DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/4/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-49 have been cancelled, and claims 50, 58 and 68 have been newly added. Currently claims 50-69 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 50 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12067862 to Murphy in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”).
Regarding claim 50, Murphy teaches a device (illuminated indicator, see claim 1, line 1) comprising:
one or more light emitting devices (light emitting devices, see claim 1, line 3) to emit light in a direction (direction, see claim 1, line 4) along an optical axis (optical axis, see claim 1, line 7); and
a light pipe (light pipe, see claim 1, line 5) having a plurality of light reflecting portions (light reflecting portions, see claim 1, line 12)
(i) receive light in the direction along the optical axis (see claim 1, lines 13-15) and
(ii) reflect the light along (see claim 1, lines 16-17)
(a) a path transverse (radially outward and divergent path, see claim 1, lines 16-17) to the optical axis and
(b) along an arc (arc of light, see claim 1, line 18) of up to 60 degrees so that a light reflected from one of the two or more of the plurality of light reflecting portions overlaps with the reflected another light reflected from another light reflecting portions portion of the two or more of the plurality of light reflecting portions (see claim 1, lines 19-23).
Murphy does not explicitly teach an arc up to 60 degrees.
Wada teaches a device (Automobile meter with a lighted pointer, see figures 4-5) having a light pipe (pointer needle 132, see fig 5) illuminated by one or more light emitting devices (light-emitting elements 140 - 140c, see fig 4) and reflecting a light spanning an arc (see arc of light reflected within 132, and better seen in fig 4 and 5);
the arc up to 60 degrees (arc is not labeled but is evident from annotated figure 5 below).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arc span of Murphy to span up to 60 degrees as taught by Wada, since the applicant has not disclosed that the arc span in degrees solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with an arc of up to 60 degrees. In this case, selecting a given arc would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Annotated figure 5 of Wada, has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
398
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 50, 54, 56, 58-62 and 67-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezouari Samir (GB 2435937 A, hereinafter, “Mezouari”) in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”).
Regarding claim 50, Mezouari teaches a device (light guide 1 with light source 26, see figures 1-3) comprising:
one or more light emitting devices (26, discrete light sources such as LEDs, see fig 2) to emit light in a direction (upwards, as seen in fig 2) along an optical axis (first axis 10, see fig 1); and
a light pipe (1, see fig 1) having a plurality of light reflecting portions (side walls 40,42 and plain portions 44 of diffusing means 36, see fig 3), wherein two or more of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40, 42, 44)
(i) receive the light (light from 26, as seen in fig 2) in the direction along the optical axis (10) and
(ii) reflect the light (see light reflected by 36, and annotated in figure 3 below) along
(a) a path transverse (perpendicularly to 10, as seen in fig 2) to the optical axis (10) and
(b) along an arc (see arc A, as annotated in figure below, and necessarily occurring as 36 reflects is radially and circumferentially, see ¶ 2, page 10) so that a light reflected (one light ray reflected by 36) from one (light reflected by one of 40, 42 or 44) of the two or more of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40, 42, 44) overlaps with another light reflected (another light ray reflected by 36) from another light reflecting portions portion (light reflected by another of 40, 42 or 44) of the two or more of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40, 42, 44).
Annotated figure 3 of Mezouari has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
745
1211
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although, Mezouari discloses the plurality of light reflecting portion are aimed to reflect the light both radially and circumferentially, i.e. in an arc (see ¶ 2, page 10) and to illuminate automobile dashboard’s (see ¶ 1, page 1) which are known to come in a variety of sizes and shapes;
Mezouari does not explicitly teach an arc up to 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to modify the arc illuminated by the plurality of reflective portions of Mezouari to span an arc of up to 60 degrees, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to illuminate gauges that are shorter in arc span, such as gas gauges or battery power indicators.
Moreover, Wada teaches a device (Automobile meter with a lighted pointer, see figures 4-5) having a light pipe (pointer needle 132, see fig 5) illuminated by one or more light emitting devices (light-emitting elements 140 - 140c, see fig 4) and reflecting a light spanning an arc (see arc of light reflected within 132, and better seen in fig 4 and 5);
the arc up to 60 degrees (arc is not labeled but is evident from figure 5 above).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arc span of Mezouari‘s to span up to 60 degrees as taught by Wada, since the applicant has not disclosed that the arc span in degrees solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with an arc of up to 60 degrees. In this case, selecting a given arc would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 54, Mezouari teaches wherein the plurality of light reflecting portions (portions of 36) define an opening (see opening enclosed by 36) within the light pipe (1).
Regarding claim 56, Mezouari teaches wherein the arc (A) of the light reflected (light reflected by portions 40 or 42 with 44, and better seen in annotated figure above) by individual light reflecting portions (40, 42 and 44) overlaps with the arc (A) of two or more adjacent light reflecting portions (light reflected by other portions 40 or 42 with 44, and better seen in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 58, Mezouari teaches method (method for using light guide 1 with light source 26, see figures 1-3), comprising:
receiving the light (light from 26, as seen in fig 2) at an input portion (light accepting end 12, see fig 2) of a light pipe (light guide 1, see fig 1), wherein the light pipe (1) has a plurality of light reflecting portions (40, 42, 44); and
reflecting the light (light reflected by 36, as seen in fig 2) with use of two or more of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40, 42, 44) of the light pipe (1) along
(i) a path divergent from the optical axis (10) and
(ii) in an arc (see arc A, as annotated in figure above, and necessarily occurring as 36 reflects is radially and circumferentially, see ¶ 2, page 10), so that
a light reflected (one light ray reflected by 36) from one (light reflected by one of 40, 42 or 44) of the two or more of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40, 42, 44), overlaps with
another light reflected (another light ray reflected by 36) from another light reflecting portion (light reflected by another of 40, 42 or 44) of the two or more of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40, 42, 44).
Although, Mezouari discloses the plurality of light reflecting portion are aimed to reflect the light both radially and circumferentially, i.e. in an arc (see ¶ 2, page 10) and to illuminate automobile dashboard’s (see ¶ 1, page 1) which are known to come in a variety of sizes and shapes;
Mezouari does not explicitly teach an arc up to 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to modify the arc illuminated by the plurality of reflective portions of Mezouari to span an arc of up to 60 degrees, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to illuminate gauges that are shorter in arc span, such as gas gauges or battery power indicators.
Moreover, Wada teaches a device (Automobile meter with a lighted pointer, see figures 4-5) having a light pipe (pointer needle 132, see fig 5) illuminated by one or more light emitting devices (light-emitting elements 140 - 140c, see fig 4) and reflecting a light spanning an arc (see arc of light reflected within 132, and better seen in fig 4 and 5);
the arc up to 60 degrees (arc is not labeled but is evident from figure 5 above).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arc span of Mezouari‘s to span up to 60 degrees as taught by Wada, since the applicant has not disclosed that the arc span in degrees solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with an arc of up to 60 degrees. In this case, selecting a given arc would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 59, Mezouari teaches wherein the path (see divergent path perpendicularly to 10, as seen in fig 2) is radially outward and transverse (see fig 2 and annotated figure above) to the optical axis (10).
Regarding claim 60, Mezouari teaches further comprising outputting the light reflected (light reflected by 36) by the plurality of light reflecting portions (40, 42, 44) from an output portion (light emitting portion 6, see fig 1) of the light pipe (1).
Regarding claim 61, Mezouari teaches wherein reflecting the light (light reflected by 36) includes homogenizing (as possible to encourage an even intensity of light emission, as disclosed in ¶ 2 of page 9) the light for emission from the output portion (6) of the light pipe (1).
Regarding claim 62, Mezouari teaches wherein outputting the light (upwards, see light rays exiting from 6, as seen in fig 2) includes outputting the light from the output portion (6) in a direction along, but not colinear with (evident from fig 2), the optical axis (10).
Regarding claim 67, Mezouari teaches wherein reflecting the light (light from 26) includes reflecting the light (via 36) from each of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40,42 and 44) to travel along an arc (A) that overlaps with the arc (A) of two adjacent ones (adjacent arrangements of 40, 42, 44) of the plurality of light reflecting portions (40,42 and 44).
Regarding claim 68, Mezouari teaches device (light guide 1 with light source 26, see figures 1-3) comprising:
means for emitting light (light emitted by light source 26, i.e. discrete light sources such as LEDs, see fig 2) in a direction (upwards, as seen in fig 2) along an optical axis (first axis 10, see fig 1); and
two or more means for reflecting light ((40, 42, 44)) emitted in the direction along the optical axis (10) to travel along a path (orthogonal to 10, as seen in fig 2) that is divergent from the optical axis (10), transverse to the optical axis (10), and spans an arc (see arc A, as annotated in figure above, and necessarily occurring as 36 reflects is radially and circumferentially, see ¶ 2, page 10) of up to 60 degrees so that a light reflected (one light ray reflected by 36) by one (light reflected by one of 40, 42 or 44) of the two or more means for reflecting light (40, 42, 44) overlaps with another light reflected (another light ray reflected by 36) by another means (light reflected by another of 40, 42 or 44) of the two or more mean for reflecting light (40, 42, 44).
Although, Mezouari discloses the plurality of light reflecting portion are aimed to reflect the light both radially and circumferentially, i.e. in an arc (see ¶ 2, page 10) and to illuminate automobile dashboard’s (see ¶ 1, page 1) which are known to come in a variety of sizes and shapes;
Mezouari does not explicitly teach an arc up to 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to modify the arc illuminated by the plurality of reflective portions of Mezouari to span an arc of up to 60 degrees, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to illuminate gauges that are shorter in arc span, such as gas gauges or battery power indicators.
Moreover, Wada teaches a device (Automobile meter with a lighted pointer, see figures 4-5) having a light pipe (pointer needle 132, see fig 5) illuminated by one or more light emitting devices (light-emitting elements 140 - 140c, see fig 4) and reflecting a light spanning an arc (see arc of light reflected within 132, and better seen in fig 4 and 5);
the arc up to 60 degrees (arc is not labeled but is evident from figure 5 above).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arc span of Mezouari‘s to span up to 60 degrees as taught by Wada, since the applicant has not disclosed that the arc span in degrees solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with an arc of up to 60 degrees. In this case, selecting a given arc would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 69, Mezouari teaches wherein the light reflected (light reflected by 44) by the means for reflecting (40, 42 and 44 of 36) overlaps with light reflected (light reflected by 40 and 42) by two other means for reflecting (40, 42 and 44 of 36) immediately adjacent (as seen in annotated figure above) to the means for reflecting (40, 42 and 44 of 36).
Claims 51, 53, 55 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezouari Samir (GB 2435937 A, hereinafter, “Mezouari”) in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”), as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Dorrie Christian (US 20020075668 A1, hereinafter, “Dorrie”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 7/8/2025).
Regarding claim 51, Mezouari as modified by Wada teaches all the limitations of claim 50, and further comprising an output portion (light emitting portion 6, see fig 1).
Mezouari does not explicitly teach the output portion forms a closed loop shape.
Dorrie teaches a light pipe (light guide 20, see figure 4) having an output portion (annular light-exiting face, see fig 4 and ¶ 20);
the output portion (annular light-exiting face of 20) forms a closed loop shape (as seen in fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the closed loop shape as taught by Dorrie into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to provide a more spread light reflection. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to implement the device in circularly shaped gauges, as envisioned by Mezouari.
Regarding claim 53, Mezouari teaches wherein the optical axis (10) passes through an interior (area enclosed by 6) of the output portion (6).
Regarding claim 55, Mezouari teaches wherein at least one light reflecting portions has a continuously curved shape.
Dorrie teaches a light pipe (light guide 20, see figure 4) having a plurality of reflective portions (deflecting faces 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41);
wherein at least one light reflecting portions (40) has a continuously curved shape (see shape of 40, as clearly seen in fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light reflecting portion as taught by Dorrie into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to provide a more spread light reflection. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid brighter strikes of light within the light pipe
Regarding claim 57, Mezouari teaches wherein a direction (see direction of light rays emitted by 6) of the output portion (6) is parallel to, but not colinear with (as clearly seen in fig 2), the optical axis (10).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezouari Samir (GB 2435937 A, hereinafter, “Mezouari”) in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”) and Dorrie Christian (US 20020075668 A1, hereinafter, “Dorrie”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 7/8/2025), as applied to claims 50-51 above, and further in view of Katayama et al. (US 20060108210 A1, hereinafter, “Katayama”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 7/8/2025).
Regarding claim 52, Mezouari as modified by Wada and Dorrie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising a button located inside of the output portion.
Katayama teaches a light pipe (light-guide portion 41, see figures 6-7) having an output portion (light-emitting portion 41b, see fig 6);
further comprising a button (button main body portion 43, see fig 7) located inside of the output portion (41b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the button as taught by Katayama into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to provide illuminate the area surrounding buttons. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to implement the device to circularly shaped buttons, as envisioned by Mezouari.
Claims 63 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezouari Samir (GB 2435937 A, hereinafter, “Mezouari”) in view of Wada et al. (US 20030066349 A1, hereinafter, “Wada”), as applied to claim 58 above, and further in view of Katayama et al. (US 20060108210 A1, hereinafter, “Katayama”).
Regarding claim 63, Mezouari as modified by Wada teaches all the limitations of claim 58, but does not explicitly teach further comprising receiving, by the light pipe, a force that causes the light pipe and an associated housing to move.
Katayama teaches a light pipe (light-guide portion 41, see figures 6-7) illuminated by a light source (light sources 47);
further comprising receiving, by the light pipe (41), a force (downward force by the user) that causes the light pipe (41) and an associated housing (button main body portion 43, see fig 6) to move (by force exerted onto 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the force on the associated housing as taught by Katayama into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to illuminate an area for device activation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to implement the device to circularly shaped button, as envisioned by Mezouari.
Regarding claim 66, Mezouari does not teach further comprising receiving, by the light pipe, a force that causes a switch to be actuated.
Katayama teaches a light pipe (light-guide portion 41, see figures 6-7) illuminated by a light source (light sources 47);
further comprising receiving, by the light pipe (41), a force (downward force by the user) that causes a switch (push down switch 46, see fig 6) to be actuated (as seen in fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the force for switch activation as taught by Katayama into the teachings of Mezouari‘s in order to illuminate an area for switch activation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to implement the device to circularly shaped button, as envisioned by Mezouari.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 64-65 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.
Regarding claim 64, under the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 58 (see rejection 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), and although Mezouari and Wada teach the device, as described in claim 58 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein receiving the force includes moving the light pipe, the associated housing and the one or more light emitting devices in response to the force.
Regarding claim 65, under the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 58 (see rejection 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), and although Mezouari and Wada teach the device, as described in claim 58 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein receiving the force includes moving the light pipe, the associated housing and a switch attached to the associated housing in response to the force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 7, that Mezuari does not teach claim 50, and similarly claims 58 and 68, stating that none of Mezouri's surfaces (i.e., side walls 40, 42 or plain portions 44) themselves are shaped to reflect light in an arc.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Maezuari, reflects light from a curved surface 22 where the resulting light is emitted sideways within the light guide, this is evident from figure 2. Because light from the light source must reach the curved surface 22, the reflection is radial and circumferential, as discussed on see ¶ 2, page 10, that is, light reflected is emitted in an arc, as required by the claim.
It appears the Applicant is attempting to claim each of the plurality of reflective portions is curved, or arched so that light reaching each of the plurality of reflective portions is also reflected as an arc; however, this is not explicitly recited in the claim. Currently, the claim does not recite any specifics regarding the shape of the reflective portions themselves. The claim only requires that light reflected by the reflective portions forms an arc, from light reflected, of up to 60 degrees.
Applicant argues, in page 8, the dependent claims should be allowed due to their dependency from claims 50, 58 and 68.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above.
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 OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights