DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afonso et al. (US 11325708 B2), hereafter Afonso, in view of Schneider et al. (US 20110146686 A1), hereafter Schneider.
Regarding Claim 1, Afonso discloses a vehicle (102, Fig. 1), comprising:
an internal cabin (100, Fig. 1);
a plurality of passenger service units (PSUs) within the internal cabin (108, Fig. 1).
Afonso is silent about an emergency oxygen system within the internal cabin; wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct from the plurality of PSUs.
Schneider teaches an emergency oxygen system (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28), wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct (oxygen supply 28 is a distinct system, and Schneider’s invention is directed at removing the emergency oxygen system from any existing PSUs to make it an independent system, see [0003] and [0066]-[0067], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of Afonso with the emergency oxygen system that is separate and distinct, as taught by Schneider, whereby Schneider’s oxygen system is separated from Afonso’s PSUs, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure sufficient oxygen supply to passengers while allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be modified, resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising one or more stowage bin assemblies within the internal cabin (Afonso, 112, Fig. 1).
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are disposed between the one or more stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin between Schneider’s storage compartment 18 and the outboard wall (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system at the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, whereby modified Afonso’s one or more of the plurality of PSUs are disposed between the one or more of stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maximize valuable overhead storage and PSU space, as well as achieve the desirable result of allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be changed (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]), resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the emergency oxygen system comprises a plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, receptacle compartments 34), and wherein the plurality of oxygen assemblies are uncoupled from seat pitch (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of oxygen assemblies comprises a mask (Schneider, oxygen mask 24) and a fluid conduit (Schneider, hose 26).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the emergency oxygen system further comprises an oxygen supply in fluid communication with the plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”, examiner further notes [0063], “oxygen line 30…is attached to an oxygen feed…”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the oxygen supply comprises an oxygen canister fluidly coupled to the fluid conduit (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the emergency oxygen system further comprises a rail (Schneider, housing 32) extending along a length of the internal cabin (Schneider, Fig. 4, examiner notes housing 32 extends along a length of the internal cabin), wherein the rail retains the plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, Fig. 4, housing 32 retains receptacle compartments 34).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach wherein the emergency oxygen system is disposed between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin between Schneider’s storage compartment 18 and the outboard wall (Schneider, Fig. 1, location of oxygen supply 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system at the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, whereby modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system is disposed between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. Afonso’s PSUs are located inboard of the sidewall (see Afonso, Fig. 1, for example). Schneider’s emergency oxygen system is clearly disposed along the sidewall of Schneider’s vehicle (see Schneider, Fig. 1, for example). It would have been obvious to place the emergency oxygen system of Schneider in the same location when combining the oxygen system with Afonso’s vehicle, because this would have maximized valuable overhead storage and PSU space, as well as achieved the desirable result of allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be changed (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]), resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a partition wall that separates the emergency oxygen system from the plurality of PSUs (Schneider, [0070], examiner notes housing 32 includes sidewalls which separate the emergency oxygen system from other cabin elements, including any PSUs).
Regarding Claim 11, Afonso discloses a method, comprising:
providing a plurality of passenger service units (PSUs) (108, Fig. 1) within an internal cabin (100, Fig. 1) of a vehicle (102, Fig. 1), and
Afonso is silent about providing an emergency oxygen system within the internal cabin, wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct from the plurality of PSUs.
Schneider teaches an emergency oxygen system (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28), wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct (oxygen supply 28 is a distinct system, and Schneider’s invention is directed at removing the emergency oxygen system from PSUs to make it an independent system, see [0003] and [0066]-[0067], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of Afonso with the emergency oxygen system that is separate and distinct, as taught by Schneider, whereby Schneider’s oxygen system is separated from Afonso’s PSUs, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure sufficient oxygen supply to passengers while allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be modified, resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 11, and one or more stowage bin assemblies (Afonso, 112, Fig. 1).
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Afonso, Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach disposing one or more of the plurality of PSUs between one or more stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system to the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, resulting in disposing one or more of the plurality of PSUs between one or more stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system of modified Afonso, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure sufficient oxygen supply to passengers while allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be modified, resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the emergency oxygen system comprises a plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, receptacle compartments 34), wherein each of the plurality of oxygen assemblies comprises a mask (Schneider, oxygen mask 24) and a fluid conduit (Schneider, hose 26).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising fluidly coupling an oxygen supply with the plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”, examiner further notes [0063], “oxygen line 30…is attached to an oxygen feed…”).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 14, wherein said fluidly coupling comprises fluidly coupling an oxygen canister to the fluid conduit (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising retaining the plurality of oxygen assemblies by a rail (Schneider, housing 32) extending along a length of the internal cabin (Schneider, Fig. 4, housing 32 extends along a length of the internal cabin).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 11.
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach disposing the emergency oxygen system between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin between Schneider’s storage compartment 18 and the outboard wall (Schneider, Fig. 1, location of oxygen supply 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system at the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, whereby modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system is disposed between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. Afonso’s PSUs are located inboard of the sidewall (see Afonso, Fig. 1, for example). Schneider’s emergency oxygen system is clearly disposed along the sidewall of Schneider’s vehicle (see Schneider, Fig. 1, for example). It would have been obvious to place the emergency oxygen system of Schneider in the same location when combining the oxygen system with Afonso’s vehicle, because this would have maximized valuable overhead storage and PSU space, as well as achieved the desirable result of allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be changed (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]), resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising separating the emergency oxygen system from the plurality of PSUs by a partition wall (Schneider, [0070], examiner notes housing 32 includes sidewalls which separate the emergency oxygen system from other cabin elements, including any PSUs).
Regarding Claim 20, Afonso discloses a vehicle (102, Fig. 1), comprising:
an internal cabin (100, Fig. 1);
a plurality of passenger service units (PSUs) within the internal cabin (108, Fig. 1); and
one or more stowage bin assemblies within the internal cabin (overhead bin assembly 14).
Afonso is silent about an emergency oxygen system within the internal cabin, wherein the emergency oxygen system comprises:
a plurality of oxygen assemblies, wherein each of the plurality of oxygen assemblies comprises a mask and a fluid conduit;
a rail extending along a length of the internal cabin, wherein the rail retains the plurality of oxygen assemblies; and
an oxygen supply in fluid communication with the plurality of oxygen assemblies,
wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct from the plurality of PSUs.
Schneider teaches an emergency oxygen system (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28), wherein the emergency oxygen system comprises:
a plurality of oxygen assemblies (receptacle compartments 34), wherein each of the plurality of oxygen assemblies comprises a mask (oxygen mask 24) and a fluid conduit (hose 26);
a rail extending along a length of a similar internal cabin (32, Fig. 3), wherein the rail retains the plurality of oxygen assemblies (para. [0070]); and
an oxygen supply in fluid communication with the plurality of oxygen assemblies ([0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”, examiner further notes [0063], “oxygen line 30…is attached to an oxygen feed…”),
wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct (examiner notes oxygen supply 28 is a distinct system, and Schneider’s invention is directed at removing the emergency oxygen system from PSUs to make it an independent system, see [0003] and [0066]-[0067], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of Afonso with the emergency oxygen system, plurality of oxygen assemblies, rail, and oxygen supply that is separate and distinct, as taught by Schneider, whereby Schneider’s oxygen system is separated from Afonso’s PSUs, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure sufficient oxygen supply to passengers while allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be modified, resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are disposed between the one or more stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin between Schneider’s storage compartment 18 and the outboard wall (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system at the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, whereby modified Afonso’s one or more of the plurality of PSUs are disposed between the one or more of stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maximize valuable overhead storage and PSU space, as well as achieve the desirable result of allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be changed (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]), resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Afonso as applied above, in further view of Howlett (GB 2237207 A), hereafter Howlett.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the oxygen supply comprises an oxygen tank (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”) fluidly coupled to a plurality of fluid conduits (Schneider, [0063] “attachment points…are provided for attaching the oxygen masks 24 using the hoses 26”).
Modified Afonso is silent about wherein the oxygen supply comprises an oxygen tank fluidly coupled to a plurality of fluid conduits via a manifold.
Howlett teaches a manifold (manifold 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of modified Afonso with the manifold as taught by Howlett, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are from the same field of endeavor of emergency oxygen systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modified Afonso with Howlett because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing individual fluid conduits to each mask, allowing for activation of oxygen supply to individual masks as needed, increasing efficiency of the emergency oxygen system while reducing the risk of system leaks.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 14, wherein said fluidly coupling comprises fluidly coupling an oxygen tank (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”) to a plurality of fluid conduits (Schneider, [0063] “attachment points…are provided for attaching the oxygen masks 24 using the hoses 26”).
Modified Afonso is silent about wherein said fluidly coupling comprises fluidly coupling an oxygen to a plurality of fluid conduits via a manifold.
Howlett teaches a manifold (manifold 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of modified Afonso with the manifold as taught by Howlett, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are from the same field of endeavor of emergency oxygen systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modified Afonso with Howlett because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing individual fluid conduits to each mask, allowing for activation of oxygen supply to individual masks as needed, increasing efficiency of the emergency oxygen system while reducing the risk of leaks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 6-9:
“Schneider seemingly discloses PSUs having oxygen systems. See Schneider at [0003] (“…oxygen supply units…provided as cuboid containers…typically integrated in to eh passenger supply duct PSC…”). As shown above (and in Figures 1-4 of Schneider), the oxygen supplies 22 and 28 seem to be disposed within, and deployed from PSUs. The Applicant further notes that while Schneider discloses that “oxygen boxes are typically autonomous components,” Schneider is clear that such “autonomous components…are installed integrated in the PSC.”…There is nothing in Schneider that supports the Examiner’s unsupported opinion that “Schneider’s oxygen supply 28 is disclosed as separate and distinct from other elements…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, Afonso has been used to teach the cabin and PSUs, while Schneider is simply relied upon to teach the separate and distinct oxygen system (see rejection of Claim 1 above). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Secondly, Examiner maintains that Applicant erroneously relies upon Schneider’s “Background of the Invention” para. [0003] as evidence of Schneider’s nonexistent PSUs. While para. [0003] does include mention of PSUs (PSCs), the discussion regarding the PSCs in para. [0003] provides a background of typical (prior art) oxygen systems integrated in PSCs, not Schneider’s invention. Specifically, Para. [0003] discusses the pitfalls of typical (prior art) cuboid oxygen supply units integrated into PSCs, for example “the configuration of the oxygen boxes must be performed individually for each airplane layout with respect to the seat positions…The oxygen boxes…must also be displaced upon each reconfiguration, i.e., upon each change of the cabin layout. Since they are safety relevant parts, a new test must also be performed each time upon displacement.” Crucially, Schneider continues in para. [0004] (SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION) by disclosing that “An object of the present invention therefore is to provide a simpler system for oxygen supply.” In other words, para. [0003] describes the issues with prior art oxygen systems which are integrated into PSUs, and the rest of Schneider discloses an independent and distinct oxygen system that is independent and distinct from any PSUs or other structure and “fastened directly on the frames (lateral)…which is independent of the storage devices. The design of the system…which is independent of the other installations, allows decoupling of the parts having a different DAL…The accessibility of the oxygen system is ensured independently of the seat layout.” Additionally see para. [0025] and [0067]. Further, Schneider’s oxygen supply 28 is disclosed as separate from other elements and enclosed in housing 32 (of Figs. 4-6). This is most clearly depicted in the view of Fig. 6, which shows housing 32 as a distinct element, separate from storage device 18 and any other element. Additionally, see para. [0025], “The design of the system according to the invention, which is independent of other installations…”. Schneider never discloses any embodiment of the invention that is combined with any PSU, but rather teaches an independent oxygen system that is separate of all other installations. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that Alonso in view of Schneider teaches “wherein the emergency oxygen system is distinct and separated from the plurality of PSUs”.
“…While Schneider does not use a reference numeral with respect to a PSC in Figure 2, for example, an internal cabin of a commercial aircraft includes PSCs, and such are clearly shown in Figure 2 (with the oxygen systems 22 deployed therefrom). The oxygen systems 22 are “typically autonomous components” but nevertheless still “installed integrated in the PSC.” See Schneider at [0003].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant alleges that Schneider “clearly” shows PSCs, but there is no disclosure of PSCs in any part of Schneider’s invention, nor is there any PSC depicted in Figure 2, which depicts the independent oxygen system 28 installed alongside the fuselage wall. It is unclear how any portion of Schneider’s independent oxygen system can be considered as installed in any PSC, when no PSC is disclosed or depicted. Applicant alleges in the above arguments that the oxygen supplies “seem to be disposed within…PSUs”, which amounts to a mere allegation of PSUs, without any clear evidence or disclosure from Schneider. Applicant’s argument citing the background of Schneider is moot, as explained above, because it relies on Schneider’s background section, and is referencing prior art PSCs, not Schneider’s invention, which is an independent oxygen unit (paras. [0067] and [0025]). Rather, Afonso has been used to teach the cabin and PSUs, while Schneider is simply relied upon to teach the separate and distinct oxygen system (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 10:
“There is nothing in Afonso or Schneider that expressly or necessarily describes, teaches or suggests an PSU disposed between a stowage bin assembly and an emergency oxygen system, which is distinct and separated from the PSU and the stowage bin assembly….as recited in claims 2 and 20. Claim 12 recites similar limitations…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that Afonso in view of Schneider teaches claims 2, 12, and 20, as outlined in the prior art rejection above. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, and Applicant has not addressed the citations or rejections provided above by the Examiner.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 10:
“Additionally, Claim 9 recites…”wherein the emergency oxygen system is disposed between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. Claim 18 recites similar limitations. As shown Figures 1-4 of Schneider, the oxygen supplies 22 and 28 seem to be disposed within, and deployed from PSUs. There is nothing in Figure 2 (or any other portion) of Schneider that even remotely suggests an emergency oxygen system disposed between a sidewall and a PSU. Claim 18 recites similar limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Afonso is used to teach the internal cabin, the PSUs, and the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1, 112). As seen in Afonso, Fig. 1, the PSUs (108) are attached on the bottom of the stowage bin assemblies (112). As outlined in the prior art rejection above, Afonso includes a PSU without an emergency oxygen system, so Schneider has been used to add the emergency oxygen system that is clearly separate from the storage compartment (28, Fig. 2, which is within housing 36 of Fig. 6, and para. [0067], “…independent of the storage devices…”). In other words, Schneider’s oxygen system is distinctly separate from any storage compartment. Further, Schneider’s oxygen system is located along an outboard wall of a cabin between a storage compartment and the outboard wall. Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the independent oxygen system of Schneider to the cabin (including storage compartments and attached PSUs) of Afonso, with a reasonable expectation of success, between the sidewall of the cabin and the PSU as depicted in Schneider Fig. 6, for example. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that Afonso in view of Schneider teaches the limitations of Claims 2, 9, 18, and 20.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 10:
“…neither Afonso, nor Schneider (alone or in combination with one another) expressly or necessarily describes, teaches, or suggests “a partition wall that separates the emergency oxygen system from the plurality of PSUs,” as recited in Claim 10. Claim 19 recites similar limitations. For at least these additional reasons, the proposed combination does not render claims 10 and 19 unpatentable…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Specifically, as outlined in the rejections of claims 10 and 19 above, Examiner notes that Schneider’s housing 32 includes sidewalls (partition walls) that separate the emergency oxygen system from other cabin elements. Applicant has not addressed this evidence in the arguments, and Examiner therefore maintains that Afonso in view of Schneider teaches the partition wall of Claims 10 and 19.
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 ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights