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
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 6/23/2026, claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 7 and 17, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “approximately” to be referring to ordinary engineering and manufacturing tolerances so the claim is not indefinite. In response, Examiner notes that there are many various standards for manufacturing tolerances that have different permissible deviations from the desired value and no specific one has been identified by the Applicant in the specification or arguments. However, given the visible and significant difference shown in at least figure 4 (see annotated version below) between the thickness of the midsole at the aperture and the thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber, which Applicant has not argued or commented on separately, the rejection of the claims are maintained because this illustrated difference does not appear to show a difference that is within “ordinary engineering and manufacturing tolerances”.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections of claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of Applicant’s amendment, which has altered the scope of the claims, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below.
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.
Claims 7, 17 are 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “a thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture”. This limitation is unclear because of the use of the term “approximately equal”. Although Applicant suggested in the Remarks that this term could be understood to refer to engineering tolerances, the instant specification and disclosure does not appear to support that interpretation. For example, figures 4 (see annotation in Response to Arguments above) and 18 (see annotation below) show significant differences between the thickness of the midsole at the aperture and the thickness of the second fluid-filled bladder. Further, there are many various standards for manufacturing tolerances that have different permissible deviations from the desired value and no specific one has been identified by the Applicant in the specification or arguments. It is further not clear where the thickness measurement is supposed to be taken, as it appears from the figures that areas of the midsole that are farther away from the aperture might be closer in thickness to the thickness of the second fluid-filled bladder, so it is unclear how close to the opening of the aperture the thickness measurement needs to be taken for it to be considered “at the aperture”. For the purposes of examination, this term is being interpreted using its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is its dictionary definition: “close to; around; roughly or in the region of” (Defn. No. 1 of “Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th edition”, entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), which would accommodate for the large discrepancy in the thicknesses as illustrated in the drawings.
PNG
media_image2.png
566
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “a thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture”. This limitation is unclear because of the use of the term “approximately equal”. Although Applicant suggested in the Remarks that this term could be understood to refer to engineering tolerances, the instant specification and disclosure does not appear to support that interpretation. For example, figures 4 (see annotation in Response to Arguments above) and 18 (see annotation with the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 7 above) show significant differences between the thickness of the midsole at the aperture and the thickness of the second fluid-filled bladder. Further, there are many various standards for manufacturing tolerances that have different permissible deviations from the desired value and no specific one has been identified by the Applicant in the specification or arguments. It is further not clear where the thickness measurement is supposed to be taken, as it appears from the figures that areas of the midsole that are farther away from the aperture might be closer in thickness to the thickness of the second fluid-filled bladder, so it is unclear how close to the opening of the aperture the thickness measurement needs to be taken for it to be considered “at the aperture”. For the purposes of examination, this term is being interpreted using its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is its dictionary definition: “close to; around; roughly or in the region of” (Defn. No. 1 of “Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th edition”, entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), which would accommodate for the large discrepancy in the thicknesses as illustrated in the drawings.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2020/0288814) in view of Choi (KR 20130131863 A), a machine translation of which is provided with this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses: A sole structure (102) for an article of footwear (100) including an upper (104), the sole structure comprising: a midsole (110) including a first surface opposing the upper, a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the midsole than the first surface (midsole 110 necessarily has a first upper surface and a second lower surface; see figure 2), and an aperture (120) formed through a thickness of the midsole and including a first opening at the first surface and a second opening at the second surface (“the midsole 110 comprises […] an opening 120 in the heel portion” paragraph 61; see figure 2); a first fluid-filled chamber (114) abutting the second surface of the midsole (see figure 2); and a strobel (112; “the upper 104 is attached directly to the first cushioning element 112 of the sole structure 102 via stitching 122” paragraph 62; since the upper is attached to the first cushioning element via stitching as shown in figure 3, it constitutes a strobel) attached to the upper and extending into the aperture at the first opening (when the shoe is worn and compressed, for example by the user’s weight, the strobel extends into the aperture), the strobel opposing the first fluid-filled chamber at the aperture (see figure 3).
Chang does not explicitly disclose the first fluid-filled chamber extending under the aperture at the second opening; the strobel being partially separated from the first fluid-filled chamber by the midsole.
However, Choi teaches a midsole (13) with an aperture (12) formed through a thickness of the midsole and a cushioning member (31) that extends under the aperture and abuts the bottom surface of the midsole (“the lower portion 31b is configured such that the periphery thereof is cut away and the bottom surface of the edge portion 13 of the middle portion is joined to the lower portion 31b” paragraph 29).
Choi teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the shape of the bladder of Chang to have a lower portion (31b, Choi) that abuts the bottom of the midsole as taught by Choi in order to more securely join the bladder to the midsole (see paragraph 29 of Choi). Examiner notes that since the fluid-filled chamber as modified would include a lower portion that is larger than the aperture’s opening, the strobel of Chang would be partially separated from the first fluid-filled chamber by the midsole since the lower portion would be separated from the strobel by the midsole.
Regarding claim 3, Chang as modified discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the strobel includes a second fluid-filled chamber (Chang, 112 is a fluid-filled chamber, “a first cushioning element 112 (e.g., a fluid-filled capsule (e.g., an airbag)” paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 4, Chang as modified discloses: The sole structure of Claim 3, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber extends into the aperture at the first opening (when the shoe is worn and compressed, for example by the user’s weight, the strobel (which is a fluid-filled chamber) extends into the aperture).
Regarding claim 5, Chang as modified discloses: The sole structure of Claim 4, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber abuts the first fluid-filled chamber proximate to the second opening (Examiner notes that the term "proximate" is very broad and merely means "close; very near". (Defn. No. 2 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), and as modified the two fluid-filled chambers abut each other close to or near the second opening, thereby satisfying the claim).
Regarding claim 7, Chang as modified discloses: The sole structure of Claim 4, wherein a thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture (Examiner notes that the term “approximately” is broad and means “close to; around; roughly or in the region of” (Defn. No. 1 of “Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th edition”, entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), and as can be seen in figure 3 of Chang, the thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is close to the thickness of the midsole, thereby satisfying the claim).
Regarding claim 8, Chang as modified discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first fluid-filled chamber extends over the entire second opening (as modified, the chamber 114 of Chang extends over the entire second opening).
Regarding claim 10, Chang as modified discloses: An article of footwear (Chang, 100) incorporating the sole structure of Claim 1 (see 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses: An article of footwear (100) comprising: an upper (104); a strobel (112; “the upper 104 is attached directly to the first cushioning element 112 of the sole structure 102 via stitching 122” paragraph 62; since the upper is attached to the first cushioning element via stitching as shown in figure 3, it constitutes a strobel) attached to the upper; a midsole (110) including a first surface opposing the upper, a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the midsole than the first surface (midsole 110 necessarily has a first upper surface and a second lower surface; see figure 2), and an aperture (120) formed through a thickness of the midsole and including a first opening at the first surface and a second opening at the second surface (“the midsole 110 comprises […] an opening 120 in the heel portion” paragraph 61; see figure 2); and a first fluid-filled chamber (114) abutting the second surface of the midsole (see figure 2), the first fluid-filled chamber in contact with the strobel at the second opening (at least when the shoe is worn and compressed, for example by the user’s weight, the strobel extends into the aperture and contacts the first fluid-filled chamber).
Chang does not explicitly disclose the first fluid-filled chamber extending under the aperture at the second opening; the strobel being partially separated from the first fluid-filled chamber by the midsole.
However, Choi teaches a midsole (13) with an aperture (12) formed through a thickness of the midsole and a cushioning member (31) that extends under the aperture and abuts the bottom surface of the midsole (“the lower portion 31b is configured such that the periphery thereof is cut away and the bottom surface of the edge portion 13 of the middle portion is joined to the lower portion 31b” paragraph 29).
Choi teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the shape of the bladder of Chang to have a lower portion (31b, Choi) that abuts the bottom of the midsole as taught by Choi in order to more securely join the bladder to the midsole (see paragraph 29 of Choi). Examiner notes that since the fluid-filled chamber as modified would include a lower portion that is larger than the aperture’s opening, the strobel of Chang would be partially separated from the first fluid-filled chamber by the midsole since the lower portion would be separated from the strobel by the midsole.
Regarding claim 13, Chang as modified discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 11, wherein the strobel includes a second fluid- filled chamber (Chang, 112 is a fluid-filled chamber, “a first cushioning element 112 (e.g., a fluid-filled capsule (e.g., an airbag)” paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 14, Chang as modified discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 13, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber extends into the aperture at the first opening (when the shoe is worn and compressed, for example by the user’s weight, the strobel (which is a fluid-filled chamber) extends into the aperture).
Regarding claim 15, Chang as modified discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 14, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber abuts the first fluid-filled chamber proximate to the second opening (Examiner notes that the term "proximate" is very broad and merely means "close; very near". (Defn. No. 2 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), and as modified the two fluid-filled chambers abut each other close to or near the second opening, thereby satisfying the claim).
Regarding claim 17, Chang as modified discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 14, wherein a thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is approximately equal to a thickness of the midsole at the aperture (Examiner notes that the term “approximately” is broad and means “close to; around; roughly or in the region of” (Defn. No. 1 of “Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th edition”, entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), and as can be seen in figure 3 of Chang, the thickness of the second fluid-filled chamber is close to the thickness of the midsole, thereby satisfying the claim).
Regarding claim 18, Chang as modified discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 14, wherein the strobel includes a web area surrounding the second fluid-filled chamber (Chang, see figures 3 and 4 showing a web area surrounding the fluid-filled chamber 112).
Regarding claim 19, Chang as modified discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 18, wherein the web area is attached to the upper (Chang, “the upper 104 is attached directly to the first cushioning element 112 of the sole structure 102 via stitching 122” paragraph 62; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, Chang as modified discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 11, wherein the first fluid-filled chamber extends over the entire second opening (as modified, the chamber 114 of Chang extends over the entire second opening).
For the rejection of claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 has been reinterpreted as follows:
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses: A sole structure (102) for an article of footwear (100) including an upper (104), the sole structure comprising: a midsole (110) including a first surface opposing the upper, a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the midsole than the first surface (midsole 110 necessarily has a first upper surface and a second lower surface; see figure 2), and an aperture (120) formed through a thickness of the midsole and including a first opening at the first surface and a second opening at the second surface (“the midsole 110 comprises […] an opening 120 in the heel portion” paragraph 61; see figure 2); and a strobel (112; “the upper 104 is attached directly to the first cushioning element 112 of the sole structure 102 via stitching 122” paragraph 62; since the upper is attached to the first cushioning element via stitching as shown in figure 3, it constitutes a strobel) attached to the upper and extending into the aperture at the first opening (when the shoe is worn and compressed, for example by the user’s weight, the strobel extends into the aperture), the strobel opposing the first fluid-filled chamber at the aperture (see figure 3).
Although Chang teaches a first fluid-filled chamber (114), Chang does not explicitly disclose the first fluid-filled chamber abutting the second surface of the midsole and extending under the aperture at the second opening; the strobel being partially separated from the first fluid-filled chamber by the midsole.
However, Choi teaches a midsole (13) with an aperture (12) formed through a thickness of the midsole and a cushion (31) that extends under the aperture and abuts the bottom surface of the midsole (“the lower portion 31b is configured such that the periphery thereof is cut away and the bottom surface of the edge portion 13 of the middle portion is joined to the lower portion 31b” paragraph 29).
Choi teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add an additional forefoot cushioning member and aperture as taught by Choi in order to improve comfort for the user “by absorbing and dispersing the walking pressure of the forefoot region” (Choi, paragraph 32). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the forefoot cushioning member specifically a fluid-filled chamber, as Chang teaches that cushioning members can be “[a] fluid-filled capsule (e.g., an airbag) or foam member” (paragraph 60) so it would have been the simple substitution of known alternatives that would have yielded only the predictable result of providing cushioning for the user’s foot. Examiner notes that, as modified, the first fluid-filled bladder is mapped to the bladder in the forefoot area and the aperture is also mapped to the aperture in the forefoot region, see figure 2 of Chang and Choi annotated below. Examiner notes that since the fluid-filled chamber as modified would include a lower portion that is larger than the aperture’s opening, the strobel of Chang would be partially separated from the first fluid-filled chamber by the midsole since the lower portion would be separated from the strobel by the midsole.
PNG
media_image3.png
579
847
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Chang (left) and figure 2 of Choi (right) showing where the aperture/cushioning member are located on Choi and how the first fluid-filled chamber and aperture are mapped to the modified Choi
Regarding claim 2, Chang as modified discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the aperture is disposed in a forefoot region of the sole structure (as modified by Choi, the aperture is disposed in the forefoot region).
For the rejection of claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 has been reinterpreted as follows:
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses: An article of footwear (100) comprising: an upper (104); a strobel (112; “the upper 104 is attached directly to the first cushioning element 112 of the sole structure 102 via stitching 122” paragraph 62; since the upper is attached to the first cushioning element via stitching as shown in figure 3, it constitutes a strobel) attached to the upper; a midsole (110) including a first surface opposing the upper, a second surface disposed on an opposite side of the midsole than the first surface (midsole 110 necessarily has a first upper surface and a second lower surface; see figure 2), and an aperture (120) formed through a thickness of the midsole and including a first opening at the first surface and a second opening at the second surface (“the midsole 110 comprises […] an opening 120 in the heel portion” paragraph 61; see figure 2); and a first fluid-filled chamber (114) abutting the second surface of the midsole (see figure 2), the first fluid-filled chamber in contact with the strobel at the second opening (at least when the shoe is worn and compressed, for example by the user’s weight, the strobel extends into the aperture and contacts the first fluid-filled chamber).
Although Chang teaches a first fluid-filled chamber (114), Chang does not explicitly disclose the first fluid-filled chamber abutting the second surface of the midsole and extending under the aperture at the second opening; the strobel being partially separated from the first fluid-filled chamber by the midsole.
However, Choi teaches a midsole (13) with an aperture (12) formed through a thickness of the midsole and a cushion (31) that extends under the aperture and abuts the bottom surface of the midsole (“the lower portion 31b is configured such that the periphery thereof is cut away and the bottom surface of the edge portion 13 of the middle portion is joined to the lower portion 31b” paragraph 29).
Choi teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add an additional forefoot cushioning member and aperture as taught by Choi in order to improve comfort for the user “by absorbing and dispersing the walking pressure of the forefoot region” (Choi, paragraph 32). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the forefoot cushioning member specifically a fluid-filled chamber, as Chang teaches that cushioning members can be “[a] fluid-filled capsule (e.g., an airbag) or foam member” (paragraph 60) so it would have been the simple substitution of known alternatives that would have yielded only the predictable result of providing cushioning for the user’s foot. Examiner notes that, as modified, the first fluid-filled bladder is mapped to the bladder in the forefoot area and the aperture is also mapped to the aperture in the forefoot region , see figure 2 of Chang and Choi annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 as reinterpreted for claim 2 above. Examiner notes that since the fluid-filled chamber as modified would include a lower portion that is larger than the aperture’s opening, the strobel of Chang would be partially separated from the first fluid-filled chamber by the midsole since the lower portion would be separated from the strobel by the midsole.
Regarding claim 12, Chang as modified discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 11, wherein the aperture is disposed in a forefoot region of the midsole (as modified by Choi, the aperture is disposed in the forefoot region).
Claim(s) 6, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang/Choi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bruce (US 2014/0075779).
Regarding claim 6, Chang as modified discloses: The sole structure of Claim 4, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber is attached to the first fluid-filled chamber proximate to the second opening (Examiner notes that the term "proximate" is very broad and merely means "close; very near". (Defn. No. 2 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), and as modified the two fluid-filled chambers abut each other close to or near the second opening and they are attached at least indirectly via being integral parts of the same footwear article).
However, assuming arguendo that this is not an explicit teaching of first and second fluid-filled chambers being “attached”, Bruce teaches two stacked fluid-filled chambers that are secured together (“the two stacked fluid-filled bladders of the system 120 may be fixed together, e.g., using cements or adhesives” paragraph 51).
Bruce teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to attach the two stacked bladders of Chang using adhesive, as taught by Bruce, in order to provide an improved attachment that is more secure and therefore prevent the bladders from moving or shifting relative to each other during heavy use of the footwear.
Regarding claim 9, Chang as modified does not explicitly or clearly disclose: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the aperture is asymmetric.
However, Bruce teaches a rearfoot fluid-filled chamber and aperture, wherein the aperture is asymmetric (see figure 1b annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
290
481
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bruce teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the shape of the aperture of Chang asymmetric as taught by Bruce in order to better conform with the shape of the user’s foot/heel, as a user’s foot/heel is not symmetrical. Moreover, the modification would merely involve a change in shape and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 16, Chang as modified discloses: The article of footwear of Claim 14, wherein the second fluid-filled chamber is attached to the first fluid-filled chamber proximate to the second opening (Examiner notes that the term "proximate" is very broad and merely means "close; very near". (Defn. No. 2 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), and as modified the two fluid-filled chambers abut each other close to or near the second opening and they are attached at least indirectly via being integral parts of the same footwear article).
However, assuming arguendo that this is not an explicit teaching of first and second fluid-filled chambers being “attached”, Bruce teaches two stacked fluid-filled chambers that are secured together (“the two stacked fluid-filled bladders of the system 120 may be fixed together, e.g., using cements or adhesives” paragraph 51).
Bruce teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to attach the two stacked bladders of Chang using adhesive, as taught by Bruce, in order to provide an improved attachment that is more secure and therefore prevent the bladders from moving or shifting relative to each other during heavy use of the footwear.
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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights