DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are maintained in rejection despite the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 11/03/2025. A response to those arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bompart (US 2,561,173) in view of Attar (US 7,001,100).
Referring to Claim 1: Bompart teaches a reflective device comprising:
a body member (5) having a first longitudinal attachment flange (7), a first inclined section (12), a second inclined section (12), and a second longitudinal attachment flange (7) (Fig. 2),
the first inclined section extending upwardly away from the first longitudinal attachment flange at a first angle, wherein the first angle is in a range from 0 to 45 degrees (Fig. 3),
the second inclined section extending upwardly away from the second longitudinal attachment flange at a second angle, wherein the second angle is in a range from 0 to 45 degrees (Fig. 3),
an upper edge of the first inclined section and an upper edge of the second inclined section forming a peak (6) (Fig. 2), wherein a third angle formed at the peak between the first inclined section and the second inclined section is in a range from 90 to 180 degrees (Fig. 3),
Bompart does not specifically teach a height range and a width range of the reflective device. However, Attar teaches a monolithically formed one-piece reflective pavement marker, “wherein said marker has a width of about 4.0-10.0 inches, a depth of about 2.0-5.0 inches and a height of about 0.40-0.75 inches” (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to dimension the reflective device with a height range of 1/4 to 1 ½ inches and a width range of 6 1/4 to 7 3/4 inches in order to optimize the visibility of the reflective device relative to the total size with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claim 5: Bompart does not specifically teach that the height is in a range from 3/8 to 1 inch, and the width is in a range from 6 1/2 to 7 1/2 inches. However, Attar teaches a monolithically formed one-piece reflective pavement marker, “wherein said marker has a width of about 4.0-10.0 inches, a depth of about 2.0-5.0 inches and a height of about 0.40-0.75 inches” (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to dimension the reflective device with a height range of 3/8 to 1 inches and a width range of 6 1/2 to 7 1/2 inches in order to optimize the visibility of the reflective device relative to the total size with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claim 6: Bompart does not specifically teach that the height is in a range from 1/4 to 3/4 inch, and the width is in a range from 6 3/4 to 7 1/4 inches. However, Attar teaches a monolithically formed one-piece reflective pavement marker, “wherein said marker has a width of about 4.0-10.0 inches, a depth of about 2.0-5.0 inches and a height of about 0.40-0.75 inches” (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to dimension the reflective device with a height range of 1/4 to 3/4 inches and a width range of 6 3/4 to 7 1/4 inches in order to optimize the visibility of the reflective device relative to the total size with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bompart (US 2,561,173) in view of Attar (US 7,001,100) and Heenan (US 3,485,148).
Referring to Claim 2: Bompart does not specifically teach that the first angle is in a range from 15 to 35 degrees, the second angle is in a range from 15 to 35 degrees, and the third angle is in a range 110 to 150 degrees. However, Heenan teaches a pavement markers with selectively replaceable reflectors, wherein “[g]ood results in maintaining optical effectiveness and in achieving adequate wiping action have been attained with an angle B of about 30°. Theory indicates and experience has shown, however, that satisfactory results can be realized where angle B is in the range of 15° to approximately 50°.” (Col. 5, lines 17-22) (Fig. 3). Examiner notes that the third angle is simply the remainder of the first and second angles subtracted from 180 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to set the range for the first and second angles at 15 to 35 degrees and the third angle at 110 to 150 degrees in order to maintain optical effectiveness and achieve adequate wiping action with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claims 3, 9 and 15: Bompart does not specifically teach that wherein the first angle is in a range from 12 to 30 degrees, the second angle is in a range from 5 to 30 degrees, and the third angle is in a range 130 to 156 degrees. However, Heenan teaches a pavement markers with selectively replaceable reflectors, wherein “[g]ood results in maintaining optical effectiveness and in achieving adequate wiping action have been attained with an angle B of about 30°. Theory indicates and experience has shown, however, that satisfactory results can be realized where angle B is in the range of 15° to approximately 50°.” (Col. 5, lines 17-22) (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to set the first angle in a range from 12 to 30 degrees, the second angle in a range from 5 to 30 degrees, and the third angle in a range 130 to 156 degrees in order to maintain optical effectiveness and achieve adequate wiping action with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claims 4, 10 and 16: Bompart does not specifically teach that the first angle is in a range from 10 to 20 degrees, the second angle is in a range from 15 to 35 degrees, and the third angle is in a range 140 to 160 degrees. However, Heenan teaches a pavement markers with selectively replaceable reflectors, wherein “[g]ood results in maintaining optical effectiveness and in achieving adequate wiping action have been attained with an angle B of about 30°. Theory indicates and experience has shown, however, that satisfactory results can be realized where angle B is in the range of 15° to approximately 50°.” (Col. 5, lines 17-22) (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to set the range for the first and second angles at 10 to 20 degrees and the third angle at 140 to 160 degrees in order to maintain optical effectiveness and achieve adequate wiping action with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claim 7: Bompart does not specifically teach that the first angle is about 15 degrees, the second angle is about 15 degrees, the third angle is about 150 degrees, the height is about 5/8 inches, and the width is about 7 inches.
However, Heenan teaches a pavement markers with selectively replaceable reflectors, wherein “[g]ood results in maintaining optical effectiveness and in achieving adequate wiping action have been attained with an angle B of about 30°. Theory indicates and experience has shown, however, that satisfactory results can be realized where angle B is in the range of 15° to approximately 50°.” (Col. 5, lines 17-22) (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to set the first and second angles at about 15 degrees and the third angle at about 150 degrees in order to maintain optical effectiveness and achieve adequate wiping action with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Further, Attar teaches a monolithically formed one-piece reflective pavement marker, “wherein said marker has a width of about 4.0-10.0 inches, a depth of about 2.0-5.0 inches and a height of about 0.40-0.75 inches” (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to dimension the reflective device with a height of about 5/8 inches and a width of about 7 inches in order to optimize the visibility of the reflective device relative to the total size with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claim 8: Bompart teaches a reflective device comprising:
a body member (5) having a first longitudinal attachment flange (7), a first inclined section (12), a second inclined section (12), and a second longitudinal attachment flange (7) (Fig. 2),
the first and second inclined sections being coated with reflective material (8) (Col. 2, lines 1-3) (Fig. 2),
the first inclined section extending upwardly away from the first longitudinal attachment flange at a first angle (Fig. 3),
the second inclined section extending upwardly away from the second longitudinal attachment flange at a second angle (Fig. 3),
an upper edge of the first inclined section and an upper edge of the second inclined section forming a peak (6) (Col. 1, line 50) (Fig. 2),
Bompart does not specifically teach that the first angle is in a range from 15 to 35 degrees, the second angle is in a range from 15 to 35 degrees, and the third angle is in a range 110 to 150 degrees. However, Heenan teaches a pavement markers with selectively replaceable reflectors, wherein “[g]ood results in maintaining optical effectiveness and in achieving adequate wiping action have been attained with an angle B of about 30°. Theory indicates and experience has shown, however, that satisfactory results can be realized where angle B is in the range of 15° to approximately 50°.” (Col. 5, lines 17-22) (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to set the range for the first and second angles at 15 to 35 degrees and the third angle at 110 to 150 degrees in order to maintain optical effectiveness and achieve adequate wiping action with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Bompart does not specifically teach that the height is in a range from 3/8 to 1 inch, and the width is in a range from 6 1/2 to 7 1/2 inches. However, Attar teaches a monolithically formed one-piece reflective pavement marker, “wherein said marker has a width of about 4.0-10.0 inches, a depth of about 2.0-5.0 inches and a height of about 0.40-0.75 inches” (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to dimension the reflective device with a height range of 3/8 to 1 inches and a width range of 6 1/2 to 7 1/2 inches in order to optimize the visibility of the reflective device relative to the total size with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claims 11 and 17: Bompart does not specifically teach that the height is in a range from 1/4 to 3/4 inch, and the width is in a range from 6 3/4 to 7 1/4 inches. However, Attar teaches a monolithically formed one-piece reflective pavement marker, “wherein said marker has a width of about 4.0-10.0 inches, a depth of about 2.0-5.0 inches and a height of about 0.40-0.75 inches” (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to dimension the reflective device with a height range of 1/4 to 3/4 inches and a width range of 6 3/4 to 7 1/4 inches in order to optimize the visibility of the reflective device relative to the total size with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claims 12, 18 and 20: Bompart does not specifically teach that the first angle is about 15 degrees and the second angle is about 15 degrees.
However, Heenan teaches a pavement markers with selectively replaceable reflectors, wherein “[g]ood results in maintaining optical effectiveness and in achieving adequate wiping action have been attained with an angle B of about 30°. Theory indicates and experience has shown, however, that satisfactory results can be realized where angle B is in the range of 15° to approximately 50°.” (Col. 5, lines 17-22) (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to set the first and second angles at about 15 degrees in order to maintain optical effectiveness and achieve adequate wiping action with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claims 13 and 19: Bompart does not specifically teach that the third angle is about 150 degrees, the height is about 5/8 inches, and the width is about 7 inches.
However, Attar teaches a monolithically formed one-piece reflective pavement marker, “wherein said marker has a width of about 4.0-10.0 inches, a depth of about 2.0-5.0 inches and a height of about 0.40-0.75 inches” (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to dimension the reflective device with a height of about 5/8 inches and a width of about 7 inches and further dimension the third angle at about 150 degrees (the third angle being a product of the optimized height and depth) in order to optimize the visibility of the reflective device relative to the total size with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claim 14: Bompart teaches a reflective device comprising:
a body member (5) having a first longitudinal attachment flange (7), a first inclined section (12), a second inclined section (12), and a second longitudinal attachment flange (7),
a first section of reflective material (8) being secured to an upper surface of the first inclined section (Col. 2, lines 1-8) (Fig. 2),
a second section of reflective material (8) being secured to an upper surface of the second inclined section (Col. 2, lines 1-3) (Fig. 2),
the first inclined section extending upwardly away from the first longitudinal attachment flange at a first angle (Fig. 3),
the second inclined section extending upwardly away from the second longitudinal attachment flange at a second angle (Fig. 3),
an upper edge of the first inclined section and an upper edge of the second inclined section forming a peak (6) (Col. 1, line 50) (Fig. 2),
Bompart does not specifically teach that wherein the first angle is in a range from 12 to 30 degrees, the second angle is in a range from 12 to 30 degrees, and the third angle is in a range from 130 to 156 degrees. However, Heenan teaches pavement markers with selectively replaceable reflectors, wherein “[g]ood results in maintaining optical effectiveness and in achieving adequate wiping action have been attained with an angle B of about 30°. Theory indicates and experience has shown, however, that satisfactory results can be realized where angle B is in the range of 15° to approximately 50°.” (Col. 5, lines 17-22) (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to set the first angle in a range from 12 to 30 degrees, the second angle in a range from 5 to 30 degrees, and the third angle in a range 130 to 156 degrees in order to maintain optical effectiveness and achieve adequate wiping action with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Bompart does not specifically teach that the height is in a range from 1/4 to 3/4 inch, and the width is in a range from 6 1/2 to 7 1/2 inches. However, Attar teaches a monolithically formed one-piece reflective pavement marker, “wherein said marker has a width of about 4.0-10.0 inches, a depth of about 2.0-5.0 inches and a height of about 0.40-0.75 inches” (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bompart to dimension the reflective device with a height range of 1/4 to 3/4 inches and a width range of 6 1/2 to 7 1/2 inches in order to optimize the visibility of the reflective device relative to the total size with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further still, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Bompart does not teach the claimed angle ranges and dimensions and that it would not be obvious to combine Bompart with Attar for multiple reasons, including that one would not end up with the claimed device, it would frustrate the intended purpose of the devices, change the principle operation of Bompart, and render Bompart inoperable for its intended purpose. Examiner responds that changing angles and dimensions to fall within a preferred range is part of routine optimization that has been previously held as obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Additionally, Examiner finds it unconvincing that changing the angles and dimensions of Bompart would frustrate the intended purpose of the reflector, change the principle operation of Bompart’s reflector, or render Bompart’s reflector inoperable for its intended purpose. Changing the angles and other dimensions of Bompart’s reflector would merely serve to optimize the reflective ability of the device relative to other factors known in the art, such as the intended field of use and manufacturing complications.
Applicant repeatedly argues that none of the asserted prior art references, including Heenan, teach the specific combinations of ranges of angles of incline and dimensions. Examiner responds that although the specific combinations of ranges of angles of incline and dimensions are not explicitly recited in the prior art, these are obvious modifications that one of ordinary skill may perform through routine experimentation in order to optimize the visibility of the reflective device of Bompart relative to the total size. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). In order to rebut such a prima facie case of obviousness, Examiner suggests Applicant make arguments to show one or more of the following: A) the claimed range is critical; B) the prior art teaches away; C) the claimed parameter was not recognized as “result-effective”; and/or D) the claimed parameter is disclosed in a very broad range in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (III). Additionally, Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite that the reflective device is installed on a railway tie, unlike Bompart, which may give more weight to the argument that one would not modify Bompart with the specific combinations of ranges of angles of incline and dimensions. I.e., railway vehicles have a higher viewing angle than typical highway vehicles, and thus, a reflector installed on a railway tie requires a uniquely optimized reflective angle and size that is A) critical; B) taught away from; C) not recognized as “result-effective”; and/or D) disclosed in a very broad range in the prior art. While Examiner notes that reflective devices installed on railway ties are known in the prior art, e.g., Howie II (US 5,791,605) (previously made of record), such amendments and arguments may be more effective in overcoming the current prima facie case of obviousness.
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 ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617