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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/31/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 8-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Objection of claim 2, Applicant has argued “[t]he Examiner’s proposed amendment to claim 2 treats the word ‘passage’ as if it were claimed structure” and has therefore not made the proposed amendment (see Remarks filed 3/31/26, Page 5). The Examiner disagrees and takes the position that regardless of “passage” being structure or a verb, that it has still not been previously introduced and should be introduced either by an “a” or by deleing “the” as suggested in the objection found below.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr (U.S. 2002/0111063) in view of Breining (U.S. 4,357,506), Applicant argues the combination fails the prima facie standard because the Examiner has misconstrued Kerr and therefore the combination fails to satisfy the first Graham factor (see Remarks filed 3/31/26; Pages 5-7). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 properly identifies the scope and content of Kerr (see Rejection of claim 1 below where structural elements of Kerr are identified in parenthesis). However, Applicant argues that “the Examiner cites Kerr for disclosing a mounting kit for a ‘non-hard-wired electrical connection…’, which is not correct” because “Kerr actually discloses a mounting kit for a hard-wired electrical connection since Kerr is wired into an electrical junction box” (see Remarks filed 3/31/26; Page 6). The Examiner argues this is not evidence that Kerr has been misconstrued because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2123). Additionally, the limitation “for a hard-wired electrical connection” is given little patentable weight because it is found in the preamble of the claim and is a recitation of intended use as the body of claim 1 cites a structurally complete invention (MPEP 2112.02 II). Therefore, Applicant’s argument regarding Kerr failing the prima facie standard are not found persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr (U.S. 2002/0111063) in view of Breining (U.S. 4,357,506), Applicant argues the combination fails the prima facie standard because the Examiner has misconstrued Breining, by relying on element 72 as strain relief, and therefore the combination fails to satisfy the first Graham factor (see Remarks filed 3/31/26; Pages 5-7). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because element 72 is correctly identified as strain relief. In Breining, Col 2, Lines 44-47 states “An insulated grommet defined in the ceiling plate receives the conductor as inserted downwardly through the grommet, and strain relief is achieved between the ceiling plate and conductor”. Additionally, at Col. 5, Lines 47-49 of Breining it is stated “The conductor is knotted at 100 below grommet 72 to provide strain relief” and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that element 72 contributes to the strain relief referenced here. Finally, Applicant has not given a special definition to “strain relief” and therefore, under BRI, the plain meaning must be relied upon (MPEP 2111.01). “strain relief” is defined as “a mechanical device to protect flexible electrical cables. By the use of a strain relief the connection between a flexible cable and the end piece are protected against mechanical stress.” (“strain relief.” https://blog.igus.eu/knowledge-base/what-is-a-strain-relief/. 2019. Web. 8 July 2019 ). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the Figures of Breining that element 72 is a mechanical device that provides protection, including protection from mechanical stress, to element 12 (which is a flexible electrical cable per Figures and description at Col. 1, Lines 34-40) and thereby fits the plain meaning of strain relief. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2123), Breining has not been misconstrued. Therefore, Breining has not been misconstrued and Applicant’s argument regarding Breining failing the prima facie standard are not found persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr (U.S. 2002/0111063) in view of Breining (U.S. 4,357,506), Applicant appears to argue there would be no motivation to combine Kerr and Breining stating “Kerr discloses a mounting kit for a hard-wired electrical connection and Breining discloses a mounting kit for a non-hard-wired electrical connection” (see Remarks filed 3/31/26; Page 7). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because Kerr discloses a ceiling fan mounting kit (Figs. 1-11) comprising an electrical cord (11); Breining teaches a ceiling fan mounting kit (Fig. 1) which teaches strain relief (72) for an electrical cord (12)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 43-49) and that an advantage of this is providing strain relief (see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 43-49); and It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr after that of Breining, thereby providing strain relief to the electrical cord of Kerr in the way taught by Breining for this reason. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Kerr in view of Breining are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr (U.S. 2002/0111063) in view of Breining (U.S. 4,357,506), Applicant argues the combination if Kerr and Breining would result in a hard-wired electrical connection and not Applicant’s “non-hard wired” because “by adding the strain relief of Breining to the kit of Kerr, it would amount to tying a knot in either the wires…of Kerr” (see Remarks filed ). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because Applicant has misconstrued the Examiner’s combination of Kerr (U.S. 2002/0111063) in view of Breining (U.S. 4,357,506). The Examiner is not suggesting including the knots of Breining to the wires of Kerr as argued by Applicant. Rather, the Examiner is taking the position it would be obvious to include the strain relief (72) of Breining to the electrical cord (11) of Kerr as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 described below. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Kerr in view of Breining are not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr (U.S. 2002/0111063) in view of Breining (U.S. 4,357,506), Applicant has argued “[i]t is clear that wiring into a traditional junction box like Kerr is a hard-wired connection” and that “whatever combination one makes with Kerr, they will still end with a kit for a hard-wired connection” (see Remarks filed 3/31/26, Page 8). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. This argument is directed toward the limitation “for a non-hard-wired electrical connection“ which is found in the preamble of claim 1. The limitation “for a hard-wired electrical connection” is given little patentable weight because it is found in the preamble of the claim and is a recitation of intended use as the body of claim 1 cites a structurally complete invention (MPEP 2112.02 II). Furthermore, assuming for the sake of argument that the limitation “for a non-hard-wired electrical connection” was limiting, it is still a recitation of the intended use and “a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim” (MPEP 2112.02). The instant disclosure appears to describe that a non-hard-wired electrical connection is achieved by the usage of a chord with a plug at one end (see Figs. 2, 5, and 6 and Paras 24 and 29 - “…the cord 38 is used, instead of the hard-wired, wire leads from the household power supply…”). Regardless of the connection shown in Kerr at elements 11 and 30 (see Figs. 1-11 and Para 34), a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the other end of Kerr’s wire 11 (other than the end shown at 30) could have been connected to a plug and thereby being capable of being for a non-hard-wired electrical connection and thereby meeting the claimed limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding any combination of Kerr not being for a non-hard-wired electrical connection are not found persuasive, ant the rejection is maintained .
Applicant has argued claims 2-20 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1 (see Remarks filed 3/31/26, Pages 8-10). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because “for the passage” in line 1 should be --for passage-- (the needs to be deleted).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr (U.S. 2002/0111063) in view of Breining (U.S. 4,357,506).
PNG
media_image1.png
627
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
270
373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Kerr disclose ceiling fan mounting kit (Figs. 1-11) for a non-hard-wired electrical connection, the kit comprising:
a mounting bracket (10, junction box - Para 31; 12, quick connection device - Para 31 (elements 10 and 12 are collectively a type of mounting bracket as shown in Figs. 1-11 and as described in Para 31)) having a base (16, receptacle plate - Para 32) with fastener openings (18, 20, through holes - Para 32) through which fasteners (22, 24, screws - Para 32) can pass to secure the mounting bracket (10, 12) to a structure (Para 31 - “…junction box 10 may be fastened directly to a ceiling joist…”)(see Figs 1-2 and Paras 31-32);
an electrical cord (11, electrical wires - Para 34 (see Fig. 2 where 3 element 11 are shown which together form a type of electrical cord)) having
a wire connector (30, receptacle - Para 34) mounted to the base (16)(see Fig. 2 and Para 34) and having a first set of wire lead receptacles (Modified Fig .2 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of wire lead receptacles; element C corresponds to the “terminals of the receptacle 30” referenced in Para 34)) for the electrical cord (11)(see Modified Fig. 2 above and Para 34) and a second set of wire lead receptacles (Modified Fig. 11 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of wire lead receptacles)) for a ceiling fan (2, ceiling fan - Para 30)(see Figs. 1-11 and Paras 31 and 34); and
wherein
Kerr fails to disclose an electrical cord having a plug on one end, nor a strain relief for the electrical cord, nor wherein the electrical cord is coupled to the strain relief.
Breining teaches a ceiling fan mounting kit (Fig. 1) comprising an electrical cord (12, Col. 3, Line 37; 20, electrical supply line cord - Col. 3, Lines 44-45 (elements 12 and 20 are collectively a type of electrical cord as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 and per the description at Col. 3, Line 34-46)) having a plug on one end (see Fig. 2 at intersection of 20 and 22 and Col. 3, Lines 44-46), a strain relief (72, grommet - Col. 5, Lines 48-49 (see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 43-49)) for the electrical cord (12, 20)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 43-49), and wherein the electrical cord (12) is coupled to the strain relief (72)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 43-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr after that of Breining, thereby including strain relief for the electrical cord of Kerr such that the electrical cord of Kerr is coupled to the strain relief, as taught by Breining, for the advantage of providing strain relief (Breining; Col. 5, Lines 43-49) and to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr after that of Breining, thereby including a plug on the other end of the electrical cord of Kerr, as taught by Breining, for the advantage of being able to plug the cord into a conventional wall receptacle (Breining; Col. 3, Lines 40-46).
Re claim 2:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 1 (as described above).
Kerr further discloses wherein the base (16) does not have an opening for the passage of electrical wire leads from a household power supply (see Figs. 2-11 (especially Figs. 3-4 and 11) where element 16 is clearly shown including only openings for elements 22 and 24).
Re claim 3:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 2 (as described above).
Kerr further discloses wherein only openings in the base (16) are the fastener openings (18, 20)(see Figs. 2-11 (especially Figs. 3-4 and 10-11)).
Re claim 4:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 1 (as described above).
Kerr further discloses wherein the mounting bracket (10, 12) further comprises a peripheral wall (Modified Fig. 2 above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of peripheral wall)) with a cord notch (Modified Fig. 2 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of cord notch)) through which the electrical cord (11) passes (see Modified Fig. 2 above and Fig. 1).
Re claim 5:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 4 (as described above).
Kerr fails to disclose wherein the strain relief is aligned with the cord notch.
Breining teaches wherein the strain relief (72) is aligned with a cord notch (70, opening - Col. 4, Line 40)(see Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr after that of Breining, thereby including strain relief for the electrical cord of Kerr such that the electrical cord of Kerr is coupled to the strain relief, and wherein the strain relief is aligned with the cord notch of Kerr, all as taught by Breining, for the advantage of providing strain relief (Breining; Col. 5, Lines 43-49).
Re claim 6:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 5 (as described above).
Kerr further discloses wherein the wire leads (Modified Fig. 2 above - A) are located interior of the peripheral wall (Modified Fig. 2 above - E)(see Fig. 1 and Modified Fig. 2 above).
Kerr fails to disclose wherein the plug is exterior of the peripheral wall.
Breining teaches wherein the plug (see Fig. 2 at intersection of 20 and 22 and Col. 3, Lines 44-46) is exterior of a peripheral wall (see Fig. 3 at upper surface of element 14)(see Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr after that of Breining, thereby including a plug on the other end of the electrical cord of Kerr exterior of the peripheral wall of Kerr, as taught by Breining, for the advantage of being able to plug the cord into a conventional wall receptacle (Breining; Col. 3, Lines 40-46).
Re claim 8:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 1 (as described above).
Kerr further discloses the kit comprising a hanger bracket (42, plug plate - Para 36; 14, canopy - Para 36 (elements 42 and 14 are collectively shown as a type of hanger bracket as shown in Fig. 2)) having a hanger ball seat (Modified Fig. 2 above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element D as a type of hanger ball seat (see Fig. 16))).
Re claim 9:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 8 (as described above).
Kerr further discloses wherein the hanger bracket (42, 14) mounts to the mounting bracket (10, 12)(see Figs. 2, 6, and Para 36).
Re claim 10:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 9 (as described above).
Kerr further discloses wherein the wire connector (30) vertically overlies the hanger ball seat (Modified Fig. 2 above - D)(see Modified Fig. 2 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 10 (as described above).
Kerr further discloses wherein the hanger bracket (42, 14) comprises canopy mounting tabs (Modified Fig. 4 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of canopy mounting tabs; see Fig. 2 and Para 36)).
Re claim 12:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 10 (as described above).
Kerr further discloses the kit (10, 12) comprising a canopy (14) mounted to the canopy mounting tabs (Modified Fig. 4 above - A)(see Modified Fig. 4 above, Fig. 2, and Para 36).
Re claim 13:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 1 (as described above).
Kerr fails to disclose wherein the strain relief is carried by the mounting bracket.
Breining teaches a ceiling fan mounting kit (Fig. 1) comprising a strain relief (72, grommet - Col. 5, Lines 48-49 (see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 43-49)) for an electrical cord (12, Col. 3, Line 37 (a type of electrical cord per Fig. 1))(see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 43-49), wherein the electrical cord (12) is coupled to the strain relief (72)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 43-49), wherein the strain relief (72) is carried by a mounting bracket (14, ceiling plate - Col. 3, Line 42)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Lines 29-42) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr after that of Breining, thereby including strain relief for the electrical cord of Kerr such that the electrical cord of Kerr is coupled to the strain relief, and wherein the strain relief is carried by the mounting bracket of Kerr, all in the way taught by Breining, for the advantage of providing strain relief (Breining; Col. 5, Lines 43-49).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr (U.S. 2002/0111063) in view of Breining (U.S. 4,357,506) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryan (U.S. 5,507,619).
Re claim 14:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 1 (as described above).
Kerr fails to disclose the kit further comprising a gasket for use between the mounting bracket and the structure.
Ryan teaches a ceiling fan mounting kit (Figs. 1-7) comprising a gasket (38, sealing ring - Col. 2, Line 44) for use between a mounting bracket (14, mounting plate - Col. 2, Line 19) and structure (16, ceiling - Col. 2, Line 21)(see Fig. 7 and Col. 2, Lines 44-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr/Breining after that of Ryan, thereby including a gasket between the mounting bracket and structure of Kerr in the way taught by Ryan, for the advantage of being able to prevent moisture from entering the ceiling fan canopy (Ryan; Col. 2, Lines 35-43).
PNG
media_image4.png
536
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re claim 15:
Kerr/Breining/Ryan teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 14 (as described above).
Kerr fails to disclose wherein the gasket comprises a recess for receipt of the mounting bracket.
Ryan teaches wherein the gasket (38) comprises a recess (Modified Fig. 2(b) above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of recess)) for receipt of the mounting bracket (14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr/Breining/Ryan after that of Ryan, thereby including a gasket with a recess that receives the mounting bracket of Kerr in the way taught by Ryan, for the advantage of being able to prevent moisture from entering the ceiling fan canopy (Ryan; Col. 2, Lines 35-43).
PNG
media_image5.png
636
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re claims 16-17:
Kerr/Breining/Ryan teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 15 (as described above).
Kerr fails to disclose wherein the gasket and the mounting bracket have complementary planar surfaces (claim 16); nor wherein the complementary planar surfaces have complementary fastener openings (Claim 17).
Ryan teaches wherein the gasket (38) and mounting bracket (14) have complementary planar surfaces (Modified Fig. 7 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of complementary planar surface of elements 14 and 38)) and wherein the complementary planar surfaces have complementary fastener openings (Modified Fig. 7 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of complementary fastener openings; see Col. 2, Lines 46-49)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr/Breining/Ryan after that of Ryan, thereby including a gasket with a planar surface with mounting holes complementing a planar surface and mounting holes of the mounting bracket of Kerr in the way taught by Ryan, for the advantage of being able to prevent moisture from entering the ceiling fan canopy (Ryan; Col. 2, Lines 35-43).
Re claims 18-20:
Kerr/Breining/Ryan teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 17 (as described above).
Kerr fails to disclose wherein the gasket and the mounting bracket have complementary peripheral walls (claim 18); nor wherein the mounting bracket peripheral wall is radially interior of the gasket peripheral wall (claim 19); nor wherein the complementary peripheral walls are in contact (claim 20).
Ryan teaches wherein the gasket (38) and mounting bracket (14) have complementary peripheral walls (Modified Fig. 7 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of complementary peripheral walls)); and wherein the mounting bracket peripheral wall (see Modified Fig. 7 above at element C of 14) is radially interior of the gasket peripheral wall (see Modified Fig. 7 above at element C of 38)(see Fig. 7 and Modified Fig. 7 above); and wherein the complementary peripheral walls (Modified Fig. 7 above - C) are in contact (see Fig. 7 and Modified Fig. 7 above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the ceiling fan mounting kit of Kerr/Breining/Ryan after that of Ryan, thereby including a gasket with peripheral walls to complement peripheral walls of the mounting bracket of Kerr in the way taught by Ryan, for the advantage of being able to prevent moisture from entering the ceiling fan canopy (Ryan; Col. 2, Lines 35-43).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr (U.S. 2002/0111063) in view of Breining (U.S. 4,357,506) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Grünecker (DE10261305A1).
Re clam 7:
Kerr/Breining teaches the kit (Kerr; Figs. 1-11) of claim 6 (as described above).
Kerr/Breining fails to disclose/teach wherein the strain relief comprises a clamp that clamps against the electrical cord.
Grünecker teaches a mounting kit (1, canopy housing - Para 27 (see Figs. 1-3 and also Para 1)) comprising strain relief (7, strain relief - Para 31) for an electrical cord (5, power supply cable - Para 31), wherein the strain relief (7) comprises a clamp (19, cable clamp - Para 35) that clamps against the electrical cord (5)(see Fig. 3 and Para 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the strain relief of Kerr/Breining after that of Grünecker, thereby including a clamp in the strain relief of Kerr/Breining that clamps against the electrical cord of Kerr/Breining in the way taught by Grünecker, for the advantage of securing the electrical cord (Grünecker; Para 35).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 4/24/26
Prosecution Insights