by Scalzo for the configuration of Morrison. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a top and bottom rail being used to form a slot to secure a cover plate rather than a single top rail / hook structure is a simple substitution, see MPEP 2143 I B. Both a top and bottom rail securing structure as well as a single top rail / hook structure are both known in the art to secure / mount elements. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the single top rail for a configuration with a top and bottom rail, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as the rails behave in a very predictable manner of limiting movement and securing a structure within. Morrison additionally recognizes that other cross sections besides c-shaped may be used to wrap around 46/48 supporting and shielding the metal structure from combustion gases {[0019]}.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Morrison and Scalzo further teaches:
wherein the opening is substantially rectangular {Morrison Figure 2, the opening is rectangular and as it is covered by a rectangular prism shape},
the system further comprising a substantially rectangular cover plate {Annotated Figure 1, the system comprises a substantially rectangular cover plate (III) which is a part of (34)}
The combination of Morrison and Scalzo is silent regarding the dimensions / fit of the cover plate in the cover plate retention slot and is therefore silent regarding:
The cover plate being dimensioned to slidably engage the cover plate retention slot.
Scalzo teaches the cover plate being dimensioned to slidably engage the cover plate retention slot {Scalzo Column 4 lines 6-33}
Since the combination of Morrison and Scalzo is silent regarding the dimensions / fit of the cover plate in the cover plate retention slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used dimensions of the cover plate / slot of the combination of Morrison and Scalzo such that the cover plate slidably engages the cover plate retention slot. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it can still provide sealing while being easy to install {Scalzo Column 4 lines 6-33}.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Morrison and Scalzo further teaches:
wherein the substantially rectangular cover plate is metallic {Morrison Figure 1 (34) is metallic which (III) in Annotated Figure 1 is a part of; [0017]}.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Morrison and Scalzo further teaches:
wherein the substantially rectangular cover plate has elasticity sufficient for the rectangular cover plate to flex so as to permit insertion into the cover plate retention slot {See 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above. Morrison Annotated Figure 1 (III) is metal as discussed directly above. The examiner finds that metals are have a greater degree of elasticity compared to brittle materials such as CMC. An assembly step of inserting the cover plate into the cover plate retention slot is not required as this is a product claim, see MPEP 2113 I. The limitation is also functional language related to the above product by process limitation, see MPEP 2173.05(g). Since the process of inserting the cover plate is not required there is no defined amount of flexibility required. Therefore, the examiner finds the structure of the combination of Morrison and Scalzo teaches the limitation as the cover plate is in place in the slot}.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Morrison and Scalzo further teaches:
wherein the gaspath component is a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) component {Morrison Figure 1 (32) is CMC; [0017]}.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Morrison and Scalzo further teaches:
wherein the substantially rectangular cover plate is metallic {Morrison Figure 1 (34) is metallic which (III) in Annotated Figure 1 is a part of; [0017]}.
Regarding claim 11, Morrison discloses:
A cover plate retention method for a gaspath component of a turbine engine {Figure 1 (32) and (34) are a gaspath component and cover plate of a turbine engine},
the gaspath component having a hot side configured for exposure to a hot gaspath of the turbine engine and an opposing non-gaspath side {Figure 1, the gaspath component (32)/(38) has a hot gaspath side facing (12) and a non-gaspath side facing (42)},
the method comprising:
forming a cavity having an opening disposed on the non-gaspath side of the gaspath component {Figure 1, the interior of (32) which includes (50)/(52) defines a cavity inside which includes the volume (42); this cavity formed by (32) is open at the radially outer side when (34) is not present; the opening is on the non-gaspath side of (32) which is the radially outer side},
the opening having a pair of parallel side walls, a first end wall, and a second end wall {Annotated Figure 1, the opening is formed at the radially outer side of the parallel side walls (Ia) and (Ib); first end wall (IIa), and a second end wall opposite the first end wall that is not shown due to the perspective and only a portion being shown};
forming a top rail disposed at a top of the first end wall and extending therefrom to terminate at a position between 60% and 80% of a length of the top of each of the parallel side walls {Annotated Figure 1, (52) and (50) are disposed at the top of (IIa) and extend along the entire shown portion of the parallel side walls (Ia) and (Ib) and also implicitly extend essentially along the entire top of each of the parallel side walls. See MPEP 2144.01. What is considered the top rail for mapping to the claim is only be a portion of this rail that is 60% to 80% of the length. The claim uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”; see MPEP 2111.03 I. A top rail that extends along 100% of the parallel side walls comprises a top rail that terminates between 60% and 80% of the length of the parallel side walls. Therefore the disclosure satisfies the limitation although the structure exceeds the claimed range}.
Morrison does not disclose:
forming a bottom rail disposed a fixed or a specified distance below the top rail on the first end wall and extending therefrom along at least the major portion of each of the parallel side walls to form a cover plate retention slot.
Scalzo pertains to gas turbine gaspath structure components and cover plates. Scalzo teaches:
a bottom rail disposed a fixed or a specified distance below the top rail on the first end wall and extending therefrom along at least the major portion of each of the parallel side walls to form a cover plate retention slot {Figure 2 (50) on the left and right has a bottom rails that form the slot (58) at a fixed distance from the top rail of (50). The bottom and top rails extend for substantially the entire length of the parallel side walls as shown in Figure 4}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally used a bottom rail as taught by Scalzo for the configuration of Morrison. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a top and bottom rail being used to form a slot to secure a cover plate rather than a single top rail / hook structure is a simple substitution, see MPEP 2143 I B. Both a top and bottom rail securing structure as well as a single top rail / hook structure are both known in the art to secure / mount elements. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the single top rail for a configuration with a top and bottom rail, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as the rails behave in a very predictable manner of limiting movement and securing a structure within. Morrison additionally recognizes that other cross sections besides c-shaped may be used to wrap around 46/48 supporting and shielding the metal structure from combustion gases {[0019]}.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Morrison and Scalzo further teaches:
wherein the opening is substantially rectangular {Morrison Figure 2, the opening is rectangular and as it is covered by a rectangular prism shape}
a substantially rectangular cover plate {Annotated Figure 1, the system comprises a substantially rectangular cover plate (III) which is a part of (34)}
The combination of Morrison and Scalzo is silent how exactly the cover plate is assembled with the cover plate slot and is therefore silent regarding:
Sliding the substantially rectangular cover plate into the cover plate retention slot.
Scalzo teaches the cover plate being dimensioned to slidably engage the cover plate retention slot {Scalzo Column 4 lines 6-33}
Since the combination of Morrison and Scalzo is silent how exactly the cover plate is assembled with the cover plate slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assembled the cover plate with the slot of the combination of Morrison and Scalzo such that the cover plate slidably engages the cover plate retention slot. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it can still provide sealing while being easy to install {Scalzo Column 4 lines 6-33}.
Regarding claim 18, Morrison discloses:
A cover plate retention system for a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) blade outer air seal (BOAS) segment of a turbine engine {Figure 1 (32) is CMC and retains cover plate (34); [0017]},
the CMC BOAS having a hot side configured for exposure to a hot gaspath of the turbine engine and an opposing non-gaspath side {Figure 1, the gaspath component (32)/(38) has a hot gaspath side facing (12) and a non-gaspath side facing (42)}, comprising:
a cavity having a substantially rectangular opening disposed on the non-gaspath side of the CMC BOAS segment {Figure 1, the interior of (32) which includes (50)/(52) defines a cavity inside which includes the volume (42); this cavity formed by (32) is open at the radially outer side when (34) is not present; the opening is on the non-gaspath side of (32) which is the radially outer side. Figure 2, the opening is rectangular and as it is covered by a rectangular prism shape},
the opening having a pair of parallel side walls, a first end wall, and a second end wall {Annotated Figure 1, the opening is formed at the radially outer side of the parallel side walls (Ia) and (Ib); first end wall (IIa), and a second end wall opposite the first end wall that is not shown due to the perspective and only a portion being shown};
a top rail disposed at a top of the first end wall and extending therefrom to terminate at a position between 60% and 80% of a length of the top of each of the parallel side walls {Annotated Figure 1, (52) and (50) are disposed at the top of (IIa) and extend along the entire shown portion of the parallel side walls (Ia) and (Ib) and also implicitly extend essentially along the entire top of each of the parallel side walls. See MPEP 2144.01. What is considered the top rail for mapping to the claim is only be a portion of this rail that is 60% to 80% of the length. The claim uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”; see MPEP 2111.03 I. A top rail that extends along 100% of the parallel side walls comprises a top rail that terminates between 60% and 80% of the length of the parallel side walls. Therefore the disclosure satisfies the limitation although the structure exceeds the claimed range}
a substantially rectangular metal cover plate {Annotated Figure 1 (III) is substantially rectangular and is a part of metal component (34); [0017]}
Morrison does not disclose:
a bottom rail disposed a fixed or a specified distance below the top rail on the first end wall and extending therefrom along at least the major portion of each of the parallel side walls to form a cover plate retention slot.
Scalzo pertains to gas turbine gaspath structure components and cover plates. Scalzo teaches:
a bottom rail disposed at a fixed / specified distance below the top rail on the first end wall and extending therefrom along at least the major portion of each of the parallel side walls to form a cover plate retention slot {Figure 2 (50) on the left and right has a bottom rails that form the slot (58) at a distance from the top rail of (50). The bottom and top rails extend for substantially the entire length of the parallel side walls as shown in Figure 4}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally used a bottom rail as taught by Scalzo for the configuration of Morrison. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a top and bottom rail being used to form a slot to secure a cover plate rather than a single top rail / hook structure is a simple substitution, see MPEP 2143 I B. Both a top and bottom rail securing structure as well as a single top rail / hook structure are both known in the art to secure / mount elements. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the single top rail for a configuration with a top and bottom rail, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as the rails behave in a very predictable manner of limiting movement and securing a structure within. Morrison additionally recognizes that other cross sections besides c-shaped may be used to wrap around 46/48 supporting and shielding the metal structure from combustion gases {[0019]}.
The combination of Morrison and Scalzo is silent regarding the dimensions / fit of the cover plate in the cover plate retention slot and is therefore silent regarding:
The cover plate being dimensioned to slidably engage the cover plate retention slot.
Scalzo teaches the cover plate being dimensioned to slidably engage the cover plate retention slot {Scalzo Column 4 lines 6-33}.
Since the combination of Morrison and Scalzo is silent regarding the dimensions / fit of the cover plate in the cover plate retention slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used dimensions of the cover plate / slot of the combination of Morrison and Scalzo such that the cover plate slidably engages the cover plate retention slot. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it can still provide sealing while being easy to install {Scalzo Column 4 lines 6-33}.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Morrison and Scalzo further teaches:
wherein the bottom rail extends a full length of the parallel side walls to form a sealing structure {Morrison Figure 2, the rails (50)/(52) extend a full length; Scalzo Figures 1-3 the top and bottom rails (50) extend along the full length}.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights