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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
Claims 1 and 7 recite limitations directed to “a power train that consists essentially of”, which is then later limited. From MPEP 2111.03 III consisting essentially can be considered as either close or a combination of an open and closed limitations. Applicant arguments on Page 8 (First argument) emphasizes that the power train that consists essentially of a one-piece rotational body.
¶0018 in the PG Publication of the current application does define that “a one-piece” part in terms of the invention means a coherent part, at least 95% of which consists of a uniform material and preferably a part, which is molded in one piece.
Applicant also states that the recess that interrupts the continuous outer jacket surface of a single rotational body is defined in the specification on ¶0016-¶0017 (this is believed to be referring to the PG Publication of the current application). This difference between EGLMEIER (Figures 9a and 9b) and the current application can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. Applicant also argues the interpretation of “the one-piece rotational body having multiple weakening recesses which interrupt an outer circumferential jacket surface of the one-piece rotational body more than only insignificantly” is discussed in the specification on ¶0016-¶0017 (this is believed to be referring to the PG Publication of the current application), where the depression running essentially radially inward from the jacket surface (see Figures 2 and 3 of the current application) versus EGLMEIER has a gap between hinged parts (see Figures 9a and 9b, where the gap forms the recesses). The specification does not specifically recite that a “weakening recess” of “the mentioned rotational body is defined as a recess and/or depression, which runs essentially radially from the outer circumferential jacket surface thereof in the direction of the axis of rotation thereof and thus interrupt the outer circumferential jacket surface thereof”. The specification discloses that it “is preferably” and not “is defined as”. The limitation of the weakening recess is interpreted broadly based on not having specific definition language in the specification.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on July 31, 2026 is acceptable. The specification objections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 735 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 recites “consists essentially of a one-piece rotational body, which is substantially molded from a material selected from a group comprising plastic, metal, and combinations of them plastic and metal” (claim 1). Claim 7 recites “consists essentially of a one-piece rotational body, which is substantially molded in one piece from a powder”, and claim 8 that depends from claim 7 recites “he powder is comprised of material selected from a group including plastic, metal, and combinations of these”. Claim 13 recites “being substantially molded from malleable material in an essentially single piece” and claim 14 that depends on claim 13 recites “the malleable material is selected from the group comprising plastic, metal, and combinations of plastic and metal”. The combination as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 14 require a “one-piece” or “single piece” that can be made by “combinations of plastic and metal”, which is not disclosed in the original specification. How can a single molded component have both plastic and metal in it? Two different types of materials are not known to be “molded as one piece”. There is a lack of written description to determine what the applicant intends for a combination of both a plastic and metal “one-piece” of “single piece” to be, as well as what is considered to be both plastic and metal in a single molded piece.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claims 8 and 14.
Claims 6, 12, and 17 recite “the molded power train is provided by 3D printing”, which is unclear how the applicant both “molds” the “one-piece body” using 3-D printing. 3D printing layers one layer on top of another, where molding is done utilizing a mold. Claims 6, 12, and 17 is an unknown combination. What does the applicant mean by this combination?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5 and 11 recite “the power train rotates about an axis which curves in a periodically recurring manner at least in sections”, which has been added to claims 1 and 7, which these claims depend from. Claims 5 and 11 do not further limit the subject matter from the claims that they depend from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1, 5, 13-14, and 18- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EGLMEIER (WIPO Publication WO 2017/186495, a machine translation is provided with the PTO-892 and is utilized in the rejection below along with the Figures in the foreign publication).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, EGLMEIER discloses: an eccentric screw pump (101) comprising:
a rotor (205) of a drive shaft ((209) circulating essentially about a fixed axis (see Figures 9a and 9b and Page 9, where (205) is formed as an alternative to (109) that was disclosed in a different embodiment, and has a fixed axis along the center of (209)) in relation to the stator (108) (see Page 9, where Figure 9a and 9b is used instead of (109) in the eccentric screw pump) in a bearing block (115) (see Figure 5 and Page 9 where the embodiment shown in Figures 9a and 9b are used instead of (109)), a power train (209) and a screw conveyor (205), which revolves in a rotating-oscillating manner in a screw flight of the stator (108) (see Page 9, where (209) is used instead of (109) in the eccentric screw pump),
wherein the power train provides the screw conveyor with a drive torque and the power train adjusts the differences of the motion sequences of the screw conveyor and of the drive shaft (see Figures 5 and 9a-9b, Pages 7-8),
wherein the power train consists essentially of a one-piece rotational body (see Figures 9a-9b that shows essentially a one-piece rotational body and Page 9), which is substantially molded from a material selected from a group comprising plastic, metal and combinations of plastic and metal (see Pages 6 and 8 that discloses that the power train is made of plastic), the one-piece rotational body having multiple weakening recesses (see Marked up Figure 9a of EGLMEIER) which interrupt an outer circumferential jacket surface of the one-piece rotational body more than only insignificantly (see Marked up Figure 9a of EGLMEIER, that shows that there are multiple weakening recesses, where the markup figure points to 3 however, this is a feature that is shown in a plethora of locations in Figures 9a and 9b) and which provide the one-piece rotational body with reversible elasticity to rotate about an axis of rotation which curves in a periodically recurring manner at least in sections (see Figures 9a and 9b, see Page 9 that discloses (209) to be a “spring bar”, where springs are “reversible elastically”. The claimed limitation directed to “provide the one-piece rotational body with reversible elasticity to rotate about an axis of rotation which curves in a periodically recurring manner at least in sections” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, EGLMEIER is capable of performing the claimed function, since 209 is disclosed to be a “spring bar”, where “springs” are reversibly elastic and is shown to be curved in a periodically recurring manner (see Figures 9a and 9b), thereby meeting the claimed limitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
713
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, EGLMEIER discloses: a power train (209) for transmitting torque between first and second components (206, 205) which carry out rotational movements about different axes (see Figures 3 and 5, Page 9 that discloses that the alternative rotor (205) uses a spring bar shaft (209) instead of the bending hinges, where the bending hinges shows that there are two different axis (see Figure 3), and therefore, the spring bar shaft (209) also would bend to create the same output as the embodiment in Figure 3), wherein the power train adjusts differences of motion sequences of the first and second components through an internal elasticity provided by being substantially molded from malleable material (EGLMEIER discloses using plastic (see Pages 6 and 8) which is considered to be a malleable material, as well as the structure being a “spring bar” has internal elasticity) in an essentially single piece (see Figures 9a and 9b, and Page 9) which has multiple weakening recesses (see Marked up Figure 9a of EGLMEIER and Figure 9b that shows weakened recesses) in an outer jacket surface more than only insignificantly (see Marked up Figure 9a of EGLMEIER and Figure 9b, where the Marked up Figure 9a points to 3 recesses, however, there are a plethora of recesses shown, and therefore, are more than only insignificantly) and which provide the single piece with reversible elasticity that allows the single piece to twist while the single piece rotates about an axis of rotation which curves in a periodically recurring manner at least in sections (see Figures 9a, and 9b, Pages 9-10, the claimed limitation directed to “provide the single piece with reversible elasticity that allows the single piece to twist while the single piece rotates about an axis of rotation which curves in a periodically recurring manner at least in sections” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, EGLMEIER is capable of performing the claimed function, since 209 is disclosed to be a “spring bar”, where “springs” are reversibly elastic and are able to twist. In addition, Figures 9a and 9b show that the weakening recesses are curved in a periodically recurring manner allowing for the single piece to twist while it rotates, thereby meeting the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 14, EGLMEIER discloses: the malleable material is selected from the group comprising plastic, metal, and combinations of them (see Pages 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 18, EGLMEIER discloses: the first component is a drive shaft (206 and/or 209).
Regarding claim 19, EGLMEIER discloses: the second component is a screw conveyor (205).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EGLMEIER in view of KIM (German Patent Publication DE 10 2016 216 457 A1, a machine translation is provided with the foreign reference in the PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, EGLMEIER discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose the power train is formed from polyamide.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, KIM teaches: the power train (310, 320) is formed from polyamide (see Page 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the power train is formed from polyamide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Furthermore, KIM teaches using a polyamide for a power train. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the power train is formed from polyamide in the power train of EGLMEIER, since it requires only routine skill in the art to utilize similar materials for power trains, as well as, produce predictable results (i.e. the flexibility of the power train).
Claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EGLMEIER in view of MATHIS (U.S. Patent Publication US 2017/0184155 A1).
Regarding claim 3, EGLMEIER discloses the claimed invention, including the power train is substantially molded in one piece (see Figures 9a-9b), however, fails to specifically disclose the molding is from a powder.
Regarding claim 3, MATHIS teaches: a component (102, 104, 106) is substantially molded in one piece (see Figure 1) from a powder (¶0022).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the power train being molded from a powder in the power train of EGLMEIER, in order to provide design flexibility in creating a component, such as the power train. Furthermore, the resultant product and not the untransformed material is given weight, where powder is utilized in multiple different processes to create a part including 3D printing and molding (where pellets/powder is used to create the material to be injection molded).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, EGLMEIER discloses: an eccentric screw pump (101) comprising:
a rotor (205) of a drive shaft (see Figures 9a and 9b where the rotor has a drive shaft connected to power train (209)) circulating essentially about a fixed axis (see Page 9, where the embodiment shown in Figures 9a and 9b replace (102, 105, 109), where (107) shows that it rotates about a fixed axis) in relation to the stator (108) (see Page 9, where Figure 9a and 9b is used instead of (109) in the eccentric screw pump) in a bearing block (115) (see Figure 5 and Page 9 where the embodiment shown in Figures 9a and 9b are used instead of (109)), a power train (209) and a screw conveyor (205), which revolves in a rotating-oscillating manner in a screw flight of the stator (108) (see Page 9 and Figure 5, where Figure 9a and 9b is used instead of (109) in the eccentric screw pump where (205) rotates in an oscillating manner in the stator),
wherein the power train provides the screw conveyor with a drive torque and the power train adjusts the differences of the motion sequences of the screw conveyor and of the drive shaft (see Figures 5 and 9a-9b, Pages 7-9, and the discussion above where the embodiment in Figures 9a-9b replace (109)),
wherein the power train consists essentially of a one-piece rotational body (see Figures 9a-9b that shows essentially a one-piece rotational body and Page 9 that discusses the components being integral, which is considered to be equivalent to “one-piece”), which is substantially molded in one piece (see Page 9 and Figures 9a-9b that shows a one-piece rotational body and Page 10 that discloses injection molding process, the limitation directed to “substantially molded in one piece” is considered as a product by process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. EGLMEIER shows a one piece power train that is capable of being molded in one piece, as well as, that it is formed “integrally” (see Page 9)), the one-piece rotational body having multiple weakening recesses (see Marked up Figure 9a of EGLMEIER) which interrupt an outer circumferential jacket surface of the one-piece rotational body more than only insignificantly (see Marked up Figure 9a of EGLMEIER, that shows that there are multiple weakening recesses, where the markup figure points to 3 however, this is a feature that is shown in a plethora of locations in Figures 9a and 9b) and which provide the one-piece rotational body with reversible elasticity to rotate about an axis of rotation which curves in a periodically recurring manner at least in sections (see Figures 9a and 9b, see Page 9 that discloses (209) to be a “spring bar”, where springs are “reversible elastically”. The claimed limitation directed to “provide the one-piece rotational body with reversible elasticity to rotate about an axis of rotation which curves in a periodically recurring manner at least in sections” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, EGLMEIER is capable of performing the claimed function, since 209 is disclosed to be a “spring bar”, where “springs” are reversibly elastic and is shown to be curved in a periodically recurring manner (see Figures 9a and 9b), thereby meeting the claimed limitation).
EGLMEIER discloses the claimed limitations, however, fails to specifically disclose the power train being molded from a powder.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, MATHIS teaches: forming a component (102, 104, 106) by 3D printing (additive manufacturing) using a powder (see ¶0023).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the power train being molded from a powder in the power train of EGLMEIER, in order to provide design flexibility in creating a component, such as the power train. Furthermore, the resultant product and not the untransformed material is given weight, where powder is utilized in multiple different processes to create a part including 3D printing and molding (where pellets/powder is used to create the material to be injection molded).
Regarding claim 8, EGLMEIER discloses: the powder is comprised of material selected from a group including plastic, metal, and combinations of these (see Pages 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 12, MATHIS further teaches: the molded power train is provided by 3D printing (see ¶0023).
Regarding claim 16, EGLMEIER discloses the claimed limitations, however, fails to specifically disclose the power train being molded from a powder.
Regarding claim 16, MATHIS teaches: forming a component (102, 104, 106) by 3D printing (additive manufacturing) using a powder (see ¶0023).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the power train being molded from a powder in the power train of EGLMEIER, in order to provide design flexibility in creating a component, such as the power train. Furthermore, the resultant product and not the untransformed material is given weight, where powder is utilized in multiple different processes to create a part including 3D printing and molding (where pellets/powder is used to create the material to be injection molded).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified eccentric screw pump of EGLMEIER/ MATHIS as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of KIM.
Regarding claim 9, the modified eccentric screw pump of EGLMEIER/ MATHIS discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose the power train is formed from polyamide.
Regarding claim 9, KIM teaches: the power train (310, 320) is formed from polyamide (see Page 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the power train formed from polyamide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Furthermore, KIM teaches using a polyamide for a power train. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the power train is formed from polyamide in the modified eccentric screw pump of EGLMEIER/ MATHIS, since it requires only routine skill in the art to utilize similar materials for power trains, as well as produce predictable results (i.e. the flexibility of the power train).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 31, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 12,535,070 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
With the approved terminal disclaimer, the double patenting rejection with respect to U.S. Patent 12,535,070 has been withdrawn.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GAINTENHAMMER (U.S. Patent 6,877,967 B2) discloses a power train (14) (see Figures 3-5) and a second screw (24) that is on the power train (14) (see Figures 1 and 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claim, and the rejection has been modified above. The amendments are addressed above on how they currently read on the prior art.
Applicant argues that EGLMEIER fails to disclose a “one-piece rotational body”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. EGLMEIER discloses that 206a and 205 are “formed integrally with” 209 (see Figures 9a and 9b, and Page 9), thereby meeting the limitation directed to a “one-piece rotational body” or “a single piece”. EGLMEIER does not disclose a multi-piece hinged configuration in Figures 9a and 9b, and therefore, EGLMEIER does meet this limitation.
Applicant further argues that EGLMEIER fails to meet the limitation directed to weakening recesses with interrupt an outer circumferential jacket surface of a one-piece rotational body more than only insignificantly. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, where the recesses are shown in Figures 9a and 9b, which the applicant argues are “gaps”. Applicant further explains that the recess is defined in ¶0016-¶0017 of the current specification (PG Publication), however, as discussed above, the disclosure does not utilize specific terminology to equate that this is a definition. Applicant can always add the limitation that the recess is a depression running essentially radially inward from the jacket surface. This limitation is not read into the claim’s limitation, and therefore, EGLMEIER meets the claimed limitation.
Applicant argues that the structural property to the claimed recess is not a statement of intended use. The Examiner is not treating the limitation as intended use but as a functional limitation. Applicant argues that the structure has to be met in ¶0012-¶0013, however, this is not a requirement. The Examiner has explained why the functional limitation is met, where EGLMEIER discloses the elements (209) being “spring” bars, where springs are reversibly elastic, thereby meeting the claimed limitations. Furthermore, Applicant can always add structure to the claim limitation to distinctly point out the structure that is performs this function, versus utilizing a functional limitation.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 3D printing on Page 11 and the current application (see ¶0019-¶0020 in the PG Publication of the current application) was persuasive. The Examiner does see where it is desirable to use 3D printing and the resultant structure, however, the combination of claiming both “molding” in “one-piece” and then further limiting to 3D printing, are two different processes (see 112(a) rejection above). Even in ¶0019 of the PG Publication of the current application, molding and 3D printing are disclosed to be two different processes, where molding has a “lower production cost”, however, 3D printing has been more effective at solving the problems but is more time consuming.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Any arguments presented with regards to the prior art previously used have been addressed above. 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
