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
Response to Amendment
All rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-22 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11-13 recites the limitation "the lid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 11-13 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. The claims depend on cancelled claim 9. 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. For purpose of applying prior art, Claims 11 and 12 will be construed as depending on Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franger (FR 3008682-see ESPACENET translation) in view of Borst (US 5,038,936).
Regarding Claim 1, Franger discloses a container comprising: a primary compartment including a principle wall (bottom side wall, Fig. 1), a first lateral wall (left side wall, Fig. 1), and a primary compartment opening (top side, Fig. 1) opposite the principle wall; an auxiliary compartment including a first wall and a second wall extending away from each other (housing 4), and an auxiliary compartment opening extending between the first wall and the second wall; and a hinge rotatably coupling the primary compartment to the auxiliary compartment such that the auxiliary compartment is rotatable between an open position (Fig. 1 and 2) and a closed position (Fig. 3), wherein the lateral wall extends beyond all perimeter sides of the auxiliary compartment opening and is maintained outside of the auxiliary compartment (see Fig. 1 and 3), wherein the auxiliary compartment remains attached to the primary compartment via the hinge (folding element 5, see Fig. 1 and 2).
While Franger discloses an auxiliary compartment that is positioned immediately adjacent to the first lateral wall (see Fig. 3 where a wall of the auxiliary compartment 3 abuts against a wall of the primary compartment), Franger is silent to wherein the first lateral wall is larger in size than the auxiliary compartment opening, and when the auxiliary compartment is in the closed position, the auxiliary compartment opening faces, is positioned immediately adjacent to, and is directly covered by the first lateral wall such that first lateral wall extends outwardly beyond all perimeter sides of the auxiliary compartment opening and is maintained outside of the auxiliary compartment. In this case, Franger’s auxiliary compartment faces the opposite direction and is used to store food and utensil while allowing the package to stand in an upright position (“presentation position, paragraph 3 and Fig. 3). Borst is relied on to teach similar tray packages comprising a hinge auxiliary compartment that comprises a first wall and a second wall extending away from each other (see cover 30, Fig. 6). In fact, cover 30 is seen to be analogous in structure to Franger’s housing 3 and merely differ in that the opening is facing the opposite direction (compare Fig. 1 of Franger to Fig. 6 of Borst). Therefore, since the container of Borst is also configured to rest on the analogous auxiliary compartment (i.e. cover 30) to be put in an upright position (see Fig. 5), it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to have the opening of the auxiliary compartment face the lateral wall as a matter of design choice and/or rearrangement of parts. Since the prior art recognizes both orientations to provide a standing package, the claimed invention is not seen to provide a patentable distinction or unexpected result over the prior art. A rearrangement of the auxiliary compartment taught by Franger to have the opening face the lateral wall as seen in the Borst reference would have resulted in an opening of the auxiliary compartment to be positioned adjacent to, and is directly covered by an exterior surface of the first lateral wall as required by the claim. As to the limitation of the auxiliary compartment opening faces being “immediately adjacent to” the first lateral wall, it is noted that Franger discloses a plastic film that covers opening 4 to store utensils or additional food ingredients (paragraph 11 and 13). Therefore, the limitation is met once a user removes the film that covers opening 4 to access the different food or utensil, thereby making the auxiliary compartment positioned immediately adjacent to, and is directly covered by the first wall when the auxiliary compartment is in the closed position. As to the limitation of the first lateral wall being larger in size than the auxiliary compartment, Franger necessarily meets this limitation since the side of the auxiliary compartment which abuts the lateral wall is clearly smaller (see Fig. 5 where the bottom of compartment 3 is smaller in size relative to the first lateral wall). Therefore, the modification in view of Borst would necessarily configure the size of the opening in a similar manner such that the profile and shape of package still allows the package to stand in an upright position as seen on Fig. 6. In any case, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Since the prior art also achieves an auxiliary compartment that abuts a lateral wall to allow the package to stand in an upright position, the recited limitation of having a lateral wall being larger in size than the auxiliary compartment opening is not patentably distinct, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on design choice.
Regarding Claim 2, Franger further teaches an adhesive label (see Fig. 6) and wherein the adhesive label is adhered to the principle wall of the primary compartment and to the auxiliary compartment such that the adhesive label extends across each of the locking tab and the locking indentation to further secure the locking tab with the locking protrusion (see Fig. 6 where the label wraps around the bottom of the package securing the auxiliary compartment to the primary compartment). Franger is silent to a locking tab extending from a perimeter edge of the second wall further away from the hinge, wherein the locking tab includes one of a locking indentation and a locking protrusion, the locking tab is substantially planer other than the one of the locking indentation and the locking protrusion, the principle wall includes an other one of the locking indentation and the locking protrusion substantially laterally centered on the principle wall, and the locking indentation selectively receives the locking protrusion to frictionally maintain the auxiliary compartment in the closed position in direct communication with the first lateral side wall such that the first lateral side wall is positioned immediately adjacent the auxiliary compartment opening. Borst is relied on to teach this structure of a locking tab which includes a locking protrusion (projecting wedge 54), that is substantially planar and centered on the principle wall (see Fig. 2), that is received into a locking indentation (wedge-shaped depression 56) such that the closed position is frictionally maintained (snap-fit) Col. 3, Ln. 53-60). Therefore, since both Franger and Borst are directed to hinged compartment that is closed when the hinged compartment is against the principle wall, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a locking protrusion and a locking indentation to maintain a closed position of the hinged compartment. Franger, when modified by Borst, further comprises the locking tab extending on a perimeter edge of the second wall further away from the hinge (see Fig. 3 where the locking tab would be on the edge near flange 4 which was modified to be facing into the container 2 as applied in the rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Franger further teaches wherein the container is configured to be stood on a shelf in a display orientation such that the primary compartment is supported on top of the auxiliary compartment via the first lateral side wall positioned adjacent the hinge (Fig. 3 and paragraph 11).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination further teaches wherein when the container is in the display orientation, the container is configured such that only the hinge and the first wall of the auxiliary compartment contact the shelf and the remainder of the container extends upwardly from the hinge and the auxiliary compartment (Fig. 3, and paragraph 11 of Franger). That is, the first wall of Franger’s auxiliary compartment (bottom wall of the auxiliary compartment 3) has been modified to be where the opening 4 is currently in Fig. 1 as applied by the Borst reference in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination is silent to the particular angle of the lateral wall relative to the principle wall; however, since both Franger and Borst are directed to standing packages, the particular angle would have been a matter of design choice. Also, since Franger recognizes the ability to adjust the inclination of the presentation position (paragraph 17), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the angle of the lateral wall to achieve the desired presentation position of the package when standing upright.
Regarding Claim 6, Franger further teaches wherein the first wall and the second wall border one another opposite the auxiliary compartment opening (see housing 3), the auxiliary compartment opening is defined in a plane extending from and including an edge of each of the first wall and the second wall opposite a border between of the first wall and the second wall (housing 3). Borst similarly teaches an auxiliary compartment having the claimed structures above (cover 30, see Fig. 6) and in view of Borst the combination teaches wherein the plane is angled relative to the second wall at an angle that is supplementary to the angle at which the first lateral wall of the primary container is angled at relative to the principle wall (see Fig. 7 and 8 where the principle wall is analogous to inclined top face 218), and the first wall is adjacent the hinge (the first wall of Franger’s auxiliary compartment, i.e. bottom wall of the auxiliary compartment 3, has been modified to be where the opening 4 is currently in Fig. 1 as applied by the Borst reference in the rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Borst further teaches wherein the first wall and the second wall of the auxiliary compartment extend substantially perpendicularly relative to each other (see near 34 of Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Borst further teaches wherein the first lateral wall of the primary compartment is angled relative to the principle wall at a first angle, the auxiliary compartment opening is defined in a plane, and the plane is angled relative to the second wall at a second angle that is supplementary to the first angle (see Fig. 7 and 8 where top inclined face 218 is supplementary to the opening of 232).
Regarding Claim 10, as discussed in Claim 1, the combination of Franger and Borst suggest:
A container comprising: a primary compartment including a principle wall, a first lateral wall, and a primary compartment opening opposite the principle wall;
an auxiliary compartment including a first wall and a second wall extending away from each other, and an auxiliary compartment opening extending between the first wall and the second wall;
a hinge rotatably coupling the first lateral wall of the primary compartment to the first wall of the auxiliary compartment such that the auxiliary compartment is rotatable between an open position and a closed position (see rejection of Claim 1); and
a lid selectively couplable to the primary compartment about the primary compartment opening (closure mean 6 of Franger); wherein: when the auxiliary compartment is in the closed position, the auxiliary compartment opening faces, directly abuts, and is substantially covered by an exterior surface of the first lateral wall (modified by Borst, Fig. 7).
Franger further teaches when the lid is rotated away from the primary compartment opening,
the lid is coupled to and extends away from the primary compartment opposite the auxiliary compartment (see Fig. 4) and is formed of a single piece of material (Fig. 4). Franger does not specifically recite that the container is formed of substantially transparent material; however, Borst also teaches a single material made of transparent material (clear plastic thermoformed bubble, Col. 1, Ln. 16-19). Since both Franger and Borst are directed to sealed receptacles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to similarly provide clear material based on design choice.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination further teaches wherein the container is configured to be stood on a shelf in a display orientation such that the primary compartment is supported on top of the second wall of the auxiliary compartment (paragraph 11 of Franger, the second wall is construed to be the wall where “3” is directed to in Fig. 1), and a lid (closure mean 6) is positioned along a plane less than about 25 degrees from vertical (see Fig. 3); that is, Franger appears to be substantially upright and the lid is construed to be in a plane close to vertical. It is further noted that Franger allows adjustment of the inclination of the upright position and therefore would have been obvious to adjust the angle of the lid for the purpose of achieving the desired display position (paragraph 17).
Regarding Claim 12, Franger further comprises: an adhesive label applied to each of the lid, the auxiliary compartment and the principle wall of the primary compartment (see Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Franger further teaches wherein when the container is in the display orientation, both the primary compartment and the auxiliary compartment are positioned behind the lid of the container such that the primary compartment and the auxiliary compartment are positioned substantially entirely behind the lid when the container is viewed from a position in front of the lid of the container (see Fig. 3 and 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Franger further teaches wherein the container is formed of a single piece of material (Fig. 4) but does not specifically recite that the container is formed of substantially transparent material; however, Borst also teaches a single material made of transparent material (clear plastic thermoformed bubble, Col. 1, Ln. 16-19). Since both Franger and Borst are directed to sealed receptacles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to similarly provide clear material based on design choice.
Regarding Claim 15, Franger further teaches the container of claim 1, in combination with a consumable product (food, paragraph 10) stored in the primary compartment and accessory items (utensil, paragraph 13) stored in the auxiliary compartment.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is rejected for reasons discussed in Claims 1, 6, 8, and 15.
Regarding Claim 18, Franger further teaches a lid selectively couplable to the primary compartment about the primary compartment opening, the lid being formed as part of the single piece of material rotatably coupled to the primary compartment opposite the auxiliary compartment (see Fig. 4 and lid 6 of Fig. 5). Franger does not specifically recite that the container is formed of substantially transparent material; however, Borst also teaches a single material made of transparent material (clear plastic thermoformed bubble, Col. 1, Ln. 16-19). Since both Franger and Borst are directed to sealed receptacles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to similarly provide clear material based on design choice.
Regarding Claim 19, Franger is silent to a locking tab extends away from the auxiliary compartment opposite the primary compartment, the locking tab includes one of a locking indentation and a locking protrusion, the principle wall includes an other one of the locking indentation and the locking protrusion, and the locking indentation selectively receives the locking protrusion to frictionally maintain the auxiliary compartment in the closed position. Borst is relied on to teach this structure of a locking tab which includes a locking protrusion (projecting wedge 54) that is received into a locking indentation (wedge-shaped depression 56) such that the closed position is frictionally maintained (snap-fit) Col. 3, Ln. 53-60). Therefore, since both Franger and Borst are directed to hinged compartment that is closed when the hinged compartment is against the principle wall, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a locking protrusion and a locking indentation to maintained a closed position of the hinged compartment.
Regarding Claim 20, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 1, the combination of Franger and Borst discloses a method of providing a container including:
a primary compartment including a principle wall, a first lateral wall, and a primary compartment opening opposite the principle wall;
an auxiliary compartment including a first wall and a second wall extending away from each other, and an auxiliary compartment opening extending between the first wall and the second wall;
a hinge rotatably coupling the first lateral wall of the primary compartment to the first wall of the auxiliary compartment such that the auxiliary compartment is rotatable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the first lateral wall is larger than the auxiliary compartment opening such that rotation of the auxiliary compartment toward the principle wall is stopped via the first lateral wall such that, in the closed position, the auxiliary compartment is maintained adjacent to and directly abuts an exterior surface of the first lateral wall, the lateral wall is maintained outside of the auxiliary compartment (package of Franger, see rejection of Claim 1), and the first lateral wall covers the auxiliary compartment opening (modified by Borst).
Franger further teaches the step of placing a consumable item in the primary compartment (food, paragraph 10); placing at least one accessory item in the auxiliary compartment (utensil, paragraph 13). Borst further teaches securing the auxiliary compartment in the closed position such that the auxiliary compartment opening faces and is substantially covered by the first lateral wall (see Fig. 8). Both Franger and Borst teaches standing the container on a support shelf independent of any additional support such that the primary compartment sits on top of the auxiliary compartment (see Fig. 3 and 6, and paragraph 11 of Franger, and Fig. 5 of Borst).
Regarding Claim 21, Franger further teaches wherein: the primary compartment opening is the only opening to the primary compartment (see Figs.1-3), the auxiliary compartment opening is the only opening to the auxiliary compartment opening (see Figs. 1-3. As applied in the rejection of Claim 1 with respect to the Borst reference, the combination further teaches when the auxiliary compartment is in the open position, the auxiliary compartment opening and the primary compartment opening face in opposite directions (see Fig. 6 of Borst where the opening of the Auxiliary compartment faces downward and the primary compartment faces upward).
Regarding Claim 22, Franger further teaches an adhesive label (see Fig. 6) and wherein the adhesive label is adhered to the principle wall of the primary compartment and to the auxiliary compartment such that the adhesive label extends across each of the locking tab and the locking indentation to further secure the locking tab with the locking protrusion (see Fig. 6 where the label wraps around the bottom of the package securing the auxiliary compartment to the primary compartment). Franger is silent to a locking tab extending from a perimeter edge of the second wall further away from the hinge, wherein the locking tab includes one of a locking indentation and a locking protrusion, the locking tab is substantially planer other than the one of the locking indentation and the locking protrusion, the principle wall includes an other one of the locking indentation and the locking protrusion substantially laterally centered on the principle wall, and the locking indentation selectively receives the locking protrusion to frictionally maintain the auxiliary compartment in the closed position in direct communication with the first lateral side wall such that the first lateral side wall is positioned immediately adjacent the auxiliary compartment opening. Borst is relied on to teach this structure of a locking tab which includes a locking protrusion (projecting wedge 54), that is substantially planar and centered on the principle wall (see Fig. 2), that is received into a locking indentation (wedge-shaped depression 56) such that the closed position is frictionally maintained (snap-fit) Col. 3, Ln. 53-60). Therefore, since both Franger and Borst are directed to hinged compartment that is closed when the hinged compartment is against the principle wall, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a locking protrusion and a locking indentation to maintain a closed position of the hinged compartment. Franger, when modified by Borst, further comprises the locking tab extending on a perimeter edge of the second wall further away from the hinge (see Fig. 3 where the locking tab would be on the edge near flange 4 which was modified to be facing into the container 2 as applied in the rejection of Claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 11 Mar 2026 has been considered, but is found not persuasive over the prior art of record.
As to Claim 1, Applicant argued that the cited references fail to teach “the first lateral wall is larger in size than the auxiliar compartment opening” and notes that the Office Action provides contradictory indications (page 12 of the remarks). It is clarified that Franger, individually, is silent to specifically recite a first lateral wall that is larger in size than the auxiliary compartment opening. However, when applied with the Borst reference such that the opening of the compartments of Franger are reversed and that the auxiliary compartment now faces the first lateral wall of the primary compartment, Franger necessarily suggest an auxiliary opening that is smaller than the first lateral wall because the portion of the auxiliary compartment of Franger that originally abuts the first lateral wall is clearly smaller than the first lateral wall (see Fig. 1 provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
260
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is submitted that Franger already discloses a relationship between the lateral wall and the auxiliary compartment that are in contact during the closed position such that the lateral wall is larger than the auxiliary compartment. Since Borst is relied on to rearrange the opening of the auxiliary compartment to face the first lateral wall, it is reasonable to similarly apply the lateral wall to be larger than the auxiliary compartment opening to maintain the upright configuration as seen in Fig. 3 of Franger. In other words, the combination is directed towards moving the opening (4) to the wall that is already in contact with the first lateral wall while retaining the shape of the auxiliary compartment as seen in the Franger reference. In response to Applicant’s argument that Figure 5 cannot be relied on, the argument is not persuasive since Franger also discloses embodiments that can be considered as auxiliary compartments (see Fig. 1) that is configured similarly to Fig. 5. Fig. 5 is merely provided to show the clear relationship between the dimensions between the auxiliary compartment and the primary compartment; however, the same can be seen in Figure 1-3. Attention is also brought to Figures 9 where a wall of the auxiliary compartment (3) that is against a first lateral wall of the primary compartment is smaller than the first lateral wall since the first lateral wall is visible above and below the auxiliary compartment (where the walls of the auxiliary compartment beings to curve away from the lateral wall, see Fig. 9 annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
362
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is also noted that the claim language “larger in size” does not specifically recite what aspect of the wall is required to be larger than the auxiliary compartment opening. That is, a lateral wall that is larger in one dimension (i.e. height) but smaller in another dimension (i.e. width) can be construed as “larger in size” and does not necessarily require the entire area of the lateral wall to encompass the area of the auxiliary compartment opening. For these reasons, the prior art is maintained.
As to the Borst reference, Applicant argued that the reference is not related to the art or problems associated with auxiliary compartments but rather related to a hinged cover (page 13-14 of the remarks). Applicant submitted that Borst’s teaching would only replace the cover films 6 over the openings to Franger’s compartment but not to replace the auxiliary compartment. The argument is not persuasive because both Borst and Franger are directed to similar packaging where the hinged portion provides a means to position the package in an upright position. Therefore, it is maintained that Borst is relevant in packaging design and suggest the interchangeability of the orientation of the auxiliary compartment that allows the package to maintain an upright position while providing a shape that is complementary to the primary compartment. In response to Applicant’s argument that standing functions are secondary to Borst, the argument is not persuasive because Borst explicitly recites “As shown in FIG. 3, these angled set backs also allow the planar portions of the feet 36, 37 to lie in substantially the same plane as the integral hinge 28 when the package is in an upright, standing position, thereby making it possible for the package to stand 35 vertically.” (Col. 3, ln. 30-36). For these reasons, the combination of Franger and Borst is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (page 15 of the remarks), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no reason to make the first lateral wall larger than the auxiliary compartment opening other than due to suggestion from Applicant’s current specification and claim, the argument is not persuasive in view of the responses above. To reiterate, Franger already discloses a relationship between the first lateral wall and the portion of the auxiliary compartment that is in contact with the first lateral wall. Therefore, it would have been obvious to maintain similar proportions to therefore maintain the function of standing the package in an upright position. For these reasons, the prior art has been maintained.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-22, the arguments are not persuasive in view of the responses above.
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 THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached on 10am-6pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on 571-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights