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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nitani et al. (US 2020/0124172; hereinafter "Nitani").
Claim 29
Nitani discloses a wheel end (e.g., right end of 50), comprising:
a wheel hub cover (52); and
an active and passive overrunning wheel hub clutch (see FIG. 2, e.g., passive 72a and 73a, active 72b and 73b) coupled to the wheel hub cover (52), and including
an active clutch (left clutch in FIG. 2, including e.g., 72b, 73b, 90) including a plurality of active struts (72b); and
a passive clutch (right clutch in FIG. 2, including 72a, 73a) including a plurality of passive struts (72a) separate from the plurality of active struts (72b).
Claim 30
Nitani discloses wherein the active and passive overrunning wheel hub clutch (72a, 72b) is retained to the wheel hub cover (52) by at least one retainer ring (74) such that the wheel hub cover and the active and passive overrunning wheel hub clutch
constitute a self-contained assembly.
Claim 31
Nitani discloses wherein the active clutch (left side) includes an actuator to move the plurality of active struts (72b) to a deployed position, wherein the actuator includes a stator structure (74), a translator structure (90), and a strut actuator element (86) positioned between the translator structure (90) and the plurality of active struts (72b) (see FIGS. 2 or 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10, 26-28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckhoff et al. (DE 102014208604A1; hereainfter "Eckhoff") in view of Nitani.
Claim 1
Eckhoff discloses a wheel hub clutch comprising
a clutch hub (see annotated FIG. 1 below);
a vehicle wheel hub (see annotated FIG. 1 below); and
a freewheel unit (17a) between the clutch hub and the wheel hub to couple and decouple the vehicle wheel hub relative to the clutch hub.
It is noted that both drive axles include the freewheel as elements 17a and 17b
and that either one may be used in the rejection. Eckhoff does not disclose the details of
the freewheel unit and thus does not disclose that the freewheel unit includes the active
clutch and passive clutch as these are recited in the claim. Specifically, Eckhoff does
not disclose that the freewheel includes an active clutch between the clutch hub and the
vehicle wheel hub to couple and decouple the vehicle wheel hub relative to the clutch
hub, and including a plurality of active struts; and a passive clutch between the clutch
hub and the vehicle wheel hub, and including a plurality of passive struts separate from
the plurality of active struts.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nitani discloses an active and passive overrunning wheel hub clutch,
comprising (see e.g., FIG. 2):
a clutch hub (52);
a wheel hub (50);
an active clutch (left clutch in FIG. 2, including e.g., 72b, 73b, 90) between
the clutch hub (52, via 68) and the wheel hub (50 via 70b), and including a
plurality of active struts (72b); and
a passive clutch (right clutch in FIG. 2, including 72a, 73a) between the
clutch hub (52, via 68) and the wheel hub (50 via 70a), and including a
plurality of passive struts (72a) separate from the plurality of active struts
(72b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to
have modified Eckhoff so that the freewheel unit includes the structure taught by Nitani
in order to provide more control and functionality over the freewheel unit.
For example, such a modification of Nitani would allow for control of whether
torque in a chosen direction, such as a reverse direction/backdrive or a forward
direction, was only permitted in one rotation direction.
Claim 2
Eckhoff discloses a dual plane, overrunning wheel hub clutch comprising
a clutch hub (see annotated FIG. 1 above);
a vehicle wheel hub (see annotated FIG. 1 above); and
a freewheel unit (17a) between the clutch hub and the vehicle wheel hub to
couple and decouple the vehicle wheel hub relative to the clutch hub.
Eckhoff does not disclose the details of the freewheel unit and thus does not
disclose that the freewheel unit includes the active clutch and passive clutch as these
are recited in the claim.
However, Nitani discloses:
a first clutch component (68) coupled to the clutch hub (52);
a second clutch component (70a, 70b) coupled to the wheel hub (50);
an active clutch (left clutch in FIG. 2, including e.g., 72b, 73b, 90) between the
clutch hub (52, via 68) and the wheel hub (50 via 70b), and including a
plurality of active struts (72b); and
a passive clutch (right clutch in FIG. 2, including 72a, 73a) between the clutch
hub (52, via 68) and the wheel hub (50 via 70a), and including a plurality of
passive struts (72a) separate from the plurality of active struts (72b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to
have modified Eckhoff so that the freewheel unit includes the structure taught by Nitani
in order to provide more control and functionality over the freewheel unit.
For example, such a modification of Nitani would allow for control of whether
torque in a chosen direction, such as a reverse direction/backdrive or a forward
direction, was only permitted in one rotation direction.
As so modified, the wheel hub clutch would be both active and passive.
Claim 9
Eckhoff as modified by Nitani discloses:
a clutch component (Nitani, 68) coupled to the clutch hub (Nitani, 52);
the active clutch (Nitani, left clutch in FIG. 2, including e.g., 726, 73b, 90)
between the clutch component (68) and the wheel hub (50, specifically 70b);
and
the passive clutch (Nitani, right clutch in FIG. 2, including 72a, 73a) between
the clutch component (Nitani, 68) and the wheel hub (Nitani, 50, specifically
70a).
Claim 10
Eckhoff as modified by Nitani discloses wherein the active clutch is an active
radial clutch or an active planar clutch, and the passive clutch is a passive planar clutch
or a passive radial clutch (see Nitani, FIG. 2, both clutches as planar clutches).
Claim 26
Eckhoff discloses a wheel hub
a vehicle axle (see annotated FIG. 1 above, "clutch hub");
a vehicle wheel hub (see annotated FIG. 1 above); and
a freewheel unit (17a) between the clutch hub and the vehicle wheel hub to
couple and decouple the vehicle wheel hub relative to the clutch hub.
Eckhoff does not disclose the details of the freewheel unit and thus does not
disclose that the freewheel unit includes the active clutch and passive clutch as these are recited in the claim.
However, Nitani discloses an apparatus, comprising:
an axle (50);
a wheel hub (52); and
an active and passive overrunning wheel hub clutch (left active clutch and right passive clutch in FIG. 2 as part of the TWC of FIG. 1) disposed between the axle and the wheel hub, and including
an active clutch (left clutch in FIG. 2, including e.g., 72b, 73b, 90) including a plurality of active struts (72b); and
a passive clutch (right clutch in FIG. 2, including 72a, 73a) including a plurality of passive struts (72a) separate from the plurality of active struts (72b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to
have modified Eckhoff so that the freewheel unit includes the structure taught by Nitani
in order to provide more control and functionality over the freewheel unit.
For example, such a modification of Nitani would allow for control of whether
torque in a chosen direction, such as a reverse direction/backdrive or a forward
direction, was only permitted in one rotation direction.
Claim 27
Eckhoff in view of Nitani discloses wherein the active and passive overrunning
wheel hub clutch includes:
a clutch hub (Nitani, 70a, 70b);
an active clutch (Nitani, left clutch in FIG. 2) between the clutch hub (Nitani,
70a, 70b) and the vehicle wheel hub (Nitani, 52 and/or 68); and
a passive clutch (Nitani, right clutch in FIG. 2) between the clutch hub (Nitani,
70a, 70b) and the vehicle wheel hub (Nitani, 52 and/or 68).
Claim 28
Eckhoff in view of Nitani discloses a vehicle, comprising: the apparatus of claim 26 (see rejection of claim 26 and annotated FIG. 1 in
rejection of claim 1);
a drivetrain (11 or 6) coupled to the axle (Eckhoff, one or both of the axles
connected to 14a or 14b); and
a wheel (Eckhoff, 14a or 14b) coupled to the wheel hub (see annotated FIG. 1
of Eckhoff in rejection of claim 1; akin to Nitani, 52).
Claim 32
Eckhoff as modified by Nitani (according to the proposed combination in the rejection of claim 1) discloses wherein the vehicle wheel hub (which is the output side of the clutch in Eckhoff and with Nitani’s clutch substituted in would be akin to output element 50 in Nitani) includes a wheel hub body (shaft connected to the clutch output side, portion of this shaft closest to the wheel in Eckhoff) and a wheel hub cover (Nitani, 70a or 70b both of which rotate integrally with the shaft 50 that is the output side of the clutch in Nitani) coupled to the wheel hub body, wherein the active clutch and the passive clutch are coupled to the wheel hub cover (see FIGS. 2 or 3 in Nitani).
Claim 34
Eckhoff as modified by Nitani (according to the proposed combination in the rejection of claim 1) discloses wherein the active clutch (Nitani, left side) includes an actuator to move the plurality of active struts (Nitani, 72b) to a deployed position, wherein the actuator includes a stator structure (Nitani, 74), a translator structure (Nitani, 90), and a strut actuator element (Nitani, 86) positioned between the translator structure (Nitani, 90) and the plurality of active struts (Nitani, 72b) (see Nitani, FIGS. 2 or 3).
Claim 35
Eckhoff as modified by Nitani (according to the proposed combination in the rejection of claim 1) discloses wherein the vehicle wheel hub (which is the output side of the clutch in Eckhoff and with Nitani’s clutch substituted in would be akin to output element 50 in Nitani) includes a wheel hub body (shaft connected to the clutch output side, portion of this shaft closest to the wheel in Eckhoff) and a wheel hub cover (Nitani, 70a or 70b both of which rotate integrally with the shaft 50 that is the output side of the clutch in Nitani) coupled to the wheel hub body, wherein the active clutch and the passive clutch are coupled to the wheel hub cover (see FIGS. 2 or 3 in Nitani).
