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 .
This Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 08 July 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 13-16 are pending. Claims 4 and 9-12 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 7 have been written in independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al., U.S. Patent 11,808,216 B1 (hereinafter called Johnson ‘8216).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson ‘8216 teaches an assembly, comprising:
an airfoil (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 5 element 80) outside of a gas turbine engine (See e.g., FIGS. 1-2 & 5 elements 10, 10A, 10B) and configured as a control surface (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 5 element 80, it is noted that any given airfoil and an airfoil configured as claimed can look exactly the same); and
a fluid circuit (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 5 elements bypass duct-22, engine core which includes-13, 16, 17, and portion of inlet-11; column 6 lines 33-37; column 7 lines 3-24) configured to bleed gas from a core flowpath of the gas turbine engine to provide bleed gas, the fluid circuit configured to direct the bleed gas to the airfoil during a first mode (See e.g., column 6 lines 33-45), and the fluid circuit configured to direct the bleed gas back to the core flowpath or into a plenum outside of the gas turbine engine during a second mode (See e.g. FIGS. 2 & 5 element 60, 260).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson ‘8216 teaches wherein the fluid circuit (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 5 elements bypass duct-22, engine core which includes-13, 16, 17, and portion of inlet-11; column 6 lines 33-37; column 7 lines 3-24) is configured to direct the bleed gas into the plenum outside of the gas turbine engine during the second mode (See e.g. FIGS. 2 & 5 element 60, 260).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson ‘8216 teaches wherein the fluid circuit (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 5 elements bypass duct-22, engine core which includes-13, 16, 17, and portion of inlet-11; column 6 lines 33-37; column 7 lines 3-24) is configured to direct the bleed gas back to the core flowpath during the second mode.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson ‘8216 teaches wherein the fluid circuit includes a movable regulator element (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 5 elements 14AV, 15AV, 22AV);
the fluid circuit is configured to flow the bleed gas to a side of the movable regulator element during the first mode (See e.g., FIG. 3); and
the fluid circuit is configured to flow the bleed gas through an internal volume of the movable regulator element during the second mode (See e.g., FIG. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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.
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 USC § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson ‘8216, and further in view of PRICE, U.S. Patent 2,164,721 A (hereinafter called PRICE).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson ‘8216 teaches wherein
the fluid circuit (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 5 elements bypass duct-22, engine core which includes-13, 16, 17, and portion of inlet-11; column 6 lines 33-37; column 7 lines 3-24) is configured to direct the bleed gas to a first surface of the airfoil during the first mode; and
the fluid circuit (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 5 elements bypass duct-22, engine core which includes-13, 16, 17, and portion of inlet-11; column 6 lines 33-37; column 7 lines 3-24) is configured to direct the bleed gas to a second surface of the airfoil during a third mode.
And, although Johnson ‘8216 teaches an airfoil, i.e., a rotor 80, which inherently has a first (top) surface opposite a second (bottom) surface, Johnson ‘8216 does not explicitly disclose that the rotor 80 has the first surface is opposite the second surface.
However, PRICE discloses the first surface (of the air foil) is opposite the second surface (of the airfoil) (See e.g., FIG. 9 element 73; page 3 lefthand column, lines 34-42).
Accordingly, because Johnson ‘8216 and PRICE teach an airfoil in the form of a rotor was well-known before the effective filing date of the instant claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Johnson ‘8216 and PRICE before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the assembly of Johnson ‘8216 to incorporate an explicit disclosure that the rotor 80 has the first surface is opposite the second surface, as taught in the analogous art of PRICE. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of disclosing the improved operating effect of the upper and lower sides of such a blade, as suggested by PRICE (See e.g., column 1 lines 62-71)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Shmilovich et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0375986 A1 (hereinafter called Shmilovich), and further in view of JOHNSON, U.S. Patent 2,928,627 A (hereinafter called JOHNSON).
Regarding claim 7, Shmilovich teaches an assembly, comprising:
an airfoil (See e.g., FIG. 3 element 302; ¶s [0059] & [0063]) extending laterally between a first surface (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 top of element 302) and a second surface (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 bottom of element 302), the airfoil including a first aperture (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 element 314; ¶ [0061]) in the first surface and a second aperture (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 element 316; ¶ [0061]) in the first surface, and the first surface opposite the second surface (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 top and bottom of element 302 are opposite one another);
an airframe (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 218) including a body (See e.g., FIG. 3 fuselage) and the airfoil projecting out from the body (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 element 302, fuselage), a gas turbine engine (See e.g., FIG. 3-4 element 304; ¶s [0061], “… Ducts may originate within any portion of the engine 304, for example, such as the engine compressor or engine fan, or from any other source of bleed air and/or exhaust.”; [0063], “For example, an engine fan flow from the fan portion of the engine 304 …” It is noted that the disclosure is implicitly referring to turbofan engines, which are a type of gas turbine engine.) mounted to the airframe (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 218);
a regulator manifold (See e.g., FIG. 4 elements 410, 412, 414, 416, 418 together; ¶ [0060]) including an inlet passage (See e.g., FIG. 4 element 410; ¶ [0060]), a first outlet passage (See e.g., FIG. 4 element 414; ¶ [0060]) and a second outlet passage (See e.g., FIG. 4 element 418; ¶ [0060]), the first outlet passage (See e.g., FIG. 4 element 414; ¶ [0060]) coupled with the first aperture (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 element 314; ¶ [0061]), the second outlet (See e.g., FIG. 4 element 418; ¶ [0060]) passage fluidly coupled with the second aperture (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 element 316; ¶ [0061]), and the inlet passage configured to receive bleed gas from a core flowpath of an engine (See e.g., ¶s [0064] & [0129]); and
a regulator element (See e.g., FIG. 4 element 412; ¶s [0060] & [0073]) within the regulator manifold and configured to pivot to a first position (See e.g., FIG. 4 the position of element 414; ¶s [0060] & [0073]), a second position (See e.g., FIG. 4 the position of element 418; ¶s [0060] & [0073]) and an intermediate position between the first position and the second position (See e.g., FIG. 4 the position between elements 414 & 418; ¶s [0060] & [0073]), the regulator element configured to fluidly couple the inlet passage with the first outlet passage in the first position (See e.g., FIG. 4 the position of element 414; ¶s [0060] & [0073]), the regulator element configured to fluidly couple the inlet passage with the second outlet passage in the second position (See e.g., FIG. 4 the position of element 418; ¶s [0060] & [0073]), and the regulator element configured to fluidly decouple the inlet passage from the first outlet passage and the second outlet passage in the intermediate position (See e.g., FIG. 4 the position between elements 414 & 418; ¶s [0060] & [0064], where the disclosure that “… various ducts may be deactivated during level flight or other periods when enhanced lift is not be needed.” teaches the claim limitation configured to fluidly decouple the inlet passage from the first outlet passage and the second outlet passage in the intermediate position);
wherein the regulator manifold further includes a third outlet passage (See e.g., FIG. 4 element 416; ¶s [0050] & [0073]); the regulator element is configured to fluidly couple the inlet passage to the third outlet passage in the intermediate position (See e.g., FIG. 4 the position between elements 414 & 418; ¶s [0060] & [0073]), and the third outlet passage is configured to fluidly couple the inlet passage with a plenum (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 element 342) outside of the engine when the regulator element is in the intermediate position, and the plenum is located within the airframe (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 element 342, where in FIG. element 342, i.e., a plenum is shown located in the airframe (wing 302 and fuselage) laterally offset from the engine 304 and in FIG. 4 element 342, i.e., the plenum is shown located inside the wing 302 below the engine 304, and therefore teaches a plenum outside of the engine and the plenum is located within the airframe under broadest reasonable interpretation).
And, although Shmilovich teaches any number of ducts may be provided, and embodiments with multiple ducts may arrange and/or group the ducts in any manner desired to achieve desired results, and various ducts terminate at other openings in the wings (See e.g., ¶ [0061]), Shmilovich does not explicitly teach a second aperture in the second surface and the second outlet passage fluidly coupled with the second aperture (as a second aperture in the second surface is claimed).
However, JOHNSON teaches a second aperture (See e.g., FIG. 3 outer lower end of element 37; column 5 lines 57-58) in the second surface (See e.g., FIG. 3; column 5 lines 27-30, where, the under sides of the wings, teaches the second surface) and the second outlet passage (See e.g., FIG. 3 element 37-the entire passage) fluidly coupled with the second aperture (See e.g., FIG. 3 outer lower end of element 37; column 5 lines 25-30).
Accordingly, because Shmilovich and JOHNSON teach using valves for diverting and manipulating compressed fluids flowing through ducts and out of orifices in airfoil surfaces was well-known before the effective filing date of the instant claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Shmilovich and JOHNSON before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the assembly of Shmilovich to incorporate a second aperture in the second surface and the second outlet passage is fluidly coupled with the second aperture, as taught in the analogous art of JOHNSON. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of a valve or jet stream diverting means employed to "cross transfer" the propulsive jet streams of the engines, that is direct or allow the propulsive stream from one engine or one group of engines to flow from the span-wise duct of that engine or group into the span-wise duct of another engine or group of engines to obtain more uniform propulsive stream discharge pressures and to assure the span-wise distribution of the propulsive jet stream in the event of shutdown or failure of an engine or group of engines, as suggested by JOHNSON (See e.g., column 1 lines 62-71).
Regarding claim 8, Shmilovich, as modified by JOHNSON in the rejection of claim 7 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the regulator element (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 412; ¶ [0060]) is configured to fluidly decouple the inlet passage (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 410; ¶ [0060]) from the second outlet passage (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 418; ¶ [0060]) in the first position (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 the position of element 414; ¶ [0060] & [0064], where the disclosure that “… various ducts may be deactivated during level flight or other periods when enhanced lift is not be needed.” teaches the claim limitation configured to fluidly decouple the inlet passage from the second outlet passage and in the first position); and the regulator element (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 412) is configured to fluidly decouple the inlet passage (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 410; ¶ [0060]) from the first outlet passage (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 414; ¶ [0060]) in the second position (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. the position of element 418; ¶ [0060] & [0064], where the disclosure that “… various ducts may be deactivated during level flight or other periods when enhanced lift is not be needed.” teaches the claim limitation configured to fluidly decouple the inlet passage from the first outlet passage and in the second position).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Shmilovich, and further in view of JOHNSON, and further in view of KICE, U.S. Patent 3,489,178 A (hereinafter called KICE).
9. Regarding claim 13, Shmilovich, as modified by JOHNSON in the rejection of claim 7 hereinabove, further teaches the regulator element (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 412; ¶ [0060]), the inlet passage (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 410; ¶ [0060]), the first outlet passage (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 414; ¶ [0060]), the regulator element (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 412; ¶ [0060]) in the first position (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 the position of element 414; ¶ [0060]), and the regulator element (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 element 412; ¶ [0060]) in the second position (See e.g., FIG. 4 the position of element 418; ¶ [0060]).
But neither Shmilovich nor JOHNSON teaches the regulator element includes a first channel and a second channel; the first channel fluidly couples the inlet passage with the first outlet passage when the regulator element is in the first position; and the second channel fluidly couples the inlet passage with the second outlet passage when the regulator element is in the second position.
However, KICE teaches wherein the regulator element (See e.g., FIGS. 3-5 element 28) includes a first channel (See e.g., FIGS. 2-5 element 44) and a second channel (See e.g., FIGS. 2-5 element 43);
the first channel fluidly couples the inlet passage with the first outlet passage when the regulator element is in the first position (See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 44, 35, & 36); and
the second channel fluidly couples the inlet passage with the second outlet passage when the regulator element is in the second position (See e.g., FIG. 4 elements 43, 35, & 37).
Accordingly, because Shmilovich, JOHNSON, and KICE teach using regulator elements to divert fluid flow was well-known before the effective filing date of the instant claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Shmilovich, JOHNSON, and KICE before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined assembly of Shmilovich and JOHNSON to incorporate the regulator element includes a first channel and a second channel; the first channel fluidly couples the inlet passage with the first outlet passage when the regulator element is in the first position; and the second channel fluidly couples the inlet passage with the second outlet passage when the regulator element is in the second position, as taught in the analogous art of KICE. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing a regulator element that is selectively rotatable to align multiple fluid channels whereby fluid flow is provided in the multiple channels without any hinderance, as suggested by KICE (See e.g., column 1 line 69-column 2 line 15).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Shmilovich, and further in view of JOHNSON, and further in view of Sellinger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0268374 A1 (hereinafter called Sellinger).
Regarding claim 14, Shmilovich, as modified by JOHNSON in the rejection of claim 7 hereinabove, further teaches the gas turbine engine (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 3-4 element 304) and the regulator manifold (Shmilovich See e.g., FIG. 4 elements 410, 414, 418; ¶ [0060]).
But neither Shmilovich nor JOHNSON teaches the gas turbine engine comprises a rotating structure and a stationary structure; the rotating structure includes a compressor rotor within a compressor section of the gas turbine engine and a turbine rotor within a turbine section of the gas turbine engine; the stationary structure at least partially houses the rotating structure; and the regulator manifold is formed integral with the stationary structure.
However, Sellinger teaches
the gas turbine engine (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 10; TITLE; ¶ [0012]) comprises a rotating structure (See e.g., FIG. 1 elements 22, 24, 28, 32) and a stationary structure (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 18);
the rotating structure includes a compressor rotor within a compressor section (See e.g., FIG. 1 elements 22, 24) of the gas turbine engine and a turbine rotor within a turbine section (See e.g., FIG. 1 elements 28, 32) of the gas turbine engine;
the stationary structure at least partially houses the rotating structure (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 18, 22, 24, 28, 32); and
the regulator manifold (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 9-10 element 62) is formed integral with the stationary structure (See e.g., FIG. 1 element 18).
Accordingly, because Shmilovich, JOHNSON, and Sellinger teach using engines to power an aircraft was well-known before the effective filing date of the instant claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Shmilovich, JOHNSON, and Sellinger before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combined assembly of Shmilovich and JOHNSON to incorporate the gas turbine engine comprises a rotating structure and a stationary structure; the rotating structure includes a compressor rotor within a compressor section of the gas turbine engine and a turbine rotor within a turbine section of the gas turbine engine; the stationary structure at least partially houses the rotating structure; and the regulator manifold is formed integral with the stationary structure, as taught in the analogous art of Sellinger. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing an engine with high power output relative to compact size and weight, rapid start-up and shutdown capability, ability to operate on various fuels, lower capital and operating costs, simpler design, reduced vibration, and exceptional reliability.
Regarding claim 15, Shmilovich, as modified by JOHNSON and Sellinger in the rejection of claim 14 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the stationary structure (Sellinger See e.g., FIG. 1 element 18) houses the turbine rotor (Sellinger See e.g., FIG. 1 elements 28, 32).
Regarding claim 16, Shmilovich, as modified by JOHNSON and Sellinger in the rejection of claim 14 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the stationary structure (Sellinger See e.g., FIG. 1 element 18) comprises a combustor within a combustor section (Sellinger See e.g., FIG. 1 element 26) of the gas turbine engine (Sellinger See e.g., FIG. 1 element 10; TITLE; ¶ [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 5-6 of the REMARKS, Applicant argues “Applicants respectfully submit Johnson '216 does not teach or suggest at least the above- underlined features of claim 1. … Johnson '216 does not disclose the alleged fluid circuit could be "configured to direct the bleed gas to the airfoil during a first mode" as recited in claim 1. … Applicants respectfully submit therefore Johnson '216 is incapable of anticipating claim 1 since Johnson '216 does not disclose or suggest at least features of "the fluid circuit configured to direct the bleed gas to the airfoil during a first mode" as recited in claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “configured to” limitation cited in claim 1 that is being argued is a functional limitation and the functional limitations following the “configured to” limitation are not positively claimed. Consequently, the argued limitation in claim 1 only requires that the fluid circuit be “configured to” perform the functions listed after the “configured to” limitation. There is nothing in the claim nor the specification that differentiates the claimed fluid circuit from any other fluid circuit that would make the cited fluid circuit in Johnson ‘8216 incapable of performing the stated functional limitations. Accordingly, because the cited fluid circuit in the prior art of Johnson ‘8216, as mapped in the Office Action hereinabove, directs bleed air gas to the airfoil (recited as rotor 80) during a first mode (where a first mode is not defined in the claim nor the specification); therefore, the cited fluid circuit is and “could be” and is capable of performing the functions following the “configured to” limitation in claim 1 that is being argued, contrary to Applicant’s arguments.
Consequently, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the rejection of claim 1 and the rejections of its dependent claims 2-3 and 5-6 are maintained as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action.
On pages 6-9 of the REMARKS, Applicant cites claim 7, and highlights with bold underline the amendments of claim 7 filed on 08/08/2026 as well as underlines the last limitation in claim 7 that pertains to “the third outlet” limitation.” And regarding the last limitation in claim 7 that pertains to “the third outlet” limitation,” Applicant then argues “Applicants submit the proposed combination of Shmilovich and Johnson (assuming without admitting proper combination) does not disclose such an assembly.” … “Notably, there is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion in Shmilovich, nor Johnson, that the alleged third outlet passage could be suitably modified to be” (Applicant recites the “configured to” language of “the third outlet” limitation) … “Applicants submit therefore that even if Shmilovich were combined with Johnson as alleged in the Office Action (assuming without admitting proper combination), such a combination does not disclose at least the features of” (Applicant recites “the third outlet passage” limitation in its entirety). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument pointing to page 6 of the Office Action (mailed on 04/08/2026) is moot as Examiner no longer relies on the rejection as set forth in that Office Action due to the amendment of claim 7.
Moreover, the “configured to” limitation cited in claim 7 that is being argued is a functional limitation and the functional limitations following the “configured to” limitation are not positively claimed. Consequently, the argued limitation in claim 7 only requires that the third outlet passage be “configured to” perform the functions listed after the “configured to” limitation. There is nothing in the claim nor the specification that differentiates the claimed third outlet passage from any other third outlet passage that would make the cited third outlet passage in Shmilovich incapable of performing the stated functional limitations. Accordingly, because the cited third outlet passage in the prior art of Shmilovich, as mapped in the Office Action hereinabove, is configured to fluidly couple the inlet passage with a plenum (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 element 342) outside of the engine when the regulator element is in the intermediate position, and the plenum is located within the airframe (See e.g., FIGS. 3-4 element 342, where in FIG. element 342, i.e., a plenum is shown located in the airframe (wing 302 and fuselage) laterally offset from the engine 304 and in FIG. 4 element 342, i.e., the plenum is shown located inside the wing 302 below the engine 304, and therefore teaches a plenum outside of the engine and the plenum is located within the airframe under broadest reasonable interpretation); therefore, the third outlet passage could be suitably modified to be configured to perform the functional limitations following the argued “configured to” limitation in claim 7, and the combination of Shimilovich and JOHNSON does disclose at least the features of performing the functions following the “configured to” limitation in claim 7 that is being argued, contrary to Applicant’s arguments.
Consequently, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the rejection of claim 7 and the rejection of its dependent claim 8 are maintained as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8 that claims 13-16 depend from claim 7 and are patentable for at least the same reasons as set forth in claim 7, Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the same reasons as set forth hereinabove regarding claim 7 in these Response to Arguments. Additionally, the rejections of dependent claims 13-16 are maintained as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
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 TERRI L FILOSI whose telephone number is (571)270-1988. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM -3:30 PM EST.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/TERRI L FILOSI/
Examiner
Art Unit 3644
08 October 2026
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights