DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 September 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 30 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1, 3, 5-10 12-21, and 23-28, drawn to a coated roller to transfer a liquid to a plate or a substrate, classified in B41F31/26.
II. Claim 30, drawn to a roller with an irregular surface, classified in B21B 27/009.
Inventions 1 and 2 are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed:
are not usable together because one has a pattern of irregular cells, and because only one or the other, but not both at the same time, would be used for transferring liquid;
do not overlap in scope, i.e., are two different rollers; and
the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants.
Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search;
each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort; and
it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention of claims 1, 3, 5-10 12-21, and 23-28, these claims have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 30 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-21, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Poole in view of Reslow have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 8 that “Poole teaches away from an irregular structural cell geometry.” Assuming, arguendo, this is true, it is not dispositive of the rejection of the claims, because none of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-21, or 23-28 claim “an irregular structural cell geometry.” As set forth in the rejections below, the structure of Poole renders obvious the structure of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues on pp. 8-9 that Poole renders Poole unsuitable for the intended purpose of Poole. This argument is not persuasive. A single application cannot render itself unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Applicant argues on pp. 8-9 that the combination of Poole and Reslow renders Pool unsuitable for its intended purpose. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant has provided no evidence that coating the roller of Poole with an engravable layer of ceramic, as taught by Reslow, would render the roller of Poole incapable of performing its function of metering printing fluid.
Regarding claim 30, this claim has been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention by original presentation, as set forth in the restriction requirement above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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, 3, 5-10, 12-21, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole, US Patent Number 4,301,583 (hereinafter Poole) in view of Reslow, US Patent Number 5,370,052 (hereinafter Reslow).
Regarding claim 1:
Poole teaches a roller for use with a printing apparatus to transfer a liquid to a plate or substrate, the roller comprising:
a cylinder (10, Fig. 1) having an engraved surface with a linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern (14, Fig. 1; Fig. 2),
wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a linear channel (20, 22, Fig. 2) at a channel engraved angle and having channel walls, and a plurality of cells (18, Fig. 2) with pockets of varying cell wall depth and at a cell pocket positioned angle located within the linear channel (cell wall depth varies due to angle of cell wall sides, such as 26 in Fig. 3 and 28 in Fig. 4), and
the linear channel has a total channel depth equal to the cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel (the total depth equals the depth of all of the engraved features, including cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel 22 above the cell walls but within the channel, Figs. 3 and 4).
Poole does not teach wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Reslow teaches that a ceramic coating on anilox rollers is advantageous for providing a wear-resistance surface (col. 1, lines 34-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poole to coat the surface of the cylinder with ceramics, because Reslow teaches that ceramics are advantageous for providing a wear-resistant surface, thereby resulting in wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the engraved surface is laser engraved (This claim is a product-by-process claim. Patentability of a product is determined solely based on the structure and functionality of the product itself, and not upon its manner of manufacture, as set forth in MPEP § 2113(I). In this instance, the engraved surface 14 of Poole appears structurally indistinguishable from the structure of the roller of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the liquid is any material having a viscosity that allows for flow through a linear channel of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern (This limitation refers to an intended use of the apparatus, and is otherwise incapable of patentably distinguishing an apparatus over otherwise structurally identical prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2114(II). In this instance, the roller of Poole is capable of being used with any liquid having a viscosity that allows for flow through a linear channel of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the liquid is selected from the group consisting of an ink, an adhesive, a varnish, and a combination thereof (This limitation refers to an intended use of the apparatus, and is otherwise incapable of patentably distinguishing an apparatus over otherwise structurally identical prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2114(II). In this instance, the roller of Poole is capable of being used with any liquid selected from the group consisting of an ink, an adhesive, a varnish, and a combination thereof).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern is in a range of 30° to 150° (degrees) in relation to an axial direction of the coated cylinder (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern is in a range of 30 to 89° or 91° to 150° (degrees) in relation to an axial direction of the coated cylinder (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a base cell profile of a hex (Poole: “The surface 24 has a non-equi-angular hexagonal shape in plain view as in FIG. 2,” col. 2, lines 63-64).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein a cell of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a pocket in a bottom of the cell having a cell wall depth in a range of from 20% to 80% of the total channel depth (Poole: “The depth of a cell 18 from the roller surface 14 to the flat bottom surface 24 thereof may typically be 20 microns or 0.0008 inches,” “The channels 22 may typically be 42 microns or about 0.0017 inch wide and about 10 microns deep,” col. 3, lines 12-20, which works out to a depth of 50%).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 9, as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein a cell of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a pocket in a bottom of the cell having a cell wall depth in a range of from 40% to 60% of a total channel depth (Poole: “The depth of a cell 18 from the roller surface 14 to the flat bottom surface 24 thereof may typically be 20 microns or 0.0008 inches,” “The channels 22 may typically be 42 microns or about 0.0017 inch wide and about 10 microns deep,” col. 3, lines 12-20, which works out to a depth of 50%).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the channel engraved angle is in a range from 30 to 150 (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the channel engraved angle is in a range from 30 to 89 or 91 to 150 (degrees) (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the cell pocket positioned angle is in a range of 20% to 80% of the channel engraved angle (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 15, as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the cell pocket positioned angle is in a range of 40% to 60% of the channel engraved angle (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 17:
Poole teaches a cylinder comprising:
a linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern (20, Fig. 1; Fig. 2) having a linear channel (20, 22, Fig. 2) at a channel engraved angle and having channel walls, and a plurality of cells (cells 18, Figs. 2 and 3) with pockets with pockets of varying cell wall depth and at a cell pocket positioned angle (located within the linear channel cell wall depth varies due to angle of cell wall sides, such as 26 in Fig. 3 and 28 in Fig. 4), and
the linear channel has a total channel depth equal to the cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel (the total depth equals the depth of all of the engraved features, including cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel, Figs. 3 and 4).
Poole does not teach wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Reslow teaches that a ceramic coating on anilox rollers is advantageous for providing a wear-resistance surface (col. 1, lines 34-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poole to coat the surface of the cylinder with ceramics, because Reslow teaches that ceramics are advantageous for providing a wear-resistant surface, thereby resulting in wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern is in a range of 30° to 150° (degrees) in relation to an axial direction of the coated cylinder (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern is in a range of 30 to 89° or 91° to 150° (degrees) in relation to an axial direction of the coated cylinder (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a base cell profile of a hex (Poole: “The surface 24 has a non-equi-angular hexagonal shape in plain view as in FIG. 2,” col. 2, lines 63-64).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein a cell of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a pocket in a bottom of the cell having a cell wall depth in a range of from 20% to 80% of the total channel depth (Poole: “The depth of a cell 18 from the roller surface 14 to the flat bottom surface 24 thereof may typically be 20 microns or 0.0008 inches,” “The channels 22 may typically be 42 microns or about 0.0017 inch wide and about 10 microns deep,” col. 3, lines 12-20, which works out to a depth of 50%).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein a cell of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a pocket in a bottom of the cell having a cell wall depth in a range of from 40% to 60% of a total channel depth (Poole: “The depth of a cell 18 from the roller surface 14 to the flat bottom surface 24 thereof may typically be 20 microns or 0.0008 inches,” “The channels 22 may typically be 42 microns or about 0.0017 inch wide and about 10 microns deep,” col. 3, lines 12-20, which works out to a depth of 50%).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the channel engraved angle is in a range from 30 to 150 (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the channel engraved angle is in a range from 30 to 89 or 91 to 150 (degrees) (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the cell pocket positioned angle is in a range of 20% to 80% of the channel engraved angle (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 26, as set forth in the rejection of claim 26 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the cell pocket positioned angle is in a range of 40% to 60% of the channel engraved angle (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 28:
Poole teaches a method of using a roller to reduce spitting in printing, the method comprising:
providing a printing apparatus having a roller having an engraved surface (10, Fig. 1),
wherein the engraved surface has a linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern having a linear channel (20, 22, Fig. 2) at a channel engraved angle and having channel walls, and a plurality of cells (18, Figs. 2 and 3) with pockets of varying cell wall depth (cell wall depth varies due to angle of cell wall sides, such as 26 in Fig. 3 and 28 in Fig. 4) and at a cell pocket positioned angle located within the linear channel (cell wall depth varies due to angle of cell wall sides, such as 26 in Fig. 3 and 28 in Fig. 4),
the linear channel has a total channel depth equal to the cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel (the total depth equals the depth of all of the engraved features, including cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel, Figs. 3 and 4); and
transferring a liquid from the engraved surface of the roller to a plate (“Fluid metering or transfer rollers, commonly called "anilox rollers," are used extensively in the flexographic printing trade to transfer closely controlled quantities of ink from rubber fountain rollers running in an ink bath to a rubber printing plate,” col. 1, lines 6-9).
Poole does not teach wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Reslow teaches that a ceramic coating on anilox rollers is advantageous for providing a wear-resistance surface (col. 1, lines 34-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poole to coat the surface of the cylinder with ceramics, because Reslow teaches that ceramics are advantageous for providing a wear-resistant surface, thereby resulting in wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
05 January 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853