Claim 37
Eckhoff as modified by Nitani (according to the proposed combination in the rejection of claim 1) discloses wherein the active clutch (Nitani, left side) includes an actuator to move the plurality of active struts (Nitani, 72b) to a deployed position, wherein the actuator includes a stator structure (Nitani, 74), a translator structure (Nitani, 90), and a strut actuator element (Nitani, 86) positioned between the translator structure (Nitani, 90) and the plurality of active struts (Nitani, 72b) (see Nitani, FIGS. 2 or 3).
Claim 38
Eckhoff as modified by Nitani (according to the proposed combination in the rejection of claim 1) discloses wherein the vehicle wheel hub (which is the output side of the clutch in Eckhoff and with Nitani’s clutch substituted in would be akin to output element 50 in Nitani) includes a wheel hub body (shaft connected to the clutch output side, portion of this shaft closest to the wheel in Eckhoff) and a wheel hub cover (Nitani, 70a or 70b both of which rotate integrally with the shaft 50 that is the output side of the clutch in Nitani) coupled to the wheel hub body, wherein the active clutch and the passive clutch are coupled to the wheel hub cover (see FIGS. 2 or 3 in Nitani).
Claim 40
Eckhoff as modified by Nitani (according to the proposed combination in the rejection of claim 1) discloses wherein the active clutch (Nitani, left side) includes an actuator to move the plurality of active struts (Nitani, 72b) to a deployed position, wherein the actuator includes a stator structure (Nitani, 74), a translator structure (Nitani, 90), and a strut actuator element (Nitani, 86) positioned between the translator structure (Nitani, 90) and the plurality of active struts (Nitani, 72b) (see Nitani, FIGS. 2 or 3).
Claim(s) 33, 36, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Eckhoff in view of Nitani, and further in view of Cox et al. (US 2002/0179391; hereinafter “Cox”).
Claim 33
Neither Eckhoff or Nitani discloses fasteners to retain all of the parts together. A such, Eckhoff as modified does not disclose wherein the active clutch, the passive clutch, and the clutch hub are retained to the wheel hub cover such that the clutch constitutes a self-contained assembly.
Cox discloses that a freewheel clutch unit may be “self-contained” such that the clutch unit can be assembly separately such that it may be added after final assembly or by a consumer, and expands the addition of the overrunning clutch to anytime by anyone (see paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Eckhoff further such that in incorporating the freewheel clutch unit of Nitani, to include appropriate fasteners so that the clutch unit will not fall apart, i.e., so that the clutch was a self-contained assembly which would provide easier incorporation into Eckhoff and/or would expand the use of the freewheel clutch to anytime by anyone as noted.
Claim 36
Neither Eckhoff or Nitani discloses fasteners to retain all of the parts together. A such, Eckhoff as modified does not disclose wherein the active clutch, the passive clutch, and the clutch hub , the first clutch component, and the second clutch component are retained to a wheel hub cover such that the clutch constitutes a self-contained assembly.
Cox discloses that a freewheel clutch unit may be “self-contained” such that the clutch unit can be assembly separately such that it may be added after final assembly or by a consumer, and expands the addition of the overrunning clutch to anytime by anyone (see paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Eckhoff further such that in incorporating the freewheel clutch unit of Nitani, to include appropriate fasteners so that the clutch unit will not fall apart, i.e., so that the clutch was a self-contained assembly which would provide easier incorporation into Eckhoff and/or would expand the use of the freewheel clutch to anytime by anyone as noted.
Claim 39
Neither Eckhoff or Nitani discloses fasteners to retain all of the parts together. A such, Eckhoff as modified does not disclose wherein the active clutch and the passive clutch are retained to a wheel hub cover of the vehicle wheel hub such that the active and passive overrunning wheel hub clutch and the wheel hub cover constitute a self-contained assembly.
Cox discloses that a freewheel clutch unit may be “self-contained” such that the clutch unit can be assembly separately such that it may be added after final assembly or by a consumer, and expands the addition of the overrunning clutch to anytime by anyone (see paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Eckhoff further such that in incorporating the freewheel clutch unit of Nitani, to include appropriate fasteners so that the clutch unit will not fall apart, i.e., so that the clutch was a self-contained assembly which would provide easier incorporation into Eckhoff and/or would expand the use of the freewheel clutch to anytime by anyone as noted.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckhoff in view of Bird et al. (US 8,418,825).
Claim 1
Eckhoff discloses a vehicle wheel hub
a vehicle axle/clutch hub (see annotated FIG. 1 above, "clutch hub");
a vehicle wheel hub (see annotated FIG. 1 above); and
a freewheel unit (17a) between the clutch hub and the wheel hub to couple
and decouple the vehicle wheel hub relative to the clutch hub.
Eckhoff does not disclose the details of the freewheel unit and thus does not disclose that the freewheel unit includes the active clutch and passive clutch as these are recited in the claim.
Bird discloses an active and passive overrunning wheel hub clutch, comprising
(FIGS. 13 and 14):
a clutch hub (82; or 82 and 102);
a wheel hub ("rotating member of the transmission" that is engaged with
splines 22; or alternatively shaft connected to 22 and 106);
an active clutch (within 104 and 110, 18, 19, set of struts 32 within pockets
104) between the clutch hub (82; or 82 and 102) and the wheel hub ("rotating
member" connected to 22), and including a plurality of active struts (32 within
pockets 104); and
a passive clutch (strut within 108 and 114, and set of struts 32 within pockets
108) between the clutch hub ("rotating member" connected to 22) and the
wheel hub (82; or 82 and 102) (see column 4, lines paragraph), and including
a plurality of passive struts (32 within pockets 108, referred to as
"magnetically impermeably strut" within 108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to
have modified Eckhoff so that the freewheel unit includes the structure taught by Bird
in order to provide more control and functionality over the freewheel unit.
For example, such a modification of Nitani would allow for control of whether
torque in a chosen direction, such as a reverse direction/backdrive or a forward
direction, was only permitted in one rotation direction.
Claim 9
Eckhoff in view of Bird discloses (Bird, FIGS. 13 and 14):
a clutch component (Bird, 102) coupled to the clutch hub (Bird, 82);
the active clutch (Bird, in 104 and 110) between the clutch component (Bird,
102) and the wheel hub (Bird, 106); and
the passive clutch (Bird, in 108 and 114) between the clutch component (Bird,
102) and the wheel hub (Bird, 106).
Claim 10
Eckhoff in view of Bird discloses wherein the active clutch is an active radial
clutch or an active planar clutch, and the passive clutch is a passive planar clutch or a
passive radial clutch (see Bird, FIG. 13 or 14, both clutches as planar clutches).
Claim 19
Eckhoff in view of Bird discloses wherein
the clutch is a single plane clutch (see Bird, FIG. 13);
the active clutch (Bird, clutch within 104 and 110) includes an active axial pocket (Bird, 104) in an outboard face (Bird, right face of 102) of the clutch component (Bird, 102), an active axial notch (Bird, 110) in an inboard face (Bird, left face of 1026) of the wheel hub (Bird, 106), and an active axial strut (Bird, 32) carried in the active axial pocket (Bird, 104); and
the passive clutch (Bird, clutch within 108 and 114) includes a passive axial pocket (Bird, 108) in the outboard face (Bird, right face of 102) of the clutch component (Bird, 102), a passive axial notch (Bird, 114) in the inboard face (Bird, left face of 106) of the wheel hub (Bird, 106), and a passive axial strut (Bird, 32) carried in the passive axial pocket (Bird, 108), wherein the passive axial pocket, the passive axial notch, and the passive axial strut are all circumferentially spaced from the active axial pocket, the active axial notch, and the active axial strut (see Bird, FIG. 14 illustrating the passive clutches offset circumferentially from the active clutches).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 11-13, 15, and 23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: See "Allowable Subject Matter" in final Office Action dated October 6, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments related to Eckhoff in view of Nitani
In the rejection, the Examiner cites Eckhoff essentially for the location or environment of the freewheel unit and Nitani is cited for its specific disclosure of the details of a particular freewheel unit that includes both an active clutch and passive clutch. Applicant argues that Nitani’s element 50 is a gear-mechanism counter shaft and not a vehicle wheel hub, and the element 52 is not a clutch hub.
The questions are whether the specifics of the freewheel assembly of Nitani would have been obvious to have substituted into Eckhoff in place of the generic freewheel assembly already included therein, and whether that combination includes all of the claims elements. To clarify Applicant’s noted uncertainty, the proposal was to replace the one known freewheel (which is only disclosed generically in Eckhoff) for another known freewheel (which is disclosed in detail in Nitani). The remainder of Nitani, i.e., the parts of the transmission, was never proposed as also being substituted into Eckhoff or added to Eckhoff.
With regard to the reasons for obviousness, Applicant argues that Eckhoff discloses that the freewheel automatically prevents wheel rotation from being imparted to the axle or transmission and therefore in Applicant’s view teaches away from adding the additional functionality of Nitani. The proposed modification would only add another option and therefore that option discussed would remain in the combination. The proposal would add the option to capture backdrive as an energy saving feature for example. It is the Examiner’s view that this does not change the principle of operation but rather merely adds another feature to Eckhoff. With regard to reduced shock in Nitani, these were not the benefits used in the obviousness rejection.
In relation to claims 1 and 2, Applicant argues that the element 50 of Nitanti is not a vehicle wheel hub, however once the freewheel of Nitani is substituted into Eckhoff, that structure is in fact the vehicle wheel hub. Applicant argues that element 52 of Nitani is not a clutch hub. A clutch hub is a rotating component that supports one side of the clutch and can be an inner clutch hub or an outer clutch hub; while there are additional terms for these two components such as basket for the outer hub, the word “hub” is on known term used in reference to either side of the clutch. For example, US 2016/0069440 and US 6,272,725 use the terms inner clutch hub and outer clutch hub for the two sides of a friction clutch.
In addition, it is noted that once the freewheel unit is substituted into Eckhoff, the outside of the clutch would not be “a large-diameter gear deep inside a vehicle transmission.” Only the freewheel unit is proposed as being substituted into Eckhoff and not the entirety of the transmission. The arguments related to the environment or surrounding transmission in Nitani do not apply to the combination once in Eckhoff.
In relation to claim 26, Applicant similarly argues that in Nitani, the secondary reference, element 50 is not a vehicle axle and element 52 is not a vehicle wheel hub. However, it is the proposed combination that must be addressed and in the proposed combination with the freewheel of Nitani substituted into Eckhoff, these elements are present in Eckhoff.
Arguments related to Eckhoff in view of Bird
Applicant argues that elements 82 and 102 of Bird are not a clutch hub and that elements 22 and 106 are not a vehicle wheel hub. See above for further arguments related to a proposed combination of substituting a known specific freewheel in place the generic freewheel disclosed already in Eckhoff. Once the freewheel of Bird is substituted into Eckhoff, all of the elements are present. Thus, whatever structure sends torque into the clutch or receives torque out of the clutch in the secondary reference, which is Bird in this case, is not added into Eckhoff, but merely the clutch assembly into the exact same place as the already existing freewheel in Eckhoff.
The arguments related to the obviousness statement are the same as for Eckhoff in view of Nitani and therefore reference is made to the response above.
Applicant argues that the Office Action does not teach exactly how the freewheel of Bird could be substituted in place of the freewheel of Eckhoff. Those having ordinary skill in the art would know how to incorporate one known clutch unit for another.
Applicant noted replacing Eckhoff’s transmission, however this was not proposed in the rejection.
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s position that the manner of actuation is irrelevant to the proposed modification related to the unit itself “ignores Eckhoff’s own teaching that Eckhoff’s freewheel clutch must be an automatic/passive device that prevents wheel rotation from backdriving a drivetrain, and cannot be controlled by “any” clutch actuator that would facilitate wheel rotation to backdrive a drivetrain. As noted above, the proposed modification would only add a function rather than remove the ability to prevent backdrive when desired. In addition, the mode of actuation is often viewed separately from the clutch structure itself and one skilled in the art would readily understand how to use the various different types of actuators within a clutch. Nonetheless, the actuator is not recited in the claim.
With regard to claims 9, 10, and 19, these arguments relate to the same issue of argument against the individual references rather than the proposed combination. This issue is addressed above.
Arguments related to Nitani under 102
With regard to claim 29, Applicant argues that the right end of element 50 in Nitani is not a wheel end. While Examiner disagrees with this assertion under BRI, the term referred to is in the preamble and therefore is not a positive recitation in the claim. Applicant argues that element 52 is not a wheel hub cover. The clutch and the cover are broadly recited in this claim and the surround structure or further environment in which the clutch and cover are placed in not a positive recitation of this claim. Applicants implies that the Examiner should import a wheel hub as well as a wheel into this claim. Claim 29 was drafted in a broad manner and only includes the cover and the clutch. Applicant is free to draft a very broad claim however the Examiner cannot improperly narrow the claim by importing additional limitations that are not positively recited in the body of the claim.
With regard to claim 30, Applicant argues that element 74 is not a “retainer ring.” Element 74 is a ring shape and is at the end such that this ring would necessarily obstruct the removal of the cover 52 from the clutch (72a, 72b), or of the clutch relative to the cover 52.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACEY A FLUHART whose telephone number is (571)270-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-7PM.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/STACEY A FLUHART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights